Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2018, 03:56:49 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: National Conference
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: National Conference  (Read 17059 times)
Angus
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 571
Unit: MA-002

« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2014, 09:22:14 AM »


I am headed in tomorrow morning.  A little excited. A little nervous. Never been to Las Vegas and my first CAP conference.  Add in some personal stuff like having a service dog and we will see what happens.

If you have time and are making a vacation out of it one stop I would recommend is the Liberace Museum.
closed :(

When did it close?  Granted it's been awhile since I was in Vegas.
Logged
Maj. Richard J. Walsh, Jr.
SE, ESO, PIO Boston Cadet Squadron
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2014, 09:50:41 AM »

Early 2013.
Logged


Angus
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 571
Unit: MA-002

« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2014, 09:58:52 AM »

Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it.  They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone. 
Logged
Maj. Richard J. Walsh, Jr.
SE, ESO, PIO Boston Cadet Squadron
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2014, 10:35:37 AM »

Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it.  They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.

That was absolutely awesome.  I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.

I did some exploring of Las Vegas Hilton LVH Westgate Las Vegas in the Spring and found the Space Quest casino
was still there, as were the themed restrooms (only partially functional) being used as an open space and slot parlor, and the
signage is still outside, hidden by the monorail.
Logged


LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,846
Unit: Earth

« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2014, 10:54:26 AM »

Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it.  They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.

That was absolutely awesome.  I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.

Ohhhh myyyy.  Okay everyone, raise your hand if you are a Star Trek nerd
Logged
Angus
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 571
Unit: MA-002

« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2014, 11:50:08 AM »

Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it.  They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.

That was absolutely awesome.  I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.

Ohhhh myyyy.  Okay everyone, raise your hand if you are a Star Trek nerd

*Hand raised high*

Also a Whovian.  Mainly the current stuff still trying to catch up on the first 7 Doctors. 
Logged
Maj. Richard J. Walsh, Jr.
SE, ESO, PIO Boston Cadet Squadron
Panache
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,060
Unit: PAWG

« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2014, 11:55:50 AM »

Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it.  They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.

That was absolutely awesome.  I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.

Ohhhh myyyy.  Okay everyone, raise your hand if you are a Star Trek nerd

The wife and I specifically went to Vegas to see ST:TE (and also to drive to CA later to attend Blizzcon) just to found out that ST:TE had closed the week prior.  We were... miffed.
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,617

« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2014, 12:48:08 PM »

Since I am not involved in that call my responses are generalized.

I disagree that the National Commander should not be involved in the “minutiae” of a hanger rash. The National Commander has the overall responsibility for all CAP Assets that includes people and equipment. The strength behind the program should come from the Commander. If the National Commander has no participation in the safety program then it might as well be stopped.

Asking someone about a prior safety incident is not “calling them out”, it is trying to use lagging indicators to mitigate risk. What can we learn from someone else’s incident that can further mitigate risk to people or equipment?

The problem already exists if the Hanger Rash occurred, that is “true problem”. I don’t know the approach that was taken but “learning and holding someone accountable” is not a witch hunt. It is his responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

We have to learn from the incidents that occur. If we don’t then we are simply ignoring the issue in the hopes that it will go away. It doesn’t and it won’t.


**I recently had an employee go into a machine to do some work and did not follow the lockout procedure for the equipment. They did not see it as an issue. During the investigation the employee commented what the big deal was they had done the task a thousand times. Besides the fact it was company policy I asked them a simple question. Would you knowingly allow your child to go into a machine that can kill them? No further comments from employee.

Just my .02 cents worth.
B.S.  We have safety officers, stan/eval, commanders, etc. at the various levels for this exact reason; they investigate and report incidents.   It's hangar rash for cryin' out loud.  If we had a serious accident with loss of life, sure, get involved...but do so in the initial investigation, not months after the investigation is complete.  Outside of that, if you want to know what happened, read the report.  Your response and in particular another I saw from your boss is indicative as to exactly why change is needed and why the "safety" program remains the butt of all jokes in CAP.

