CAP Talk

Operations => Safety => Topic started by: brasda91 on February 19, 2008, 01:56:15 AM

Title: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: brasda91 on February 19, 2008, 01:56:15 AM
What do you think of Nationals new idea to have every member submit a Safety suggestion monthly?
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: Eclipse on February 19, 2008, 02:00:59 AM
What do you think of Nationals new idea to have every member submit a Safety suggestion monthly?

That's not new.

The last I heard a tree fell in the woods and no one made a sound...
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: brasda91 on February 19, 2008, 02:02:44 AM
Humm, I just received the e-mail from my Wing CC.  Guess I'll have to check the date.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: jeders on February 19, 2008, 02:05:04 AM
National just took an already existing policy and recycled it. Still doesn't make us any safer.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: LittleIronPilot on February 19, 2008, 07:50:21 PM
National just took an already existing policy and recycled it. Still doesn't make us any safer.

I know I am going to get roasted for this...but [darn], can we back off worshiping at the safety alter already?

Hopefully most of you will get what I am saying...and it is NOT that we need to be unsafe, but dang. Everything we do seems to have a 30 minute safety brief on "wear sunscreen" "drink water" and "do not trip".

Like DUH!? I need someone to TELL me these things? I dunno....maybe it is just me, but sometimes I just scratch my head and wonder how we function in the world without or personal morning safety brief, ya know?
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: jeders on February 19, 2008, 09:38:50 PM
National just took an already existing policy and recycled it. Still doesn't make us any safer.

I know I am going to get roasted for this...but [darn], can we back off worshiping at the safety alter already?

Hopefully most of you will get what I am saying...and it is NOT that we need to be unsafe, but dang. Everything we do seems to have a 30 minute safety brief on "wear sunscreen" "drink water" and "do not trip".

Like DUH!? I need someone to TELL me these things? I dunno....maybe it is just me, but sometimes I just scratch my head and wonder how we function in the world without or personal morning safety brief, ya know?

Word.

Multiple safety down days per year, sending in safety ideas, having a safety briefing before every identical activity. These are not the things that make us safer.

Having good supervision, having good safety officers, having leaders use common sense, not unduly putting people in harms way. These are the things that make us safer.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: scooter on February 19, 2008, 10:58:22 PM
Stuff like this is usually generated in response to some problem/incident. Sort of like a "Be No". There will "be no" accidents, etc. Let see.., we lost two airplanes the last 6 months or so plus whatever else happened we don't know about. My guess, someone said to CAP, do something about it! They are now doing something, even if it may not really solve whatever problem is being targeted. Don't be too hard on the Head Shed, they sometimes gotta do something about it!
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: isuhawkeye on February 19, 2008, 11:07:04 PM
A quick safety note from mike rowe of the discovery channel


Quote
Of all the platitudes automatically embraced in the workplace and there are many there is none more pervasive, erroneous, overused and dangerous than "Safety First!" in my opinion. I have heard this slogan countless times. I have seen it emblazoned on banners, T-shirts and hats. I have sat through mandatory briefings, slideshows and presentations designed to "protect me from the hazards at hand." And I have listened as safety officers and foremen have run down list after list of OSHA requirements, all apparently construed to remind me that nothing is more important to the employer than my own well-being.

What a load of unmitigated nonsense.

In the 120+ jobs I have seen thus far, I can tell you with certainty, that safety, while always a major consideration, is never the priority.

Never.
Never, ever.
Not even once.

Is it important? Of course. But is it more important than getting the job done? No. Not even close. Making money is more important than safety always and it's very dangerous, in my opinion, to ignore that. When we start to believe that someone else is more concerned about our own safety than we are, we become complacent and then we get careless. When a business tells you that they are more concerned with your safety than anything else, beware. They are not being honest. They are hedging their own bets and following the advice of lawyers hired to protect them from lawsuits arising from accidents.

