Perhaps some NOTAMs would have been useful?

[HueyPilot]

This MC-130 was torn up pretty good when it landed on a runway being repaired...and it ran right through a pretty significant trench in the runway, shearing off the bottom half.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_20051623.asp

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_200516232.asp

 

[thebluto]

Word put out in our squadron was that it WAS NOTAM'ed. Just an e-mail I got from our Safety Office. Not confirmed.

 

[thebluto]

I stand corrected

The e-mail I was sent said the following:

"Last week one of our planes flew into a US operated airfield in Iraq during the day and saw there was construction equipment on the runway. Yet there was no NOTAM (notice to airmen). A trench was being dug in the runway, and it was not marked. Its a long runway and they just landed beyond the construction. They filed a safety hazard report that was immediately forwarded to our higher headquarters and to the Air Force wing based here. Well, it seems the construction continued and still was not marked or NOTAMed or anything. A C-130 landed on the runway the night of the 29th and didn't see the construction. C-130 was totaled, several injuries to the crew and the few passengers but nobody was killed."


The e-mail was titled "The importance of 'CHECKING' NOTAMs"

 

[milplt]

Privileged info

You know, those pictures are out in the public domain - and who knows how they got there - so those are fair game. However, I am sure that e-mail you just posted was sent through safety channels and IS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. The only reason our safety folks can send out such quick responses is that the rest of us (especially officers who should know better) treat privileged information accordingly and use it within proper channels to prevent future mishaps and damage to gov't property and personnel as it was intended.

This is in no way the first time that privileged info migrated to public places, or the worst case, but it is starting to get out of hand and we are the ones responsible to hold the standard. As officers, we cannot apply rules at our own discretion - and we are certainly not the clearing source for such information to become public. Wait until the accident board report comes out, and you can discuss anything you want about that.

Any questions, go talk to your safety officer for the official line. This isn't a personal attack, just an observation and, hopefully, a re-caging of our attitudes towards our responsibilities.

 

[Snoopy58]

Not every scrap of info about an incident has the safety "priviledge" attached to it. Look at the quoted email... some guy in a unit that was NOT involved in the accident is recounting how one of his buds saw the construction & reported it, then later an aircraft from another unit get totaled there. I can't imagine what in all of that could POSSIBLY have been priviledged information!

Priviledge comes from telling a safety investigator something that you don't have to give to the accident investigators. All the stuff that shows up in the ACCIDENT report (what the AIB produces) -- aircraft type, dates, basic facts of what happened, etc -- NONE of that is priviledged info. Now, since the SAFETY board (SIB) can incorporate stuff from the aircrew interviews into their report, they make the whole thing priviledged instead of trying to sort out what is & isn't... but if this incident happened a week or three ago, there's no way that the SIB has finished & released their report already!

Now, if TheBluto's email had in it some quotes from the mishap crew, along with some FDR data, and maybe an interview with guys on the ground or who fouled up distributing the NOTAMs, then THAT could well be priviledged info that shouldn't be sent out by email to buddies in the first place. HOWEVER, it's simply nonsense to presume that every comment relating to an incident or accident automatically becomes "safety priviledged" information. Just ain't so!

 

[BroyF15]

Bravo and well said Snoopy58. You beat me to the punch. I've already seen the pictures, the e-mail and the ensuing safety diatribe go through my squadron. I haven't had the chance to corner the Chief of Safety yet (he was DNIF today). I've served as the IO on a Class A and Board Pres on a Class B so I've way too many of those t-shirts. My first response to the pictures and initial e-mail was I'm glad (and surprised) nobody got killed. I was annoyed by the safety e-mail because, like you pointed out, it's simply not true. On another note, some high ranking officials are really steamed about this whole thing.