National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem.  Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc.  How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines?   That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is.  Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed.  However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with.  There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying.   But more to the point, you have an ineffective program.  You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-no's in a volunteer program).

The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role.  If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues.  Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not.  Why?  Because it's a silly and a waste of his time.  He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company.  He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 12:54:56 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2014, 12:54:53 PM »

National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem.  Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc.  How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines?   That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is.  Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed.  However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with.  There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying.   But more to the point, you have an ineffective program.  You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).

I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents".  Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.

But I do agree with what I think your greater point is, namely that NHQ abhors releasing data, because facts and numbers have no bias, and
tend to run counter to the narrative.

The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role.  If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues.  Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not.  Why?  Because it's a silly and a waste of his time.  He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company.  He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.

Agreed, sort of.   The difference being that UPS knows exactly what business it is in, and has a plan for achieving it.  Yes, subordinates are responsible for
wrench turning, but the CEO is responsible for insuring there is a vision and plan much more detailed then the marketing collateral.  If the plan starts
with "be the best..." that's not a plan, that's marketing.

And even more key, when the subordinates cannot or will not execute the plan, people start getting fired, up to and including that CEO. A concept all but foreign in CAP.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 12:59:20 PM by Eclipse » Logged


A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,617

« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2014, 12:57:14 PM »

National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem.  Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc.  How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines?   That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is.  Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed.  However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with.  There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying.   But more to the point, you have an ineffective program.  You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).

I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents".  Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.
An idealistic but not realistic goal.
Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2014, 01:01:55 PM »

National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem.  Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc.  How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines?   That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is.  Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed.  However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with.  There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying.   But more to the point, you have an ineffective program.  You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).

I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents".  Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.
An idealistic but not realistic goal.

So you're going to contend that the majority of 78's are unavoidable?  Why, specifically?

Because I would contend the majority are due to poor supervision, lack of adherence to published regulation, and generally
poor behavior by members and commanders. "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." stuff.

>ALL< self-induced hangar rash, 100%, without exception, is avoidable.  There's absolutely no excuse for it.
There isn't a single instance of hangar rash that wasn't caused by lack of proper focus or someone being in a hurry.
We can't prevent ramp rats from bumping the planes, but we can stop doing it ourselves.
Logged


A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,617

« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2014, 01:18:48 PM »

National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem.  Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc.  How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines?   That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is.  Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed.  However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with.  There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying.   But more to the point, you have an ineffective program.  You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).

I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents".  Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.
An idealistic but not realistic goal.

So you're going to contend that the majority of 78's are unavoidable?  Why, specifically?

Because I would contend the majority are due to poor supervision, lack of adherence to published regulation, and generally
poor behavior by members and commanders. "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." stuff.

>ALL< self-induced hangar rash, 100%, without exception, is avoidable.  There's absolutely no excuse for it.
There isn't a single instance of hangar rash that wasn't caused by lack of proper focus or someone being in a hurry.
We can't prevent ramp rats from bumping the planes, but we can stop doing it ourselves.
We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...

Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility.  I doubt you do either for the same reason.  The best I could do is look at those within our Wing.   But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans. 

We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care?  Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident.   You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath?)... ;)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 01:22:03 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,155

« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2014, 01:23:21 PM »

We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...

Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility.  I doubt you do either for the same reason.  The best I could do is look at those within our Wing.   But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans. 

We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care?  Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident.   You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)

OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.

If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones? 

If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure.  If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more.  I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable.  I disagree.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2014, 01:41:48 PM »

I have, at various times, had access to my wing, region, and even national 78s, including being an investigator
or AOR commander for some of them.

I am also, as you may or may not know, a motorcycle safety instructor in my state, so I have some superficial
exposure to the causality around incidents and accidents.

I have seen all manner of tom foolery in 78s which resulted in personal injury, damage to property, and
even external liability.  The range is from unit activities up through aircraft accident investigations.

I have yet to see a single one that wasn't avoidable, or for that matter member induced.  They are
nearly always due, as I said, to lack of adherence to procedure or regulations, improper supervision,
or someone who knows better or is in a hurry.

