GovernmentExecutive.com

Defense Department officials last week announced that they will apply commercial technologies as part of an effort to reduce mishap rates for all department activities by 50 percent over the next two years.

The effort was prompted by a recent increase in mishap rates throughout the department. For example, 82 military personnel died in aviation accidents in fiscal 2002, compared with 65 aviation-related deaths in fiscal 2001, according to the Pentagon.

"World-class organizations do not tolerate preventable accidents," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told department heads in a May 19 memo.

Rumsfeld called a 50 percent reduction in mishap rates within two years an "achievable goal" that would directly increase the nation's operational readiness.

Accident-reduction initiatives will include developing a real-time support system for mishap decisions, applying commercial technologies on aircraft and other high-risk equipment, and adopting "best practices" from industry and other government agencies.

COMMENTS

• The increase in mishaps is directly attributable to the "new" idea of dumping the older, more experienced workers "to save money", without having the new kids properly trained. The experienced military and civilian person is made to look like a useless weight, so dump them, but you don't have the corporate knowledge that guides new workers. The use of untrained or poorly trained workers causes them to "hurry up" and work long hours at critical functions thereby mentally stressing the "newbie" and causing them to make mistakes. Duh. Am I the only one that can see this? Does the word "apprentice" mean any thing to the mental midgets of the planners? Just because there is a sheepskin does not automatically convey street smarts in the holder. The headline is, in itself, dumb. How can he "order" anything? He, and his kind, are the reason for the increase! How many deaths due to error are acceptable? Charles Applegate Posted July 1, 2003 8:30 AM
• I had always thought that "military style" discipline would automatically achieve this? With air accidents in particular one assumes the military has to train for situations which are by their nature more dangerous due, for example, to closer proximity etc. Also, their equipment is expected to be under more stress. Sure, if "cutbacks" reduce maintenance I can see where problems may creep in, but if 2002 increased activity in general doesn't this explain at least some of any increase? Charlie Tame Posted May 28, 2003 8:26 AM