You are correct to suggest that wearing safety glasses would have made the task at hand safer. But why stop there? Wearing a helmet would have made it safer still. And wearing a steel-mesh shark suit would have made it really super-safe. I know that sounds glib and I know that many will wish to scold me for appearing cavalier. But really, I'm not. In a car, I wear a safety belt. On a motorcycle, I wear a helmet. Not because it's the law, but because it seems a reasonable precaution. And ultimately, the only one responsible for my own safety is me. (Besides, if the government were really concerned with my safety above all else, wouldn't they drop the legal speed limit to 30 miles an hour and make cars out of rubber?)

Again, you're right I probably should have been wearing safety glasses, not because safety is first, but because I like to hedge my bets. We can always be safer. We can always assume less risk. But if safety were really first, I wouldn't travel at all or engage in any activity that required me to assume any risk. And I certainly wouldn't be hosting Dirty Jobs.

Like most sensible concepts, rational safety is all about balance. But the problem with balance is that you can never maintain it without constantly adjusting. Which means, we are always slightly out of balance, one way or the other.

When are we too reckless? When are we overly cautious? Opinions will vary about where safety should rank on society's list of desirable conditions. But one thing seems certain safety has never been first, at home or at work. And the current effort to make it so is way out of balance.

And that, ironically, is dangerous.

Mike



Taken from http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/dirtyjobs/bio/qanda/qanda_02.html
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: afgeo4 on February 20, 2008, 03:26:47 PM
National just took an already existing policy and recycled it. Still doesn't make us any safer.

I know I am going to get roasted for this...but [darn], can we back off worshiping at the safety alter already?

Hopefully most of you will get what I am saying...and it is NOT that we need to be unsafe, but dang. Everything we do seems to have a 30 minute safety brief on "wear sunscreen" "drink water" and "do not trip".

Like DUH!? I need someone to TELL me these things? I dunno....maybe it is just me, but sometimes I just scratch my head and wonder how we function in the world without or personal morning safety brief, ya know?
I agree. Being safe and talking safety aren't the same thing. I think periodic safety breefings and newsletters are sufficient, but that's just my opinion. I guess if accidents/incidents didn't happen we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: Bear Walling on February 20, 2008, 05:33:32 PM
Safety doesn't happen by accident.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: RogueLeader on February 20, 2008, 07:33:23 PM
I think that we all agree that safety is a concern, but having to fill out a CAPF 78 over a scratch is a bit too far though.  YMMV
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: jimmydeanno on February 20, 2008, 07:43:23 PM
But what if that cadet's scratch was on a rusty CAP van while conducting an AFAM but he was wearing a blue t-shirt under his BDUs?  Then the scratch festers and develops tetanus which leads to amputation of his arm?

Then the ensuing investigation finds that the cadet wasn't properly briefed as to the hazards of rusty objects AND no ORM matrix was filled out to determine whether or not climbing in and out of the van was too much of a risk?  Who's liable then, huh?   >:D
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: RogueLeader on February 20, 2008, 07:46:20 PM
But what if that cadet's scratch was on a rusty CAP van while conducting an AFAM but he was wearing a blue t-shirt under his BDUs?  Then the scratch festers and develops tetanus which leads to amputation of his arm?

Then the ensuing investigation finds that the cadet wasn't properly briefed as to the hazards of rusty objects AND no ORM matrix was filled out to determine whether or not climbing in and out of the van was too much of a risk?  Who's liable then, huh?   >:D

 :o :-\

 ::)
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: LittleIronPilot on February 21, 2008, 12:38:20 AM
A quick safety note from mike rowe of the discovery channel


Quote
Of all the platitudes automatically embraced in the workplace and there are many there is none more pervasive, erroneous, overused and dangerous than "Safety First!" in my opinion. I have heard this slogan countless times. I have seen it emblazoned on banners, T-shirts and hats. I have sat through mandatory briefings, slideshows and presentations designed to "protect me from the hazards at hand." And I have listened as safety officers and foremen have run down list after list of OSHA requirements, all apparently construed to remind me that nothing is more important to the employer than my own well-being.

What a load of unmitigated nonsense.