 

[milplt]

So, what is privileged and what is not

In his first post, thebluto says that he got an e-mail from his safety office (we now know the source) and in his second post he posts the entire e-mail in quotes. I have been an IO on a Class A, a couple Class B's, and several Class C's, J's etc. during my years as a safety officer and know the whole routine and what the rules are. You tell me what is fact and what is not in thebluto's post. It includes that the crew did not see the construction, is that fact or has that been derived from crew testimony or on-board sources - it sounds like a conclusion (not releasable)? It says that the construction was not NOTAM'd, does that come from research the board (or someone investigating) did? Bottomline, anything that the SIB derives/concludes is not releasable to the AIB or the public, cold hard facts are (i.e. injuries, etc.). Whether there is truth to the e-mail's findings or not, we don't know. But, I would like thebluto to tell me that he scoured that e-mail to make sure there was no privileged info before he posted it - like I said, I think that some of it is privileged. I would also like to know if the original e-mail had a statement saying something along the lines of "this is privileged info", etc. This is not meant to be a slam on thebluto, but too many of us are too willing to cut/paste info to the public web that probably should not be there.

Bottom line is that, unless you are absolutely familiar with what is releasable and what is not, you should NOT cut/paste anything the safety office sends out regarding mil. mishaps. I would like you to tell me that you would be 100% comfortable standing in front of your wing CC or the SJA answering questions about the above post. Thebluto isn't the only one who would have posted this, he was just the first in this case - and the lesson needs to be that you aren't talking to fellow aviators (who are included in the privileged category) when you post to a public board.

A while ago, someone posted video from an AC-130 gunship in Afghan. It was a pretty cool video, problem was that the audio included callsigns and potentially divulged methods, sources, and tactics. He/she probably thought he/she was just posting a cool video - but the AFSOC/CC didn't see it that way. I know classified and privileged are not the same, but the potential to cross the line is apparantly all too easy and the ramifications all too large with the internet.

P.S. I was also a deployed safety officer for an entire AOR (ONW). The way investigations are done over there is different than statesides. At times, the deployed safety officer cannot do all of the investigations himself and a complete board cannot always be rapidly assembled, so he collects details as he can and collaborates with others (including the home unit safety office) via e-mail/phone to generate the final report or to assist as appropriate. Therefore, more findings start circulating via e-mail, etc. than usual and there are more possibilities for these sorts of incomplete findings to make their way to the street. Therefore, the "it hasn't been 30 days" argument doesn't always mean that it isn't a safety process derived finding.

 

[milplt]

And in a related note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/national/12sub.html?ei=5006&en=b0fff208ce95aa79&ex=1106110800&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

"Admiral Sullivan, who is based in Hawaii, sent the e-mail messages to other Navy officials. As the messages circulated within the submarine community, two people provided copies to The New York Times, and Navy officials confirmed their authenticity."

Take a look at the stuff that is in those e-mails - sounds like a lot of preliminary findings - stuff that is certainly not meant for public release.

Why is it that we can look the other way when these people release privileged info, but we trust that they will act with full confidence when it comes to classified information. Give me a break. BroyF15, with your previous (i.e. F-15) experience, you know as well as anyone that if it comes even close to crossing the line, you don't go there - to include talking around the matter. The F-15 community took a lot of heat for their security standards, but we held our ground. Everyone else, go ahead and throw spears. But when lives are on the line, you go ahead and release your advantages/tactics - we'll keep ours close. It's a joke, and we aren't holding the standard on our watch as they did in the past. What is the motivation for these two to forward the e-mails to the press? Find the leak, revoke their clearances - a breach of confidence is a breach of confidence, period.

 

[hawg2hawk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/national/12sub.html?ei=5006&en=b0fff208ce95aa79&ex=1106110800&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

"Admiral Sullivan, who is based in Hawaii, sent the e-mail messages to other Navy officials. As the messages circulated within the submarine community, two people provided copies to The New York Times, and Navy officials confirmed their authenticity."

Take a look at the stuff that is in those e-mails - sounds like a lot of preliminary findings - stuff that is certainly not meant for public release.

Why is it that we can look the other way when these people release privileged info, but we trust that they will act with full confidence when it comes to classified information. Give me a break. BroyF15, with your previous (i.e. F-15) experience, you know as well as anyone that if it comes even close to crossing the line, you don't go there - to include talking around the matter. The F-15 community took a lot of heat for their security standards, but we held our ground. Everyone else, go ahead and throw spears. But when lives are on the line, you go ahead and release your advantages/tactics - we'll keep ours close. It's a joke, and we aren't holding the standard on our watch as they did in the past. What is the motivation for these two to forward the e-mails to the press? Find the leak, revoke their clearances - a breach of confidence is a breach of confidence, period.

