From the September Safety Beacon:
QuoteCadet was participating in an evening cadet activity when she injured her ankle walking through a wooded area. Cadet stated she stepped on a tree root and rolled her ankle off the side. Medical review determined injury to be a sprain.
Lesson Learned: Leadership should not allow activities in unknown areas where risk potential is higher. Activities performed by CAP members should be limited to activities outlined in CAP regulations, manuals, and pamphlets. If a night activity is to occur, a safety walk should be done of the area during daylight hours to view risks and help determine if activity areas are appropriate.
Okay, while this most likely was not an ES-related activity, the broad statement about not allowing activities in unknown areas is absurd. And regarding night activities, if anything we should be instituting some night-related ground team tasks. No, we generally don't do ground searches in the woods at night, but there are quite a few ways that we can still end up with ground teams in the woods after dark. While our teams probably don't need to be able to navigate the Army Ranger night nav course, they should be at least somewhat comfortable doing some basic night movements.
Of course, training for such activities should be conducted in an area that is relatively safe (no sinkholes or cliffs), finding an area devoid of tree roots isn't going to be feasible.
Am I over-reacting? Possibly, but it is just this sort of semi-official statement that can quickly lead to either urban myth or actual policies restricting activities that we should be doing.
You have got to be kidding me!!!!!!!
QuoteLesson Learned: Leadership should not allow activities in unknown areas where risk potential is higher
Umm.....what?!?!?!
Asinine and poorly thought out. They need to fire both the person that came up with that line and the person who printed that line.
If we follow that principle of thought.....we would not even leave our homes. (granted some people don't leave their homes, but not the point I am making...)
Since 80% of accidents happen in the home, we should remove cadets from their homes to be safe.
Guys, CAP isn't the only place where Safety makes really stupid recommendations. Air Force Safety does it all the time.
Same thing with the "Risk Management" folks here at AT&T.
It seems to be part of the Safety Culture... ::)
I am going to create a business that makes human sized bubble wrap and sell it through Vanguard to CAP parents for their cadets. It'll be reflective, luminous and have flashing LED strobes to boot. It'll come with a matching helmet and all.
Red strobes on one side, green on the other with a single white strobe in the center????
Quote from: Stonewall on September 26, 2010, 05:03:08 PMI am going to create a business that makes human sized bubble wrap and sell it through Vanguard to CAP parents for their cadets. It'll be reflective, luminous and have flashing LED strobes to boot. It'll come with a matching helmet and all.
...and within months someone will suffocate within the bubble wrap, due to not reading the instruction manual you provided or the ones printed on the device, and sue you into being a historical safety footnote.
No matter how idiot proof you make something, it only works until someone invents a better idiot.
Agree that the "recommendation" made in the "Safety beacon" doesn't belong. It implies that the leadership is at fault for one of those things that happens in this little activity called "life." It's possible to do everything right and fail or lose, that's fact. Making statements that don't acknowledge that fact breed further stupidity.
Quote from: bosshawk on September 26, 2010, 05:21:34 PM
Red strobes on one side, green on the other with a single white strobe in the center????
Only if they are moving. Apparently it is recommended that they do not do so.
ahahahaha. Safety humor. I enjoy making stupid safety recommendations myself.
Last year, I had cadets putting flagging tape on just about everything in order to ensure safety.
They put flagging tape on the orange plastic construction fence so that cadets would be more likely to see the fence. They put flagging tape on rolls of flagging tape. They put flagging tape on the volleyball in order to increase its safety and reduce the likelihood of a cadet getting hit by it.
My safety briefings typically include such things as: don't chew on wires, don't eat things that aren't food, don't depart a moving van...
On the matter of the incident here...tree roots are everywhere in this part of the country. Oh well. Next thing you know, they'll be implementing all sorts of new procedures related to tree roots.
Thank you for your recommendation, safety, however, this is a command decision.
Sometimes support staff positions need to remember that they aren't commanders.
I think the most asinine sentence is the one
after the bolded statement:
QuoteActivities performed by CAP members should be limited to activities outlined in CAP regulations, manuals, and pamphlets.
