Increased Safety Requirements For Cadet Activities

[RiverAux]

Weren't you using CAP injury statistics to justify this new program earlier in the thread?  Doesn't that mean that you evaluated our current safety program using that metric and found it inadequate? 

Based on our aircraft accident statistics in comparison to general aviation accident statistics a fair evaluation would say that our current safety measures that relate to CAP flying activities work --- Our stats are consistently better than those of people flying similar airplanes.  The difference isn't great, but it is there.  Incidentally, the fact that despite doing just about all anyone could expect to do in terms of flying safety that our accident statistics are not WAY less than GA tells me that we've gone just about as far as we can in this area.   

So, if ORM works, we should see a reduction in encampment-related injuries for activities in July and August of this year (too late to really expect them to be implemented in June).  Now, I'll be fair and say that one year's test is probably not adequate to really judge the new requirement due to the small sample size of accidents (even last year which was supposedly so bad).   
 

[Ned]

Weren't you using CAP injury statistics to justify this new program earlier in the thread? 

Nope. 

You and I did talk a little about statistics in the suicide thread, but nobody was asserting that we could make a statistical reduction if for no other reason that we never had a particulary proposal to measure.

So, if ORM works, we should see a reduction in encampment-related injuries for activities in July and August of this year (too late to really expect them to be implemented in June).  Now, I'll be fair and say that one year's test is probably not adequate to really judge the new requirement due to the small sample size of accidents (even last year which was supposedly so bad).

I'm certainly not a statistician, but that doesn't sound right to me.

While we all hope for a net reduction in injuries, I don't think any statisitics we could reasonably measure could prove some sort of cause and effect relationship.  ORM actions and considerations for each activity and encampment will be different, essentially by definition.  And it doesn't make much sense to compare injury rates, for example, of the CAWG encampment in 2008 when then may have played volleyball, done the obstacle course, and fired on the range with a CAWG encampment in 2009 where they used the range simulator, played Ultimate Frisbee, and did not do any sort of obstacle course.

The key is to reduce actual injuries vs potential injuries in a particular activity.  And that's pretty darn hard to measure.

But, like I said, I'm not a statistician.  Maybe somebody here is.

And we should all note that we have just issued a new and supercediing ICL on this topic that deletes the AOPA requirement and specifies a simple process to ensure that non-staff cadets receive the Basic ORM information in a class at the activity.

The newer ICL is in response to feedback from the membership and commanders.

Ned Lee

[PA Guy]

WoooHooo. Just read the new requirements. Much more reasonable and focused. No big deal to implement.

[RiverAux]

Nope. 

You and I did talk a little about statistics in the suicide thread, but nobody was asserting that we could make a statistical reduction if for no other reason that we never had a particulary proposal to measure.

Although you didn't cite specific statistics, the quote below pretty clearly implies that you were basing your position on statistics from last year and that this was why the new requirements were put in place. 

Bottom line - this is a series of requirements put together specifically to enhance safety at cadet summer activities - an area where we can clearly improve.  There were a number of avoidable injuries last summer, and we can do better.

While we all hope for a net reduction in injuries, I don't think any statisitics we could reasonably measure could prove some sort of cause and effect relationship.

Are you saying that if there is a dramatic reduction in injuries and accidents that it won't be attributed to the newest safety initiative?  Of course it will and everyone knows it. 

If ground handling accidents stay the same or increase, can't we say that the ground handling video has failed? 

But, to return to your quote -- you're helping make a point I brought out earlier -- since the ORM program doesn't really address any specific safety concern it is unlikely to actually reduce the type of accidents that we actually see, particularly in regards to bodily injuries so it is unlikely to cause any change in the number of CAP accidents.

 

And it doesn't make much sense to compare injury rates, for example, of the CAWG encampment in 2008 when then may have played volleyball, done the obstacle course, and fired on the range with a CAWG encampment in 2009 where they used the range simulator, played Ultimate Frisbee, and did not do any sort of obstacle course.

This is true and the sample size problem I mentioned earlier is even more of an issue when you start looking at individual events since the likihood of an accident was so low in the "bad old days" before ORM at any one event.  But, when you start looking at 50+ Wing encampments and a dozen or two NCSAs that combined involve thousands of cadets, we should be able to see a difference if the ORM approach makes a significant difference (or not). 

