National Must be Joking, Right?

[Eclipse]

Blisters are mentioned here.  I can't possibly believe that 100% of all blisters could be prevented in reality.

In a CAP context there is no reason for blisters - we don't do forced marches or 72-hour hikes.

Properly fitting shoes / boots, correct foot care, and going home before the blister makes them preventable.
The problem with this particular issue, and many others, is a "tough it out" cadet attitude.

I've done it to myself - new / cool jump boots, worn a few times before encampment - beautifully shined with the blood spewing from my feet. 

Obviously we could micro-hindsight every risk, but we also have to look at CAP risks, which don't rarely include climbing and always should
include the real possibility of saying "not today".

I have seen far too many ORM forms that "shaped" the numbers to insure you could do the sortie.

[DakRadz]

^^^ on the boots.

Also, there is a rather large difference between two hours a week and all day boot wear.

I didn't know mine were too small until day 2 of encampment. Limped my way to Honor Cadet.

[Eclipse]

^ That's for sure, and despite weeks / months of warning, nearly every year we have cadets buying new boots on the way to encampment or asking for NAVEx access for boots.   

[Hawk200]

So long as people accept that zero accidents is not possible, accidents will occur.  A change in attitude is necessary where people accept that zero is not only possible, but the only acceptable situation.

I wouldn't accept that as realistic. We know that accidents will happen, that zero is an impossible reality. We can make a goal of zero accidents, and done properly will result in fewer accidents.

Risk mitigation lowers the possibility of accidents, it doesn't remove risk or eliminate accidents altogether.

[Eclipse]

Six Sigma isn't really attainable, either, but that hasn't stopped thousands of business's from pursuing zero defects.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

So long as people accept that zero accidents is not possible, accidents will occur.  A change in attitude is necessary where people accept that zero is not only possible, but the only acceptable situation.

I wouldn't accept that as realistic. We know that accidents will happen, that zero is an impossible reality. We can make a goal of zero accidents, and done properly will result in fewer accidents.

Risk mitigation lowers the possibility of accidents, it doesn't remove risk or eliminate accidents altogether.

Thank you. You can only mitigate risk so much, you can do everything within your power to drop the risk to zero, but if you do your paper work with a zero risk level either you are fudging your risk level like crazy or you are performing with only one cadet and two senior members in a padded room with no tables and chairs. You should always shoot for zero injuries/accidents but to say that if there is ONE then no one is doing their job is really insulting. That is what they said in their projection of the years accidents, If we do our job then there will be zero.

[JeffDG]

So long as people accept that zero accidents is not possible, accidents will occur.  A change in attitude is necessary where people accept that zero is not only possible, but the only acceptable situation.

I wouldn't accept that as realistic. We know that accidents will happen, that zero is an impossible reality. We can make a goal of zero accidents, and done properly will result in fewer accidents.

Risk mitigation lowers the possibility of accidents, it doesn't remove risk or eliminate accidents altogether.

Thank you. You can only mitigate risk so much, you can do everything within your power to drop the risk to zero, but if you do your paper work with a zero risk level either you are fudging your risk level like crazy or you are performing with only one cadet and two senior members in a padded room with no tables and chairs. You should always shoot for zero injuries/accidents but to say that if there is ONE then no one is doing their job is really insulting. That is what they said in their projection of the years accidents, If we do our job then there will be zero.

So, what is an acceptable level of risk?  How many cadet injuries are you willing to accept?  "Sorry, Mrs. Snuffy.  We haven't had many injuries this year, so I guess it was just Cadet Snuffy's turn."

[manfredvonrichthofen]

So, what is an acceptable level of risk?  How many cadet injuries are you willing to accept?  "Sorry, Mrs. Snuffy.  We haven't had many injuries this year, so I guess it was just Cadet Snuffy's turn."

No, that is just insensitive, I don't know how you do things, but the rest of the world uses tact and common sense along with reality. You say something along the lines of, "I'm sorry Ma'am, we do the best we can to mitigate risk. We do our best, but sometimes the risk is still there."

[James Shaw]

A lot or people think it is easy to just tell someone why their loved one was injured. There are ways to do this that can help mitigate some harsh reactions. But you cannot control their reactions. Talking to someone about any kind of injury or accident really takes "feedback" training that most people simply have not been trained to do. It goes beyond courtesy or common sense. Safety feedback is not like talking to a parent at the local meeting, there are real methods to use. You have certain things you should say and not say.