Speaking of professionalism, how about conducting this lecture somewhere other than in an internet forum?

 

[thebluto]

Sorry, guys, I wasn't even thinking about that.

There was no talk of privileged information on the e-mail I got. If there had been, it would have jogged my mind to be more careful.

It was a Lt. that was working in our Safety Office who sent it, just to let us see the importance of NOTAMs. I think he also got the pictures off the internet. Our squadron doesn't have any direct links to USAF C-130 Safety Information that I know of.

By the way, I got other e-mails, not from safety channels, on this same mishap, at home and at my civilian workplace. There was an e-mail with five pictures and the complete e-mail message from the pictures' source sent to me at my civilian job. It was sent by a civilian defense contractor that had absolutely no traceability to any safety office or to the military. I can only speculate that he gained access to it from his home computer.

This incident just happened to spread like wild-fire over the internet.

But, I was wrong for adding to its spread here. I apologize.

 

[milplt]

OK, I said throw spears - and that's fine and I expected it - but explain to me how what I said is unprofessional. You may not agree with what I said, or I may be making a point that you think isn't worth making, but this certainly isn't a worse case of "airing dirty laundry" than posting internal memos about a mishap and lending official credibility to what was previously just some pictures on the internet with a paragraph about the cause that may or may not have been true. This isn't a lecture, but a discussion. "That's unprofessional" is an equivalent argument to "that's stupid" - no point,just an opinion.

In AMC a while back (when I was there), it wasn't routine, but it wasn't uncommon for crews to check out the kyk-13 and codes from command post and leave them on the bus or on the airplane. It just wasn't treated that seriously. Read some of those magazines or information posted from the spotters, and they not only show you the picture of the C-17 passing through EGUN, they'll write about where it came from and where it is going and sometimes what it was carrying. Some people just like to talk to those spotters along the fence. That stuff wasn't necesarily "classified", but I don't think it was meant for release to the general public. But since it doesn't have a stamp across it, some people feel like they can release whatever details they feel the urge to. It was nice to get someplace where that stuff received the attention and protection that it deserved. OPSEC/COMSEC doesn't only refer to info that is officially labeled, it refers to everything - including phone calls home to CINCHOUSE. There is nothing improper about reminding people to be vigilant - it has been said many times before on this same board about some airline's internal info that was posted when it maybe shouldn't have been. And there is certainly nothing wrong with stating how some people keep their info close hold.

It's a slippery slope in my opinion, and there is no hard line that people can see. Look at how many first hand accounts of current ops (from both the ground and the air) you can find on the internet and in some of those British air combat magazines. It's the old story of - individually, you can't get much from it, but taken all together they start to paint a picture.

As long as some people consider the fact, my point has been made.

 

[milplt]

Thebluto - like I said - this wasn't anything against you. As a relatively old cranium, I thought that this would be a good opportunity for everyone to re-cage what they say - be it about safety stuff or not.

I got the stuff myself, and once it's public it's public. Someone dropped the ball - but we have to be careful about unwittingly confirming with official sources what were previously just public thoughts or conjecture about something.

As an analogy, notice how people are writing rumors all of the time about airline hiring or bids or whatever - but you never see any official sources getting on these boards and confirming them.

 

[hawg2hawk]

but explain to me how what I said is unprofessional.

OK, I will. Having been around awhile myself, I should mention for the record that I agree with everything you said. It's just that I might have chosen a more appropriate (e.g. less public) forum in which to point it out. Unprofessional might be too strong a word, but you're certainly not following your own advice.

It's the old story of - individually, you can't get much from it, but taken all together they start to paint a picture.

Look back and see how many of your comments fit this bill. You just handed out some EEI's yourself during the course of your internet OPSEC lecture. I'm not sure that was the effect you were looking for.

Is any of this, including the safety stuff, really critical in this case? No, or I wouldn't be addressing it here. In this case, I suspect a friendly PM to the offending party would have been more appropriate than a public nut-kicking. The down side of a PM is that you don't get to show everyone how much you know about SIB's and OPSEC, but it's probably better as far as actual OPSEC is concerned.