In the 120+ jobs I have seen thus far, I can tell you with certainty, that safety, while always a major consideration, is never the priority.

Never.
Never, ever.
Not even once.

Is it important? Of course. But is it more important than getting the job done? No. Not even close. Making money is more important than safety always and it's very dangerous, in my opinion, to ignore that. When we start to believe that someone else is more concerned about our own safety than we are, we become complacent and then we get careless. When a business tells you that they are more concerned with your safety than anything else, beware. They are not being honest. They are hedging their own bets and following the advice of lawyers hired to protect them from lawsuits arising from accidents.

You are correct to suggest that wearing safety glasses would have made the task at hand safer. But why stop there? Wearing a helmet would have made it safer still. And wearing a steel-mesh shark suit would have made it really super-safe. I know that sounds glib and I know that many will wish to scold me for appearing cavalier. But really, I'm not. In a car, I wear a safety belt. On a motorcycle, I wear a helmet. Not because it's the law, but because it seems a reasonable precaution. And ultimately, the only one responsible for my own safety is me. (Besides, if the government were really concerned with my safety above all else, wouldn't they drop the legal speed limit to 30 miles an hour and make cars out of rubber?)

Again, you're right I probably should have been wearing safety glasses, not because safety is first, but because I like to hedge my bets. We can always be safer. We can always assume less risk. But if safety were really first, I wouldn't travel at all or engage in any activity that required me to assume any risk. And I certainly wouldn't be hosting Dirty Jobs.

Like most sensible concepts, rational safety is all about balance. But the problem with balance is that you can never maintain it without constantly adjusting. Which means, we are always slightly out of balance, one way or the other.

When are we too reckless? When are we overly cautious? Opinions will vary about where safety should rank on society's list of desirable conditions. But one thing seems certain safety has never been first, at home or at work. And the current effort to make it so is way out of balance.

And that, ironically, is dangerous.

Mike



Taken from http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/dirtyjobs/bio/qanda/qanda_02.html

I KNEW I liked Mike Rowe...now I like him even more!
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: afgeo4 on February 26, 2008, 01:19:09 AM
Safety is a factor of risk management.

Safety isn't "not getting hurt" or "accident-free". That can often be the result of luck, not safety.

Safety is the concept of people taking logical and necessary precautions. It is mitigating risk to the extent possible and prudent. It is the point of being aware of risks and hazards. It is not how many days went without someone getting hurt. It is not how many accidents/incidents have happened. Those are just things people made up to report to overseers in order to get paid more.

True safety cannot be quantitatively measured. True safety is a concept, a feeling, a mindset.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: RiverAux on February 26, 2008, 03:04:26 AM
I've never heard of any requirement to submit a safety suggestion monthly.  Citation, please...
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: brasda91 on February 26, 2008, 10:34:08 PM
I've never heard of any requirement to submit a safety suggestion monthly.  Citation, please...

Just noticed your request.  I'm at work right now, but when I get home, I'll see if I still have the e-mail my Wing CC sent out.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: brasda91 on February 26, 2008, 10:49:11 PM
I've never heard of any requirement to submit a safety suggestion monthly.  Citation, please...

OK here you go.  It is a powerpoint presentation.

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/Operation_CAPSafe.ppt (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/Operation_CAPSafe.ppt)
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: ZigZag911 on February 27, 2008, 01:32:31 AM
Is this an obligation or an invitation? Hard to tell from the slide show.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: arajca on February 27, 2008, 01:40:25 AM
Let's really SHOW THEM...

get every member to follow this instruction.

50,000+ emails in one month would be interesting to see them sort it out. >:D
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: Pylon on February 27, 2008, 02:21:54 AM
get every member to follow this instruction.