[Ned]

Although you didn't cite specific statistics, the quote below pretty clearly implies that you were basing your position on statistics from last year and that this was why the new requirements were put in place. 

That's part of the problem when reasonable folks start to talk about statistics.  My answer was indeed "based on statistics," but it wasn't a statistical answer.   

To recap:

It appeared to the National CAP leadership (and me) that we had a significant number of avoidable injuries last summer.

Undoubtedly our leaders looked at data ("statistics" if you will) in making that conclusion, but nobody sat down and performed any sort of chi-square or T test to a .001 degree of confidence.

So, did they make the decision based on "statistics"?

Yes, at least partially.

Does that mean that anyone had statistical "proof" that the new added safety training would reduce injuries by 23%?

No.

Sometimes you don't need a digital thermometer to know when your house is on fire.

But, when you start looking at 50+ Wing encampments and a dozen or two NCSAs that combined involve thousands of cadets, we should be able to see a difference if the ORM approach makes a significant difference (or not).

But we aren't talking about the "ORM approach," are we?  Because we have been using ORM in CAP for years.  In this thread we are talking specifically about some new ORM and safety training announced recently.

And trying to measure that while controlling for all other variables would be very difficult to measure with any sort of accuracy.

And that is why it does not make much sense to talk about requiring "measurable" changes before imposing additional safety measures.

[RiverAux]

And that is why it does not make much sense to talk about requiring "measurable" changes before imposing additional safety measures.

Ah, but that isn't what some of us have been asking for.  In the suicide thread in particular we have been looking for proof that a problem exists in the first place.  In this thread the issue has generally been on whether the specific type of accidents that we have seen can be prevented with the generic response that has been enacted though most of the posts have been focused more on the problems with implementation.

   

[Pylon]

For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf

[Ned]

]Ah, but that isn't what some of us have been asking for.  In the suicide thread in particular we have been looking for proof that a problem exists in the first place.  In this thread the issue has generally been on whether the specific type of accidents that we have seen can be prevented with the generic response that has been enacted though most of the posts have been focused more on the problems with implementation.

I can only agree with most of the above.  My reply in this thread about the statistics was specifically in response to Capt Orr, which is why is was quoted in my response.

[RiverAux]

For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf

Kudos to MG Courter and NHQ for these changes as I think this is a much more reasonable approach to the situation and I appreciate the responsivness to feedback.   

[ZigZag911]

The revised ICL is a good response to the problem.

It might be worth considering consulting some folks in the field prior to issuing such broad impact ICLs, much the way comments are solicited when changing or updating regulations.

[jimmydeanno]

I think this revision is a huge improvement overall.  It's not that the exposure goes away, but it places the requirements at the point of need and applies to the appropriate personnel.  It also alleviates a huge burden from the local units to get this stuff done on such short notice.

In all honesty, I think this is one of the better safety discussions I've seen in a long time.

I don't think anyone here is opposed to being safe, but we talk about ORM as though it is this magical thing to prevent injuries and accidents.  Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the Air Force didn't do a double blind study before implementing the model.  Nobody is actually expecting there be an associated reduction of injuries linked with the new requirements, because you can never have that positive link.  However, when the Air Force implemented the ORM model, it lead to identifying those areas that were hurting their safety record. 

They developed a safety program that applies to all personnel, but isn't intrusive.  Aircraft Maintenance Checklists and tracking, having people wear reflective clothing, mandating seat-belt use on bases, steel-toe boots for people working in construction environments and most bases implement some sort of "101 Critical Days of Summer" briefing/letter that gets sent out to all personnel.  They combine that with a quick briefing before the activities they do; "Don't point the rifle at your buddy, everyone stretch, etc."  It's not all that intrusive from what I can see, but addresses the need.  Nobody is required to take 4 different safety classes, etc - that's why they have safety officers.