I'm sorry, whawhaat? Heads up cadet leaders and cadet programs officers. Safety spoke: Don't go getting creative or fun with cadet activities. If your unit or leadership academy or encampment is doing an activity that isn't already detailed and diagrammed in a CAP publication, we should be restricted from doing it. Clearly that's irresponsible. ::)
That's just placing blame where absolutely no blame is due.
Well, I held back on commenting on that part of it on the off-chance that they actually were doing something pretty wacky, which knowing CAP members, is entirely possible.
You have to remember that a lot of times these things are brought up by folks that have (1) never worked with the cadet program, and (2) never operated outside the cockpit of an airplane.
One of the downfalls of the CAP cadet program is that we have become so prohibitive in what we can do that the Boy Scout's have more cool activities than CAP for kids to do. Someday all we will be able to let them do is sit in safety, DDR, ML and aerospace briefings, and drill on a well lighted ans perfectly safe drill pad.
I'd be interested to see how CAP cadet accident stats compare to other field type activities like the boy scouts ???
Although, I do agree that walking in the woods on a moon less night without adequate lighting can be dangerous. Add teenagers into the mix, and wow!!!! ::) :angel:
In my former life, I remember attending a course at Camp Bullis TX that included a night training exercise on a dark/cloudly moonless night. I didn't have adequate (red) lighting and remember walking right into a small tree -- fortunately no injury. (What was the best part of that course was flying in UH 1's at tree top level down the river, many of the attendees didn't want to fly, so I took three flights :-X).
From an ES qualification standpoint, I think the right thing is to actually have an ES qualification for night (darkness) ground operations. HOWEVER, one does have to practice and when you train there's always the possibility of an injury.
Of course if we have no operations, than we would have no injuries :angel:
RM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 26, 2010, 03:05:31 PM
...
Lesson Learned: Leadership should not allow activities in unknown areas where risk potential is higher. Activities performed by CAP members should be limited to activities outlined in CAP regulations, manuals, and pamphlets. If a night activity is to occur, a safety walk should be done of the area during daylight hours to view risks and help determine if activity areas are appropriate.
...
Without more detail, I don't know that any of this is something from which we can all learn. She rolled off the side of what? The root, or a cliff? If she rolled off the side of a mountain, that would maybe be different.
Leadership should not allow activities in unknown areas where risk potential is higher.
- Tree roots also occur in known areas. They also occur in otherwise flat sidewalks.
- By nature, ES operations take CAP into "unknown areas." Train as you operate. No? Even if you don't search at night, if you're camped or staying at a firehouse/church floor near trees after a mission, there will be roots.
Activities performed by CAP members should be limited to activities outlined in CAP regulations, manuals, and pamphlets.
- What?
- What Mike said.
- Was this activity outside regulations? Were they paintballing? Do tree roots only pop up at unauthorized activities?
If a night activity is to occur, a safety walk should be done of the area during daylight hours to view risks and help determine if activity areas are appropriate.
- If I found a tree root on a "safety walk," I probably wouldn't have designated the area unsafe.
- Likewise, if I were conducting an ES activity and I found trees, I would have designated the area highly appropriate.
Well if you can't walk in the woods at night you definitely can't sand bag in a flood, and you most definitely can't perform a missing person search in a flood. There goes disaster relief. Not to mention assist after an earthquake. I feel that action is needed to be taken with personnel who try to make a classroom seem unsafe, all it does is make people sarcastic about safety and make things worse for some parents letting their kids participate. Now, most of the parents of our squadron realize that everything in life has some level of risk, especially anything that is fun, so they don't mind what happens in the field so long as it isn't negligent. That is the thin that people need to realize is that we won't let anything happen do to sheer negligence. We do everything possible to ensure safety and most people do know that.
JC004, it states that she said she rolled off a tree root.
EDIT: JC004 I see what you are saying. She rolled off a root... it wasn't a cliff. A cliff would be a different story. It was a root, we all hope she heals well and fast but this is blowing it way out of proportion.
CAP's zeal to create a "culture of safety" has largely been turned into a joke with nonsense like this in the Safety Beacon.