50,000+ emails in one month would be interesting to see them sort it out. >:D

Actually, if they made it a requirement, they'd quickly discover that we really don't have 50,000 active members.  Heh.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: Dutchboy on March 21, 2008, 03:30:05 AM
I think that we all agree that safety is a concern, but having to fill out a CAPF 78 over a scratch is a bit too far though.  YMMV
Just curious, how many squadrons actually fill out a Form 78 for a scratch?
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: Gunner C on March 21, 2008, 04:00:32 AM
I think that we all agree that safety is a concern, but having to fill out a CAPF 78 over a scratch is a bit too far though.  YMMV
Just curious, how many squadrons actually fill out a Form 78 for a scratch?
I would think that the Form 78 is a poor indicator of a safety program.  When I got to a new squadron, the SOP was to pass it around for everyone to sign.  There was no safety briefing, just ink.  I became the next CC and put a stop to it.

Most of these safety programs are, unfortunately only safety twinkies - they taste good, you feel something in your stomach, but there's no nutritional value.  Until CAP returns to a professional state with actual standards, we're going to have problems.  And no twinkie, unfortunately, is going to help (reciting the safety pledge and the like every week just puts more CO2 in the atmosphere).

GC
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: SJFedor on March 21, 2008, 05:33:04 AM
I think that we all agree that safety is a concern, but having to fill out a CAPF 78 over a scratch is a bit too far though.  YMMV
Just curious, how many squadrons actually fill out a Form 78 for a scratch?
I would think that the Form 78 is a poor indicator of a safety program.  When I got to a new squadron, the SOP was to pass it around for everyone to sign.  There was no safety briefing, just ink.  I became the next CC and put a stop to it.

Most of these safety programs are, unfortunately only safety twinkies - they taste good, you feel something in your stomach, but there's no nutritional value.  Until CAP returns to a professional state with actual standards, we're going to have problems.  And no twinkie, unfortunately, is going to help (reciting the safety pledge and the like every week just puts more CO2 in the atmosphere).

GC

Uhm...CAP Form 78 = Safety Mishap Notification/Investigation Form. Why was it getting passed around for everyone to sign?
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: jimmydeanno on March 21, 2008, 11:36:26 AM
I think that we all agree that safety is a concern, but having to fill out a CAPF 78 over a scratch is a bit too far though.  YMMV
Just curious, how many squadrons actually fill out a Form 78 for a scratch?
I would think that the Form 78 is a poor indicator of a safety program.  When I got to a new squadron, the SOP was to pass it around for everyone to sign.  There was no safety briefing, just ink.  I became the next CC and put a stop to it.

Most of these safety programs are, unfortunately only safety twinkies - they taste good, you feel something in your stomach, but there's no nutritional value.  Until CAP returns to a professional state with actual standards, we're going to have problems.  And no twinkie, unfortunately, is going to help (reciting the safety pledge and the like every week just puts more CO2 in the atmosphere).

GC

Uhm...CAP Form 78 = Safety Mishap Notification/Investigation Form. Why was it getting passed around for everyone to sign?

Brain damage from so many safety briefings... >:D
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: Gunner C on March 21, 2008, 09:01:38 PM
I think that we all agree that safety is a concern, but having to fill out a CAPF 78 over a scratch is a bit too far though.  YMMV
Just curious, how many squadrons actually fill out a Form 78 for a scratch?
I would think that the Form 78 is a poor indicator of a safety program.  When I got to a new squadron, the SOP was to pass it around for everyone to sign.  There was no safety briefing, just ink.  I became the next CC and put a stop to it.

Most of these safety programs are, unfortunately only safety twinkies - they taste good, you feel something in your stomach, but there's no nutritional value.  Until CAP returns to a professional state with actual standards, we're going to have problems.  And no twinkie, unfortunately, is going to help (reciting the safety pledge and the like every week just puts more CO2 in the atmosphere).

GC

Uhm...CAP Form 78 = Safety Mishap Notification/Investigation Form. Why was it getting passed around for everyone to sign?

Brain damage from so many safety briefings... >:D

Dain brammage bad.
Title: Re: NHQ's new Safety Policy
Post by: brasda91 on March 22, 2008, 02:05:11 AM
For our Safety class, I try to pick a topic that is relevant to the season.  I produce an attendance roster with the instructors name, date and topic and that goes into our "safety class" file.