Public release on Dover C-5 crash

[CKJET]

I have flown into Dover a few times in a 747 on Milatary charters...


1. They went for the longer runway is that the skinny one? It is easy to get low on a visual approach to a skinny 150ft runway in a large airplane such as a C-5? My next question is why would they cancel IFR? Third why on earth would you put the flaps out when you are so far out and low? How could all of these guys not see what was happening?

I'm not trying to bash these guys at all.. I fly with a ton of ex milatary guys and a lot of 141/C-5 guys I just think there must be a lot more to this story then has been made public.

 

[C-141/C-5]

first it's military. Next there is more to the story, but in the end it's just bad pilot mojo

 

[LearLove]

question, this may have been answered but I did not read all the posts:

If the flying pilot had used the 3rd good engine and they left the aircraft configured the way it was (prior to raising the flaps) would the approach and landing moost likely been sucessful? Again, same question but now they retract the flaps (to whatever setting they were going to) but used the 3rd good engine, would it have been a sucessful app. and landing all things considered?

 

[Patriot328]

question, this may have been answered but I did not read all the posts:

If the flying pilot had used the 3rd good engine and they left the aircraft configured the way it was (prior to raising the flaps) would the approach and landing moost likely been sucessful? Again, same question but now they retract the flaps (to whatever setting they were going to) but used the 3rd good engine, would it have been a sucessful app. and landing all things considered?

"The board says the crew was complacent and failed to realize the potential risk of a heavy-weight, full-flap approach and landing. Torres says simulator sessions showed if any of three errors (flying below the normal glidepath, using less than the available thrust on the three running engines or selecting the 100% flap setting) had been corrected, the aircraft could have landed safely. For example, simulator sessions showed that using the No. 3 engine as late as 300 ft. above the ground resulted in a safe landing. The accident aircraft stalled at 150 ft. Another scenario showed that using a 62.5% or 40% flap setting and the related approach speed without using the No. 3 engine above idle led to a safe landing. And a third scenario showed that flying an ILS or tactical air navigation approach to the runways at the base at the right altitudes would have worked even without the No. 3 engine above idle and flaps at 100%. Torres says that crew performance in this accident did not meet the Air Force's professional standards, but he does not know if any disciplinary action will be taken against crewmembers."

 

[Caveman]

That is privileged info. I suggest you remove the link. It is not to be disseminated to the public.

By public, I assume you mean the public that bought the plane, trained and paid the crew, paid for the investigation, support crew, MX, fuel, facilities and ATC services. Yeah, they have NO right to that info.

 

[stonewall]

By public, I assume you mean the public that bought the plane, trained and paid the crew, paid for the investigation, support crew, MX, fuel, facilities and ATC services. Yeah, they have NO right to that info.

I guess by that logic you have the "right" to know everything about every black program that your tax dollars pay for. You have the "right" to know EXACTLY what YOUR special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are up to. CIA? Yup, YOU fund it so YOU should know what's going on.

The rationale for "privilege" has already been explained on this board. Research it.

 

[Caveman]

I guess by that logic you have the "right" to know everything about every black program that your tax dollars pay for. You have the "right" to know EXACTLY what YOUR special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are up to. CIA? Yup, YOU fund it so YOU should know what's going on.

The rationale for "privilege" has already been explained on this board. Research it.

If this was a classified SpecOps mission and the crash was directly related to that mission I agree with you, but this appears to be a plain jane ordinary cargo mission. Give me one good reason why this information shouldn't be in the public domain.

 

[stonewall]

If this was a classified SpecOps mission and the crash was directly related to that mission I agree with you, but this appears to be a plain jane ordinary cargo mission. Give me one good reason why this information shouldn't be in the public domain.

The whole premise behind the AF Safety Program, covered by AFI's 91-202 and 91-204, is ACCIDENT PREVENTION. When the principals invovled in a mishap are interviewed by the Safety Investigation Board, they are given confidentiality. Why? So they can get the whole story from the crew without the fear of looking like idiots in the public or to the rest of the AF.

Was one of the crewmembers up late feeding a kid? Fighting with his wife? Sleeping with another crew member? Being pressured by the commander? In debt? We look for ANYTHING that might contribute to the accident, as bad as it may sound. When the board is concluded, the privileged part is circulated among air crews so we can say "look what they did, don't do this." All anonymously, of course.

If the crew knows all this ******************** is gonna be posted on FI or in every newspaper across the land, you WILL NOT GET THE WHOLE STORY. Plain and simple. Without all the info, the real lessons to be learned may not get out, and future accidents are not prevented. Make sense?

And to answer your question ahead of time, if anything illegal comes out of the SIB, and Accident Investigation Board is convened with lawyers, etc, and punishment can be handed out. No privilege in an AIB.