Got to say that I'm a little surprised at the unanimity of opinion on this -- rare for CAPTalk.
This has to be an entry in the "lamest thing ever published" category.
Lets hold activities where everyone is surrounded by bubble wrap and line the place with foam.
Lame.
Make sure the bubble wrap is secured with Velcro. Otherwise, someone might get their thingy caught in the zipper.
(http://images.memegenerator.net/Jim-carrey/ImageMacro/2466528/oh-boy-here-we-go-again.jpg)
Quote from: RiverAux on September 26, 2010, 10:59:15 PM
Got to say that I'm a little surprised at the unanimity of opinion on this -- rare for CAPTalk.
That's what we said about the Triangle Thingy topics.
Good content creation/copywriting is hard. It's perhaps just a miss on trying to find a good example (although the response hasn't gone over so well here either). I've certainly picked examples and such that in hindsight, well...sucked.
I recently had a discussion with a bunch of members concerning Safety Officers kind of running dry on material and such, but trying to meet the requirements to HAVE a briefing and such. I commend their effort to get something out on a regular basis. It's just a topic that can be very dry, very repetitive, and blown way out of proportion in an effort to fix CAP's safety record or to just try coming up with new things. Sometimes I think that they simply cannot accept that incidents/accidents WILL occur. We should try to make things safer but not destroy the organization in the process. When it gets to the point that we can't DO anything, you've gone too far.
With a little modification, we can retrofit CAP members.
(http://www.brainfiller.com/documents/OSHACowboy.jpg)
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 26, 2010, 08:55:57 PM
I'd be interested to see how CAP cadet accident stats compare to other field type activities like the boy scouts ???
hmmm....seems like there are always Boy Scouts dieing at the annual jamboree. Lightning strikes, car accidents getting there, bee stings etc.
When was the last time a Cadet died at Encampment??
Quote from: Patterson on September 27, 2010, 01:24:06 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 26, 2010, 08:55:57 PM
I'd be interested to see how CAP cadet accident stats compare to other field type activities like the boy scouts ???
hmmm....seems like there are always Boy Scouts dieing at the annual jamboree. Lightning strikes, car accidents getting there, bee stings etc.
When was the last time a Cadet died at Encampment??
Not a good comparison. The BSA outnumbers us by at least 10 to 1.
Combine all the encampments in one year, all the different climates, environments, antics and shenanigans.
Still..
Quote from: PHall on September 27, 2010, 03:51:56 AM
Not a good comparison. The BSA outnumbers us by at least 10 to 1.
We could always use percentages instead, sir.
The obvious difference between the Boy Scouts and CAP ( besides the obvious: Adult leadership) is that BSA participants are actually covered by BSA insurance on activities. The goal of the safety Nazis here sounds clear; limit cadets to UDF. How many times have we heard a Hafast ORM assessment from a safety nazi claiming that "The number one mission is safety". What a preposterous assertion! I always thought the number one mission was, well, the actual mission, and that safety was just a tool to limit the risks and liabilities associated with carrying out our real job. I remember a commercial from a few years back ( I think it was from BMW) where they said that the value of safety (equipment) is not what it protects us from, but what it allows us to do! One wonders if this societal occupation with safety is an attempt to shift the American Culture away from being risk-taking successes, or passive and porcine farm animals raised solely to support the system. The problem is, farm animals usually only come to one kind of end. Is that the kind of kid CAP wants to provide? We could just turn them over to the TV set and accomplish that goal a lot less expensively, and with a high degree of safety.....
Major Lord
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 26, 2010, 08:55:57 PM
I'd be interested to see how CAP cadet accident stats compare to other field type activities like the boy scouts ???
I've got a funny (true) story concerning Boy Scouts. Involves a propane lantern and a fiberglass porta-john... ???
I fully appreciate the importance of safety consciousness. We should do our best to intelligently manage risks. However, "findings" like that make a mockery of the safety culture and risk (OMG!) teaching people to ignore all their advice.
Why don't we cut to the chase and change Operational Risk Management to Complete Risk Avoidance Program? :angel: It's a memorable acronym.
Life without risk isn't living.