Stuff happens, and there are variables outside a member's control, but banging into other planes in the
hangar, for a start, is completely unacceptable.
Logged


MovingOnToOtherThings
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,300

« Reply #54 on: August 13, 2014, 02:01:34 PM »

B.S.  We have safety officers, stan/eval, commanders, etc. at the various levels for this exact reason; they investigate and report incidents.   It's hangar rash for cryin' out loud.  If we had a serious accident with loss of life, sure, get involved...but do so in the initial investigation, not months after the investigation is complete.  Outside of that, if you want to know what happened, read the report.  Your response and in particular another I saw from your boss is indicative as to exactly why change is needed and why the "safety" program remains the butt of all jokes in CAP.

National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem.  Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc.  How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines?   That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is.  Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed.  However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with.  There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying.   But more to the point, you have an ineffective program.  You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-no's in a volunteer program).

The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role.  If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues.  Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not.  Why?  Because it's a silly and a waste of his time.  He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company.  He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that it is B.S.

1) Nothing personal for any Unit Safety Officer but most are not going to be trained on how to do a proper Safety Investigation. This type of training goes beyond asking a few questions but doing a major Root Cause Analysis of the situation.

2) No damage is acceptable, whether you consider it part of doing business or not. That does not mean we should accept it. I agree you can never say that you will a have 100% incident free organization, however: we should never use the excuse that "it is just going to happen". We should always stride for that type of organization. Agreed: any time people you have the potential for human error. The intention behind the use of leading and lagging indicators is to mitigate risk....that's it. You do what you can with the information that is there.

3) The information about incidents is shared during the conferences. Most larger corporations DO NOT put that type of information out for everyone to see on a daily basis. That information is shared with those that can have an influence in making the changes.

4) Doing a comparison of industries and CAP is overall pointless. The true information is what we already have. If you want to compare, then look at their mitigation efforts not their numbers first. There is a cycle there.

5) Zero incidents should always be the goal, Period. As mentioned earlier I do not believe in giving false assumptions that you will always have zero. Too many people involved.

6) CEO's have been stepping into the Safety side a lot more in the recent years than they have in the past. This is because it is a value and goes beyond the regulatory stuff.

I have talked with and interviewed close to 50 Business leaders in the last 3 years that have the same opinion about safety. It has to start somewhere and that is with them.

You don't waste anyone's time when you are trying to mitigate risk. 
Logged
Always seeking to learn.
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,617

« Reply #55 on: August 13, 2014, 02:21:36 PM »

We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...

Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility.  I doubt you do either for the same reason.  The best I could do is look at those within our Wing.   But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans. 

We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care?  Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident.   You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)

OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.

If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones? 

If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure.  If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more.  I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable.  I disagree.
While that may've seemed to make for a pithy post, it's actually a Straw Man. 

As stated previously...we're well off topic here.
Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,155

« Reply #56 on: August 13, 2014, 02:27:25 PM »

We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...

Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility.  I doubt you do either for the same reason.  The best I could do is look at those within our Wing.   But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans. 

We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care?  Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident.   You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)

OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.

If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones? 

If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure.  If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more.  I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable.  I disagree.
While that may've seemed to make for a pithy post, it's actually a Straw Man. 

As stated previously...we're well off topic here.

Wasn't meant to be pithy.  Was meant to make a point.

I once sat in a safety training session at work, and that exact impression was shared by just about everyone..."Zero is impossible."

The SVP running the training pulled out a list of folks who had been killed the year before in an accident, and asked someone who was complaining that "zero incidents is impossible" and told him "OK, here's a list of folks that were killed last year.  Phone numbers for their next-of-kin right here, which ones do you want to call and tell them that they were "acceptable losses"?  Here, you can use my phone."

If you accept a certain level of loss, you will get that level of loss + some more.  My acceptable level is zero.
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,617

« Reply #57 on: August 13, 2014, 02:29:41 PM »

B.S.  We have safety officers, stan/eval, commanders, etc. at the various levels for this exact reason; they investigate and report incidents.   It's hangar rash for cryin' out loud.  If we had a serious accident with loss of life, sure, get involved...but do so in the initial investigation, not months after the investigation is complete.  Outside of that, if you want to know what happened, read the report.  Your response and in particular another I saw from your boss is indicative as to exactly why change is needed and why the "safety" program remains the butt of all jokes in CAP.