Either way,  I just wanted to put up a kudos to Ned for standing hist ground during this and remaining the clear, composed person he is.  Thanks Ned

[sparks]

Jimmydeanno has uncovered a significant feature of the "101 critical days of summer" the before training/action briefing. That, more than the on-line classes will prevent injuries and accidents. Cadets and seniors will forget the computer classes they took after arriving at camp. Participants will remember the short brief before going to the flight line, firing range, rappelling tower etc. His was an excellent and simple example "don't point your gun at your buddy etc. If I had to choose that's where the emphasis would be placed not computer classes. The activity staff could decide what the critical statements are based on the activity. If you aren't on the glider flight line you wouldn't get a brief on "wing runner" just what's relevant and important. Keep it short and to the point.

[RedFox24]

For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf

To NHQ    :clap: :clap: :clap:

Now that is more like what we needed to start with.  I can not only live with this but also totally agree with it.

Now for a question to Ned and others.................while discussing this topic amongst the staff of the encampment the following question has come up.  I have my answer, my staff had their answers, but want you all to ponder this one........

Cadet John Doe does Basic ORM online before /gets Basic ORM in the first hours of camp.  Cadet Doe is not the best cadet in the world but he is a thinker.  He figures out that he doesn't want to drill (or insert activity here) because he is hot/tired/hungry/doesn't like his flight sgt/misses his X Box or what ever.   He does ORM and tells his Flt Sgt/Commander/TAC that he is not going to drill (or what ever)  because it isn't safe. 

Then what?.......................

[notaNCO forever]

For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf

To NHQ    :clap: :clap: :clap:

Now that is more like what we needed to start with.  I can not only live with this but also totally agree with it.

Now for a question to Ned and others.................while discussing this topic amongst the staff of the encampment the following question has come up.  I have my answer, my staff had their answers, but want you all to ponder this one........

Cadet John Doe does Basic ORM online before /gets Basic ORM in the first hours of camp.  Cadet Doe is not the best cadet in the world but he is a thinker.  He figures out that he doesn't want to drill (or insert activity here) because he is hot/tired/hungry/doesn't like his flight sgt/misses his X Box or what ever.   He does ORM and tells his Flt Sgt/Commander/TAC that he is not going to drill (or what ever)  because it isn't safe. 

Then what?.......................

Explain to him by using ORM it will be much more hazerdous for him if he does not drill . I would tell the cadet that the encampment safety officer who has much more training than him approved the activity and thinks it is worth the risk.

[swamprat86]

"I appreciate your input, however according to our ORM filed by our Safety Officer and approved by command, we did not come to the same result as you and have determined that your ORM may be flawed.  You are welcome to sit out of drill, however this may negate your particapation in this encampment and you may not be able to get credit.  Also, since we can not afford the extra staffing that would be require to provide individual supervision due to your not particiapting with the group, we may have to have your parents come and take you home without a refund.

Are you sure that your ORM matrix is still correct?"

That's my opinion, I could be wrong. 

[Ned]

Now for a question to Ned and others.................Cadet John Doe does Basic ORM online before /gets Basic ORM in the first hours of camp.  Cadet Doe is not the best cadet in the world but he is a thinker.  He figures out that he doesn't want to drill (or insert activity here) because he is hot/tired/hungry/doesn't like his flight sgt/misses his X Box or what ever.   He does ORM and tells his Flt Sgt/Commander/TAC that he is not going to drill (or what ever)  because it isn't safe. 

Then what?.......................

I'd ask him to explain -  in ORM terms - why drill is unsafe.

If Cadet Doe can do so in reasonable terms, that means two things:

1)  He was paying attention during ORM class, and

2) Drill may well be unsafe.

Both are good things to know.

As a practical matter, military trainees have spent several thousand years figuring out excuses for why they should be doing something else besides drill and ceremonies.

The good news is that military officers have also have had several thousand years of experience hearing these excuses, evaluating them, and "encouraging" the trainee to complete the required training.

As you suggest, this is just the classic "sudden onset tummy ache"/homesickness problem dressed up in ORM clothing.

Experienced CP leaders like yourself will have little difficulty with this situation. 

[NIN]

Found some folks modeling the new CAP Corporate "Health & Safety Uniform."

* NIN would like an aisle seat.

[davidsinn]

* NIN would like an aisle seat.

On the black helicopter?

[NIN]

* NIN would like an aisle seat.

On the black helicopter?

On my one-way trip to hell...

[davidsinn]

* NIN would like an aisle seat.

On the black helicopter?

On my one-way trip to hell...

That was my next guess.