Just my $.02, of course.

 

[milplt]

You've got a point, as in the fact that an IM could have been in order - I actually thought about that after I made the post. The thing is, it was not my intent to "nut-kick" anyone and I think that is obvious. But this is not a bad public message to state, not just to brag on knowledge or whatever other imagined reason you may have conjured up. For a while, I have been thinking that across the board too many people have been saying too many things on too many forums - so instead of murmuring to myself about it all, I saw this one opportunity to do some little part to point that out - just to feel as if I did what I could. It doesn't only apply to web posters, the Pentagon as a whole is way too eager to embed journalists with real-time feedback (the Marine shooting the wounded personnel) or to show videos of weapons deliveries (or even be quick to point out that we attacked the wrong house - when, in fact, we probably have a better record than the post office on finding the right locations for our deliveries). I am sure with enough study you can glean some sort of capabilities info from all of those officially released videos. One good thing that I can say about the French is that, if you ever flew with/against them,they were in receive only mode as far as intel went.

As far as my posts go, I don't feel that I compromised anything at all - but if you see otherwise, PM me where I am wrong on that one - or is it your intent to go for the nut-kick or the public proclamation of your knowledge. Not looking to argue with anyone, but I 'll stand by what I said until someone proves me wrong.

Bottom line is that I rarely post, and when I do it is hardly in the form of the nut-kick. Somewhere along the way, the "mentoring" (I actually hate to use that word) of our dudes stopped and we became a "you do what makes you feel good" organization like the rest of society - hence the SNAP. I have obligations that don't stop when I take off the uniform and I saw a requirement for me to make a statement. No nut-kicking, just telling it like it is and moving on. Nothing personal, no malice, just a debrief item. But then again, some communities have pretty short to non-existent debriefs (that is just a joke).

 

[hawg2hawk]

You've got a point, as in the fact that an IM could have been in order - I actually thought about that after I made the post. The thing is, it was not my intent to "nut-kick" anyone and I think that is obvious. But this is not a bad public message to state, not just to brag on knowledge or whatever other imagined reason you may have conjured up. For a while, I have been thinking that across the board too many people have been saying too many things on too many forums - so instead of murmuring to myself about it all, I saw this one opportunity to do some little part to point that out - just to feel as if I did what I could. It doesn't only apply to web posters, the Pentagon as a whole is way too eager to embed journalists with real-time feedback (the Marine shooting the wounded personnel) or to show videos of weapons deliveries (or even be quick to point out that we attacked the wrong house - when, in fact, we probably have a better record than the post office on finding the right locations for our deliveries). I am sure with enough study you can glean some sort of capabilities info from all of those officially released videos. One good thing that I can say about the French is that, if you ever flew with/against them,they were in receive only mode as far as intel went.

As far as my posts go, I don't feel that I compromised anything at all - but if you see otherwise, PM me where I am wrong on that one - or is it your intent to go for the nut-kick or the public proclamation of your knowledge. Not looking to argue with anyone, but I 'll stand by what I said until someone proves me wrong.

Bottom line is that I rarely post, and when I do it is hardly in the form of the nut-kick. Somewhere along the way, the "mentoring" (I actually hate to use that word) of our dudes stopped and we became a "you do what makes you feel good" organization like the rest of society - hence the SNAP. I have obligations that don't stop when I take off the uniform and I saw a requirement for me to make a statement. No nut-kicking, just telling it like it is and moving on. Nothing personal, no malice, just a debrief item. But then again, some communities have pretty short to non-existent debriefs (that is just a joke).

I'm sure you meant to say "we" have obligations that don't stop when "we" take off the uniform, which is why we're having this discussion. We'll brief that as standard. I'm also sure you've sat through enough debriefs to know nut-kicking when you see it, and this ain't. Just a friendly f*ck you contest. And in the interests of avoiding the 12 hour eagle debrief with 6 hours devoted to comm,

Hasta.

P.S. The F-15 debrief concept shows in your writing style. Why say in 5 words what you can say in a paragraph or two? And that too, is a joke.