Tracking "off-duty" CAP accidental deaths

[RiverAux]

According to the AF Times, the number of AF personnel who have died in off-duty accidents is at the lowest level in a decade.  http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/10/air-force-off-duty-deaths-drop-101710w/

I wonder what CAP's rate would be?  Probably lower overall since I believe that accidental deaths are usually more prevalent in the younger age groups and most of our seniors are, ahem, senior....  Cadet deaths are probably quite low since most of them are below driving age. 

[PHall]

They track military "off-duty" deaths because they have to pay out the SGLI insurance to the survivors.
We don't have any CAP Life Insurance so there is no reason to track this.

[RiverAux]

Wasn't bringing it up for benefits purposes. 

[Eclipse]

CAP's rate would be statistically 100%.

Any but the very few deaths during a CAP activity would be "off duty".

[DakRadz]

Wait, never mind. I totally nuked this...

[RiverAux]

CAP's rate would be statistically 100%.

Any but the very few deaths during a CAP activity would be "off duty".

Talking about the accidental death rate among CAP members in non-CAP related activities.  That is what the AF was looking at.   So, no, its not 100%.

[Eclipse]

OK, then it is just irrelevant to CAP, since CAP has no means to coerce or reward members for curtailing activities which
might be ill advised yet still within their control outside of CAP, and even if it did, it would not have any demonstrable monetary or readiness impact on CAP.

When someone in the military dies, for whatever reason, they have to kick the big-board counter down by one, but there is also a
significant monetary loss, both in money spent on training, etc., and money to be spent on the replacement.

In CAP it is just the big-board counter.

[RiverAux]

Wow, so missing the point but lets address your statement first:

When someone in the military dies, for whatever reason, they have to kick the big-board counter down by one, but there is also a significant monetary loss, both in money spent on training, etc., and money to be spent on the replacement.

I feel confident that CAP (well, the AF) has probably spent thousands of dollars training me in my various ES positions and on support towards programs I participate in.  For some of our longer serving members, that figure might be in the tens of thousands.  And, if CAP loses me they will have to spend an equivalent amount of time and money training my replacement.  The only difference between us and the AF in that regard is the monetary scale, but the amount of money spent on training individual CAP members far outweighs the amount they spend in dues. 

Now besides the waste of money invested in the training of a member, there is another reason why CAP may care about the number of their members lost to accidents outside CAP.   While a lot of CAP's safety training is somewhat specific to CAP and CAP activities, a lot is not.  Looking at the non-duty accidental death stats may in fact tell us something about CAP's own safety program.

For example, an individual senior member probably only drives a few hundred miles a year in a CAP vehicle, and probably much less if you averaged it out across all vehicles and all members.  But, all of us endure some amount of vehicle safety training through the CAP program.  If CAP's program is working, then the rate of vehicular deaths among CAP members should be lower than that of the general public (factoring in things such as age, etc.).  Since most CAP members do most of their driving away from CAP activities the effective sample size is much, much larger than what you would get from just looking at CAP.  One might argue that looking at non-duty deaths is probably a better statistics to monitor because of that. 

The same probably goes for non-duty related aircraft accidental deaths.  Most CAP pilots probably do most of their flying away from CAP so the effective sample size is again higher than just looking at the 100K hours or so CAP members fly on duty each year.

Obviously this couldn't be extended down to the non-fatal accidents since trying to keep such records would not be feasible.  But, CAP is already keeping track of CAP members who die for any reason and it wouldn't be all that hard to make some notes on the cause, especially for the small number related to accidents. 

[Eclipse]

It would take a team of actuaries a decade to get any kind of meaningful number, and then what would you do with that number?
Add it to a brochure as a "benefit" of membership that statistically you are less likely to die in an accident?

As to the amount of money the USAF spends "training" members?  Almost zero.  The majority of USAF money, even AFAMS and SAREx's is spent on capital infrastructure (the planes, vans, and radios), and close to zero on actual training.

The actual training is done below the wing level with corporate funds, member participation fees, and member effort.

[RiverAux]

It would take a team of actuaries a decade to get any kind of meaningful number,

Hardly.  As I said, CAP members are already reporting CAP member deaths to NHQ (take a look at the VolunteerNow website for a monthly list).  Wouldn't take but about 5 seconds to also add info about what type of accident was involved (if any), which is information that is probably already going to be known by the person reporting it. 

It would take probably about 5 years to have good trend information. 

As to the amount of money the USAF spends "training" members?  Almost zero.

Really?  You've never been on an AFAM before?  Those planes and vehicles don't move for free. 

Think about how many flights and trips you've taken in the vehicle over your CAP career and it will add up.  Sure, it isn't but a blip on the AF budget radar, but it ain't zero. 

[Eclipse]

As to the amount of money the USAF spends "training" members?  Almost zero.

Really?  You've never been on an AFAM before?  Those planes and vehicles don't move for free. 

Think about how many flights and trips you've taken in the vehicle over your CAP career and it will add up.  Sure, it isn't but a blip on the AF budget radar, but it ain't zero.

Other than buying the vehicles, air and ground, the vast majority of the money spent on my training has been self-funding, participation fees, or come from elsewhere (state, etc.).

Paying for gas on an AFAM doesn't specifically count as "training", since we're actually performing a mission (yes, we're always learning, blah, blah).

[ZigZag911]

CAP's rate would be statistically 100%.

Any but the very few deaths during a CAP activity would be "off duty".

But many, probably most, would not be 'accidental', but rather 'natural causes' (illness, essentially).

[RiverAux]

As to the amount of money the USAF spends "training" members?  Almost zero.

Really?  You've never been on an AFAM before?  Those planes and vehicles don't move for free. 

Think about how many flights and trips you've taken in the vehicle over your CAP career and it will add up.  Sure, it isn't but a blip on the AF budget radar, but it ain't zero.

Other than buying the vehicles, air and ground, the vast majority of the money spent on my training has been self-funding, participation fees, or come from elsewhere (state, etc.).

Paying for gas on an AFAM doesn't specifically count as "training", since we're actually performing a mission (yes, we're always learning, blah, blah).

I'm referring to SAREXs.....