Some of the facts in this case seem pretty cut and dry with no behind the scenes "whoppers." But I've read some doozies. That stuff simply would not have been uncovered without confidentiality. You may not agree with this policy, but guess what? You don't have to. It's the way it is and works for us. As a civilian, you can put out whatever info you want. But if any military person disseminated "privileged info" to the public, they could (and should) be subject to disciplinary action.

Looks like I gave you a couple good reasons.

 

[Caveman]

None of the data in that video betrays any personal info about the crew. It's just an animated version of flight data and all it shows is the flight dynamics of the last couple minutes before the crash. None of which is in dispute.

The investigation policy of the military is essentially the same as the civil side. Protect the personal lives of the crews where possible but shed the light of day on what happened so that other crews don't make the same mistake. Nothing I've seen, read or heard on here or anywhere else gives any personal info other than the crew's names and position. The animated flight data isn't personal in nature at all.

I don't want to see anybody embarrassed, but they did appear to make some pretty critical mistakes and calling the data from this particular crash 'priviledged' in order to protect them is unjustified. Keep their personal circumstances under wraps, but there isn't anything wrong with the public seeing the facts and being aware of the circumstanaces that occurred during the flight. Like it or not, the taxpayer pays the freight and unless there is a security or personal issue they are entitled to know what happened.

So, no, you still haven't given me a good reason yet.

 

[stonewall]

None of the data in that video betrays any personal info about the crew. It's just an animated version of flight data and all it shows is the flight dynamics of the last couple minutes before the crash. None of which is in dispute.

The investigation policy of the military is essentially the same as the civil side. Protect the personal lives of the crews where possible but shed the light of day on what happened so that other crews don't make the same mistake. Nothing I've seen, read or heard on here or anywhere else gives any personal info other than the crew's names and position. The animated flight data isn't personal in nature at all.

I don't want to see anybody embarrassed, but they did appear to make some pretty critical mistakes and calling the data from this particular crash 'priviledged' in order to protect them is unjustified. Keep their personal circumstances under wraps, but there isn't anything wrong with the public seeing the facts and being aware of the circumstanaces that occurred during the flight. Like it or not, the taxpayer pays the freight and unless there is a security or personal issue they are entitled to know what happened.

So, no, you still haven't given me a good reason yet.

I already said if anything was uncovered that was illegal or contrary to regs was uncovered, they would be subject to discipline. There is no "protection" going on here.

I also said the facts IN THIS CASE seem pretty straightforward. However, we don't go into Safety Boards assuming there will be no need for "privilege" and "confidentiality." We go in assuming the need. Like I said, if the people involved know everything they say will be for public consumption, you will only get vague and incomplete statements. Ever watch a presidential news conference?

I'm just telling what the rules are. We can't pick and choose which mishaps we apply the rules to. If the Board President in this mishap chooses to release info and the AF Safety Center agrees, then so be it. If, however, privileged or confidential testimony or info was released without approval, then discipline is warranted.

Look, bro, you may not think these reasons are valid. However, if YOU were the A/C, I think all of a sudden you'd like the rules the way they're written. These ARE the regs, and we ARE expected to follow them. I've given the reasons and the rationale, if you don't like them, that's your issue. I'm not trying to get in a argument here.

And I do like the fact the taxpayer pays "the freight," whatever that means. I also like the fact they buy the jets, bombs, missiles, and gas. And I'm a taxpayer, too.

 

[Caveman]

The horse is officially dead and it's time to agree to disagee. I think in most cases it should be a fairly transparent process, you have a different opinion. Have a good one.

 

[stonewall]

An opinion shared by nearly every pilot in the USAF, USN, and USMC. Have a good weekend.

 

[HarryShadow]

An opinion shared by nearly every pilot in the USAF, USN, and USMC. Have a good weekend.

Yep...

 

[McGillicutty]

Same reason the NTSB can't be used in civil/criminal cases.

 

[Gorilla]

Magnum, I agree with you 99% of the time, but not on this one.

If there isn't an inherently classified issue in a military aircraft accident, such as "The AN-326 fuse on the external ordnance prematurely triggered upon release, blowing the right wing off the aircraft", then the material should be released. I'm sorry if it screws the pilots. Those of us working for 121 carriers get screwed royally every time there's a mishap, often with massive amounts of personal info published.

Let me give you a scenario... a military King Air crashes, and it's found that cracks in a spar caused the crash. Should not details of that fatal flaw be instantly published, with supporting evidence, to protect other operators of the King Air? Do you feel the way you do because this time, it was pilot error?