Quote from: ELTHunter on September 26, 2010, 08:49:26 PMOne of the downfalls of the CAP cadet program is that we have become so prohibitive in what we can do that the Boy Scout's have more cool activities than CAP for kids to do.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I've never had any prohibitions to any cadet activity that we've wanted to do, except those outlined in 52-16. This includes taking my cadets hiking in 80mph winds and -30 degree temperatures for nearly an entire day.
In fact, the new (draft) 52-16 has a section specifically for "high-adventure" activities.
Everyone says that there is a "risk aversion" in our cadet program, but I've never seen it, or participated in it...YMMV.
The people who write the CP stuff and the people who write the safety stuff have different approaches. The CP people write stuff like that. The safety people write stuff like this.
Would you find those three statements in 52-16? I HOPE not.
Quote from: JC004 on September 26, 2010, 06:51:21 PM
ahahahaha. Safety humor. I enjoy making stupid safety recommendations myself.
Last year, I had cadets putting flagging tape on just about everything in order to ensure safety.
They put flagging tape on the orange plastic construction fence so that cadets would be more likely to see the fence. They put flagging tape on rolls of flagging tape. They put flagging tape on the volleyball in order to increase its safety and reduce the likelihood of a cadet getting hit by it.
My safety briefings typically include such things as: don't chew on wires, don't eat things that aren't food, don't depart a moving van...
On the matter of the incident here...tree roots are everywhere in this part of the country. Oh well. Next thing you know, they'll be implementing all sorts of new procedures related to tree roots.
I'm going to steal those for when I have to teach ORM and give hazard examples.
Trust me, the Boy Scouts are working on their safety as well. They have a form now (I'll have to look it up to find the specifics again) that restricts certain activities to certain age groups. They have also tightened safety in the last few years and because of it, the climbing tower used at our summer camp was closed down due to the size of wood used to build it. They are constantly changing as well. Safety changes are everywhere. When someone can sue McDonald's for burning their lip on coffee, we can expect these issues to ruin activities as we see it.
Remember when slides had the metal sections on them? I don't see them around as much as I used to. I remember slicing my leg on one of them. I poured peroxide on it and moved on. Now the parents want to make money off these issues.
It's all part of what we do today. In my opinion, safety is not the mission. It's a tool we keep with us to ensure the mission is performed effectively with the least number of injuries and other mishaps.
Quote from: Pylon on September 26, 2010, 07:37:47 PM
I'm sorry, whawhaat? Heads up cadet leaders and cadet programs officers. Safety spoke: Don't go getting creative or fun with cadet activities. If your unit or leadership academy or encampment is doing an activity that isn't already detailed and diagrammed in a CAP publication, we should be restricted from doing it. Clearly that's irresponsible. ::)
That's just placing blame where absolutely no blame is due.
And what happens when a cadet gets injured doing something "already in the manual?" Then does safety say "there should have been better supervision.." or "needed a better briefing?"
Yeah, that's a pretty silly overall response from the Safety Pups.
Quote from: caphornbuckle on September 28, 2010, 02:35:22 PM
When someone can sue McDonald's for burning their lip on coffee ( . . .)
Slight off topic response:
It is worth remembering that the actual facts of the McDonald's coffee case are not what most of us "remember" them to be.
79 year-old Stella Liebeck did not simply "burn her lip," but actually sustained third degree (full skin thickness) burns over six per cent of her body, including her genital and perineal areas and was hospitalized for eight days while she received skin grafts. She was the passenger in a stationary vehicle when the coffee spilled on her lap.
McDonalds admitted serving their coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees when most restaurants (and home users) serve it at 130 - 145 degrees. McDonalds also admitted that they knew that the product was not fit for human consumption at the time they put it into the cup since it would of course severly burn the lips and mouth of anyone who drank it before it had time to cool.
Ordinary jurors from the community ordered McDonalds to pay $200,000 in compensatory damages and were so outraged at McDonald's indifference to safety, they also ordered 2.7 million in punitive damages (which represented about two days worth of McDonalds' coffee sales.)