I would even go so far as to suggest that someone trained in CISM take care of this type of situation.

You cannot make everything full proof, because sometimes fools design it. JS

[JeffDG]

So, what is an acceptable level of risk?  How many cadet injuries are you willing to accept?  "Sorry, Mrs. Snuffy.  We haven't had many injuries this year, so I guess it was just Cadet Snuffy's turn."

No, that is just insensitive, I don't know how you do things, but the rest of the world uses tact and common sense along with reality. You say something along the lines of, "I'm sorry Ma'am, we do the best we can to mitigate risk. We do our best, but sometimes the risk is still there."

OK, but what is your acceptable level of risk?  How many cadet injuries are acceptable to you?  Do you inform parents of what the number of acceptable injuries is?

[Hawk200]

OK, but what is your acceptable level of risk?  How many cadet injuries are acceptable to you?  Do you inform parents of what the number of acceptable injuries is?

You're looking at this as if you can achieve zero injuries by making a goal of zero injuries. Life doesn't work that way.

When in comes to cadets, if there is risk of injury, you work to mitigate the risk, or just don't allow cadets to perform the activity if the risk is potentially too high.

Every single person takes the risk of something happening to them when they wake up in the morning. Does that mean we don't get out of bed?

And we don't tell parents numbers of "acceptable injuries", because we don't generate such numbers. On the other hand, we don't lie by telling parents that their child will never be injured.

You can't just say "We'll never have any injuries." It's a fact of life that people get hurt. You cannot change reality. Not accepting that is not accepting reality.

We shoot for a goal of no injuries. It's possible to do everything right and still have something go wrong. That's not incompetence, that's not failure of duty, it's life. The number of variables that could make something go wrong is probably not within the ability of human understanding.

You try hard to make sure nothing bad happens, and if it does, you avoid doing what leads up to it in the future.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

OK, but what is your acceptable level of risk?  How many cadet injuries are acceptable to you?  Do you inform parents of what the number of acceptable injuries is?

Injuries are never acceptable. The point is that you always shoot for zero. Now for once really read what is being said and think about it for a second. National says that if we are doing our job then there will be no injuries all year, at the same time if there is one injury this year then no one not even you did your job.

I tell the truth, that injuries sometimes happen. We perform every possible aspect of risk management, but that some times things happen. What about you do you just blatantly lie to the parents and tell them that there will never be an injury, that they just don't happen?

[ZigZag911]

Correct, we can't avoid accidents.

However, we can greatly reduce negligence, recklessness, insufficient planning, lack or prudence and due discretion...which will greatly curtail the CAP 'accidents' that are actually candidates for the annual "Darwing Awards"!

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Also if you plan to have no accidents, what do you do when you have one? You should always plan to have an accident, so that you know exactly what you will do if one arises. Also, expecting to have no accidents puts you in line for negligence.

Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

[BillB]

If you plan to have an accident.....It's not an accident

[manfredvonrichthofen]

An accident is a happening that is not intentional. You plan for the occurrence of the things that you do not intend to have happen. So no, planning for an accident does not make an accident not an accident. It just means that you plan for the worst.

[James Shaw]

An accident is a happening that is not intentional. You plan for the occurrence of the things that you do not intend to have happen. So no, planning for an accident does not make an accident not an accident. It just means that you plan for the worst.

If you fail to plan, you plan to fail!!

:clap: :clap: :clap::clap:

[Hawk200]

...the annual "Darwing Awards"!

Was that a typo or are there actual "Darwing Awards"?

No, I'm not being dense, it just sounds like some little play on words that someone might come up with: "Well, we look at those accidents in the wing like the 'Darwin Awards.' The wing Darwin awards. Wait-a-minute, Darwin, wing....Hmmm....'Darwing Awards!' Yeah, we'll call all the wings accidents the 'Darwing Awards'! It's catchy!"

Of course, if it was just a typo, you may have inadvertently just coined a phrase.

[ZigZag911]

Guess I invented a new term accidentally -- it was supposed to be "Darwin Awards", which someone grants annually for those who have done the most to improve the human species by putting themselves on the 'endangered species list'!

[arajca]

Guess I invented a new term accidentally -- it was supposed to be "Darwin Awards", which someone grants annually for those who have done the most to improve the human species by putting themselves on the 'endangered species list'!

I though it was for removing themselves from the human gene pool.