Originally Posted by Wxx3
I think it is about liability and I think this off is ego ate oohs enough to remember that the whole liability thing took off in the 80's. In the 50s we were still a country that got things done. Now, it's all cya.
We put fancy names on it, risk management, etc, but the reality is we don't train like we're going to fight anymore and yes, we have far less training accidents, but no one wants to admit that we also have far less capability.
Yes, there is an answer, now if you buy this billion dollar airplane, it can do so much more than the $20m plane.
The usaf took that pill over 20 years ago.
I'm sorry. I digress. It's been an interesting fat, but can't post it from my computer till the weekend.
Actually...Operational Risk Management, when it was first written back in the late 90's for DoD, the main thrust of it was to reverse the course of getting soft and stupid in the name of safety and to reverse the waste of bad commanders with overly large egos....
It was developed to use a more methodical approach to accomplishing the mission despite risks by minimizing them...not cancelling the mission because of risks or requiring safeguards when the go order was issued but the knucklehead in charge was using ego instead of brains to run things.
As to the rest of the rant...some yes and some no...that debate could definitely go on forever and whatever operational risk management evolved into I have no idea...but in it's purest form...it was the best tool the USCG and probably the rest of the military ever had to go in the right direction.