The case was later settled by the parties in a confidential agreement for a lesser amount.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
^^ I stand corrected. Although now it seems to me that the "legend" (quoted due to now knowing the facts) of this story still scares businesses and organizations. I could be wrong there though too (don't want to get in the habit of being right ALL the time, right?)
ORM does not imply zero risk, but rather limiting risk to acceptable levels.
An ES mission might (depending on circumstances) justify covering unknown wooded terrain in less than ideal conditions.
A game of 'capture the flag', or a jaunt thru the local scenery, almost certainly would not.
Much of this is really common sense...it doesn't get silly till someone tries to word a 'solution' that covers every specific possible situation.
I agree with you ZigZag, but only to a point. Regarding ORM, you are right on point. But, applying that to a scenario:
"An ES mission might (depending on circumstances) justify covering unknown wooded terrain in less than ideal conditions"- Yes it would. However, if that team had little to no experience operating (read: training) in the night environment over a variety of terrain, there is a significantly higher risk of something bad happening to members of the ground team.
I may have misinterpreted what you wrote as to mean that only missions, not training, justify the risk of operating afield at night. If that is so, I apologize. The simple fact is that you must have the ability to train for the missions you will perform. Otherwise, the ORM kind of works against you. ORM isn't bad, it just needs to be taken and used for what it is.
ORM is supposed to be a risk mitigation tool for commanders to make informed decisions about their operations.
You can have an assessment of "catastrophic" and still perform the mission. If a commader is comfortable giving the "OK" to perform at higher ORM assessment levels, that's their decision and one they'll have to live with should something happen. Training or real, fun or not, it comes down to whether or not those involved are informed and willing to accept the risk associated with the activity.
I've been sitting on this one for a while now....but this perfectly illistrates my heart burn with military (and CAP) safety types.
I understand that they are honestly trying to do their job to keep us safe.....but they seem to have zero understanding about our people and our mission.
Idiots push their plane into a hanger......everyone needs to watch a video.
Cadet trips on a root......everyone needs to stay out of unknown areas...or do a daylight walk through.
What we do as part of our programs and missions are risky.
Accpet it.
Stop trying to use a single incident to apply a blanket fix.
[/rant]
Had to think about it for a while.
Even the Army knows and uses ORM. Even though, men and women die every day during ground operations, I know CAP is not in a war nor are we combatants, but the same idea and lessons can be learned from. You can't control who dies or why, what they did wrong, what we did wrong, who is at fault or what. You just got to accept that there is risk involved in our job, it's just part of what we do.
Shugart and Gordon knew that when they went to secure a helicopter site in Somalia. They knew they were taking a huge risk. They knew it and still went in and they did it full knowing that they would probably die. We in CAP do not go into a search and rescue mission thinking we will die, but we will go in knowing that there is some risk to what we do. We could fall into a ditch or ravine and break an arm or a leg. Soldiers do it for each other. We do it for those who cannot save themselves in an environment that is in many cases their backyard.
We just need to remember that no matter what there is risk involved in what we do. We cannot always see what that risk is, but we will always do our best to mitigate that risk with ORM and common sense.
No matter what there is risk involved in what we do. But if we weren't there to do it, there would be many lives that are lost. I would gladly sprain an ankle if it means that I was helping to save a fellow American's life.
The fundamental premise is as it sounds - risk management. The risks in a particular activity are managed accordingly.
Night missions, for example, would include flashlights, reflective vests, and maybe glow-sticks on personnel, with more active accountability procedures.
Wooded areas with significant trip hazards = same. Closer spacing. Slower pace. Visual contact with team members.
Hangar rash = additional mitigation techniques. Marked spots on floors, reduction of clutter around parking areas, even "stop rails" anchored into the floors.
This is NOT to prevent activities, just additional, proactive measures concentrated on "landmines" that would have prevented previous incidents.
I don't understand why we continue to have members who just don't "get it" with respect to risk management.
Out here in the AOR, we do the same thing. Because a large number of non-combat related injuries and deaths are due to people getting run over by vehicles at night or during times or reduced visibility. Therefore, you have to wear reflective belts on operational bases during those conditions. Our guys are consistantly injured while cutting communication cables - therefore extra emphasis is placed on protective gloves, removal of jewelry, and safety observers. Those, in-turn, are briefed before every work shift.