National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem.  Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc.  How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines?   That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is.  Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed.  However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with.  There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying.   But more to the point, you have an ineffective program.  You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-no's in a volunteer program).

The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role.  If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues.  Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not.  Why?  Because it's a silly and a waste of his time.  He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company.  He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that it is B.S.

1) Nothing personal for any Unit Safety Officer but most are not going to be trained on how to do a proper Safety Investigation. This type of training goes beyond asking a few questions but doing a major Root Cause Analysis of the situation.

2) No damage is acceptable, whether you consider it part of doing business or not. That does not mean we should accept it. I agree you can never say that you will a have 100% incident free organization, however: we should never use the excuse that "it is just going to happen". We should always stride for that type of organization. Agreed: any time people you have the potential for human error. The intention behind the use of leading and lagging indicators is to mitigate risk....that's it. You do what you can with the information that is there.

3) The information about incidents is shared during the conferences. Most larger corporations DO NOT put that type of information out for everyone to see on a daily basis. That information is shared with those that can have an influence in making the changes.

4) Doing a comparison of industries and CAP is overall pointless. The true information is what we already have. If you want to compare, then look at their mitigation efforts not their numbers first. There is a cycle there.

5) Zero incidents should always be the goal, Period. As mentioned earlier I do not believe in giving false assumptions that you will always have zero. Too many people involved.

6) CEO's have been stepping into the Safety side a lot more in the recent years than they have in the past. This is because it is a value and goes beyond the regulatory stuff.

I have talked with and interviewed close to 50 Business leaders in the last 3 years that have the same opinion about safety. It has to start somewhere and that is with them.

You don't waste anyone's time when you are trying to mitigate risk.
We're well off topic here so I'm not going to respond tit for tat but if you're somehow suggesting what is taking place by National is done so at the hands of those with some vastly superior and unique skill set, you couldn't be more mistaken.  As I stated previously, what has taken place is Bush league at best.   
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 02:51:13 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,617

« Reply #58 on: August 13, 2014, 02:42:55 PM »

We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...

Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility.  I doubt you do either for the same reason.  The best I could do is look at those within our Wing.   But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans. 

We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care?  Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident.   You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)

OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.

If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones? 

If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure.  If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more.  I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable.  I disagree.
While that may've seemed to make for a pithy post, it's actually a Straw Man. 

As stated previously...we're well off topic here.

Wasn't meant to be pithy.  Was meant to make a point.

I once sat in a safety training session at work, and that exact impression was shared by just about everyone..."Zero is impossible."

The SVP running the training pulled out a list of folks who had been killed the year before in an accident, and asked someone who was complaining that "zero incidents is impossible" and told him "OK, here's a list of folks that were killed last year.  Phone numbers for their next-of-kin right here, which ones do you want to call and tell them that they were "acceptable losses"?  Here, you can use my phone."

If you accept a certain level of loss, you will get that level of loss + some more.  My acceptable level is zero.
I understand what you were saying.  However, it's a comment that is often thrown out as some quippy response meant to marginalize the issue and evoke an emotional response.  However, it really mischaracterizes and, to me, shows a lack of depth in understanding risk discussions. 

But again, before we have any further discussions, let's start with some actual facts around our mishap rates.  Then we can talk measurable and attainable (SMART anyone?) goals to achieve them.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 02:47:12 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,155

« Reply #59 on: August 13, 2014, 02:44:47 PM »

I understand what you were saying.  However, it's a comment that is often thrown out as some quippy response meant to marginalize the issue and evoke an emotional response.  However, it really mischaracterizes and, to me, shows a lack of depth in understanding risk discussions.
I understand what you're saying.  However, those who say that "You can never get to zero incidents." is almost always an excuse for "I don't want to try."
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: National Conference
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.087 seconds with 25 queries.