It's a simple process.
desert, I don't think anyone is against a practical approach to conducting operations, but that isn't what was being passed down in this case.
ORM is risk management, not risk avoidance.
Let's take the example of a ground team in the woods on an exercise.
What's wrong with having someone survey the area for potential hazards in advance of the exercise? You have a known risk situation, so why not try and mitigate that risk?
Are you going to be able to pre-survey on an actual ground search...no. But that's not the point. You assess risks with as much information as possible.
If you want to make the training realistic, have someone other than the people on the ground team do the pre-survey and simply brief on the significant hazards that are found. You don't need to brief every tree root or rock, but if there's a sudden drop off in one area, it is helpful to know that.
Sometimes the Safety types are silly, and sometimes they're spot on.
For example, I applaud the decision to go forward with the ANSI Class II vests. Good decision all around.
This, however, is silly. A tree root is not what a normal person would consider to be a risk. If tree roots were a risk, than most people's front yards would be no different than a mine field.
And there may be no statement from National saying this, but there is the less-than-Urban Myth that drives CP folks to demand that we wrap Cadets in bubblewrap (with Triangle Thingies painted on each bubble, mind you) and followed around by lawyers.
Sometimes, no matter how hard you try to prevent it, people get hurt. Sometimes badly.
Blanket fixes wont solve the problem.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 11, 2010, 12:50:32 PMYou don't need to brief every tree root or rock, but if there's a sudden drop off in one area, it is helpful to know that.
A drop off steep enough to be dangerous should show on a topographic map, which the GTL and navigator should have reviewed the search area on and have briefed the team on any indicated obstacles.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 12, 2010, 06:20:40 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 11, 2010, 12:50:32 PMYou don't need to brief every tree root or rock, but if there's a sudden drop off in one area, it is helpful to know that.
A drop off steep enough to be dangerous should show on a topographic map, which the GTL and navigator should have reviewed the search area on and have briefed the team on any indicated obstacles.
But what about a hole in the ground covered by natural debris, or a ditch?
Quote from: HGjunkie on October 12, 2010, 12:54:22 PMBut what about a hole in the ground covered by natural debris, or a ditch?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Wolfsgrube.JPG/270px-Wolfsgrube.JPG)
Or a Pit Trap set by the so-called "victims" designed to capture CAP members for food...and lets not forget the Predators!
(http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/images/predator.jpg)
Kidding aside, abandoned wells are a pretty big hazard to our ground teams. I suppose the best way to mitigate that risk is ask about the area you're going in to. In theory, the local PD, park ranger, whatever should at least have some inkling as to what lies in a given set of woods.
Or, (here's the big shocker) we could just keep doing as we were doing before the horrible tree root incident...
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 12, 2010, 01:34:44 PM
Kidding aside, abandoned wells are a pretty big hazard to our ground teams. I suppose the best way to mitigate that risk is ask about the area you're going in to. In theory, the local PD, park ranger, whatever should at least have some inkling as to what lies in a given set of woods.
So is this a purely potential threat ?( Like Unicorn attacks, East Australian Wombat Death Syndrome, etc.) Or have any of your ground team people actually gone down a well? Are your ground teams accident prone? I have never heard of a GTM falling down a well before.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on October 18, 2010, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 12, 2010, 01:34:44 PM
Kidding aside, abandoned wells are a pretty big hazard to our ground teams. I suppose the best way to mitigate that risk is ask about the area you're going in to. In theory, the local PD, park ranger, whatever should at least have some inkling as to what lies in a given set of woods.
So is this a purely potential threat ?( Like Unicorn attacks, East Australian Wombat Death Syndrome, etc.) Or have any of your ground team people actually gone down a well? Are your ground teams accident prone? I have never heard of a GTM falling down a well before.
Major Lord
My ORM matrix always includes unicorn attacks.
Quote from: Major Lord on October 18, 2010, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 12, 2010, 01:34:44 PM
Kidding aside, abandoned wells are a pretty big hazard to our ground teams. I suppose the best way to mitigate that risk is ask about the area you're going in to. In theory, the local PD, park ranger, whatever should at least have some inkling as to what lies in a given set of woods.
So is this a purely potential threat ?( Like Unicorn attacks, East Australian Wombat Death Syndrome, etc.) Or have any of your ground team people actually gone down a well? Are your ground teams accident prone? I have never heard of a GTM falling down a well before.
Major Lord
No, none of our people have gone down a well (that I'm aware of). I was simply stating the fact that they're out there and they do pose a problem.
Quote from: HGjunkie on October 12, 2010, 12:54:22 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 12, 2010, 06:20:40 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 11, 2010, 12:50:32 PMYou don't need to brief every tree root or rock, but if there's a sudden drop off in one area, it is helpful to know that.
A drop off steep enough to be dangerous should show on a topographic map, which the GTL and navigator should have reviewed the search area on and have briefed the team on any indicated obstacles.
But what about a hole in the ground covered by natural debris, or a ditch?
We had that issue on a missing person search a few years ago. Our search area was littered with abandoned mine shafts which are pretty hard to see if you're not careful. How did we solve the problem?
It was mentioned in a safety briefing, something along the lines of "Watch where you put your feet". Seemed to cover tree roots, gopher holes, sharp rocks, badger's nests, mine shafts, and yes, predator pits.
Unicorns on the other hand are masters of ambush...
Clever Girl..
Okay, so by "hazard" we mean "anything likely to result in death or injury, no matter how statistically unlikely, and even if it has never actually occurred. ". Got it, but that is a pretty wide statistical window to walk through. I think it rates a "watch out you don't fall in a hole" verbal warning at best, as opposed to a Well-Threat Power-Point safety briefing and mandatory 500 Yard safety perimeter. ( You "well-wishers" would be exempt if it is pre-approved by your Chaplain as a bona fide religious practice) FYI, those Unicorns would kill you and everyone you love given half a chance.......
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on October 18, 2010, 09:52:14 PM
Okay, so by "hazard" we mean "anything likely to result in death or injury, no matter how statistically unlikely, and even if it has never actually occurred. ".
Remember, the ORM matrix has both severity and probability. For instance, it is always possible that a meteorite could strike one of our vans. What is the probablity - pretty small, plus there is not much that can be done about it, so it isn't considered very long. If it is known that abandoned wells and the like are in an area, then a word of caution is warranted, at least.
Unicorn attacks are fairly infrequent, but very severe.
I hate to post this for several reasons, not the least of which is the tragedy, but at the same time I couldn't pass up an opportunity.
QuoteFYI, those Unicorns would kill you and everyone you love given half a chance.......
Unicorn attacks are fairly infrequent, but very severe.
Man killed by goat in Olympic National Park With two pointed horns, the ram fatally gored Boardman in the thigh, then stood over the man as he lay bleeding, staring at people trying to help.
"The mountain goat was terribly aggressive," Jessica Baccus, who was hiking with her family. "It wouldn't move. It stared us down."
As for the ORM.
Boardman's death on Saturday was the first human death caused by an animal in the 72-year-old history of Olympic National Park, park spokeswoman Barb Maynes said.
"[The goat] has shown aggressive behavior; however, nothing led us to believe us it was appropriate to take the next level, of removal," she said. "This is highly unusual.
"There's no record of anything similar in this park. "It's a tragedy. We are taking it extremely seriously and doing our best to learn as much as we can."
Park officials had posted signs at trailheads warning hikers to be watchful of all mountain goats and to stay at least 100 feet from the animals. Hikers are also warned not to urinate on or near the trail, because goats are attracted to the salt.
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20101019/NEWS/310199988/hiker-died-while-warning-others-of-aggressive-mountain-goat
http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/headline.cfm?type=Incidents&id=5419&urlarea=incidents
Mike
Quote from: Stonewall on September 26, 2010, 05:03:08 PM
I am going to create a business that makes human sized bubble wrap and sell it through Vanguard to CAP parents for their cadets. It'll be reflective, luminous and have flashing LED strobes to boot. It'll come with a matching helmet and all.
Ill go into business with you. Should we also advertise as "fashionable for school too?"