 

[michael707767]

=If there isn't an inherently classified issue in a military aircraft accident, such as "The AN-326 fuse on the external ordnance prematurely triggered upon release, blowing the right wing off the aircraft", then the material should be released.

I agree with Gorilla. This was not a classified mission and the public has a right to know what happened.

The ability for the military to keep things classified, or "black" should be very limited.

 

[stonewall]

Guys, this is not a "classified" thing at all. Nobody is advocating "protecting" the pilots in the case of pilot error. Early on in the thread there was info posted that clearly seemed (to me) to fall under the "privileged" arena. It's not meant for public dissemination. That's the way the safety program works.

If there is a safety investigation after a mishap and the people involved are told "Hey, tell us exactly what happened so we can prevent future mishaps...but keep in mind that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you say can be used against you and will be made public," then you won't get all the info. You won't get all the dirty laundry that might prevent someone else from doing something in the future. Remember, the SIB IS NOT in the business of punishing people. It's in the business of accident prevention. The AIB is a different story, and you can have both convened for the same mishap. A pilot can say stuff to the Safety Investigation Board that falls under privilege. He can have a lawyer present when talking to the AIB, so you can clearly see the difference in agendas for the two boards.

I've also said we have avenues in place to punish or discpline aircrews for wrongdoing. If an SIB uncovers evidence of say, drug use, the Board President has it in his authority to pass that info on to the Accident Investigation Board. IF the earlier info came from the AIB, then I don't have a leg to stand on and the argument is over. However, if it did not, or it came from someone on the SIB, then clearly "privilege" has been violated (by our regs) and someone is in trouble. There are also tools such as Flying Evaluation Boards that can be convened to discpline aircrews for wrongdoing.

Maybe some of my posts read with the tone that I want to cover up pilot error or wrongdoing. I do not. I fully advocate disciplining aircrew using our methods when it's warranted. After all, if we don't "police our own" and get rid of the bad ones, someone will step in and do it for us.

IN THIS CASE, there MAY be nothing that can't be released to the public that would violate privilege or confidentiality. Okay. However, that's NOT always the case, and we can't choose to selectively apply the provisions in 91-202/204 in some mishaps and not others.

I never said anything to indicate this stuff is "classified" or "black," other than to make a point about Caveman's logic in one of his posts. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the terms (confidentiality and privilege) I'm using.

Gorilla, do you think Blue Four News should be open to the public?

 

[MalteseX]

By public, I assume you mean the public that bought the plane, trained and paid the crew, paid for the investigation, support crew, MX, fuel, facilities and ATC services. Yeah, they have NO right to that info.

CVR and ATC tapes are NOT privileged information .... it is Factual and Can be released to the public.

Priviliged information is basically non factual information or testimony by the people involved and/or conclusions drawn. This is just off the top of my head and pretty simplistic. But there is a lot of confusion in the military as to what is priviliged. It's not like classified information.

All factual information
Blood alcohol tests
CVR recordings
ATC tapes
Peoples names
What they said that was not to a Safety officer with the "offer" of privilege

Is ALL releasable.

 

[MalteseX]

The whole premise behind the AF Safety Program, covered by AFI's 91-202 and 91-204, is ACCIDENT PREVENTION. When the principals invovled in a mishap are interviewed by the Safety Investigation Board, they are given confidentiality. Why? So they can get the whole story from the crew without the fear of looking like idiots in the public or to the rest of the AF.

Was one of the crewmembers up late feeding a kid? Fighting with his wife? Sleeping with another crew member? Being pressured by the commander? In debt? We look for ANYTHING that might contribute to the accident, as bad as it may sound. When the board is concluded, the privileged part is circulated among air crews so we can say "look what they did, don't do this." All anonymously, of course.

If the crew knows all this ******************** is gonna be posted on FI or in every newspaper across the land, you WILL NOT GET THE WHOLE STORY. Plain and simple. Without all the info, the real lessons to be learned may not get out, and future accidents are not prevented. Make sense?

And to answer your question ahead of time, if anything illegal comes out of the SIB, and Accident Investigation Board is convened with lawyers, etc, and punishment can be handed out. No privilege in an AIB.

Some of the facts in this case seem pretty cut and dry with no behind the scenes "whoppers." But I've read some doozies. That stuff simply would not have been uncovered without confidentiality. You may not agree with this policy, but guess what? You don't have to. It's the way it is and works for us. As a civilian, you can put out whatever info you want. But if any military person disseminated "privileged info" to the public, they could (and should) be subject to disciplinary action.

Looks like I gave you a couple good reasons.

The stuff like "fighting with the wife" etc. should also not be given out to military members either.

Hate to sound cynical, but the same commander sees the "privileged" copy as sees the Accident Investigation Board copy. If I were a mil guy in an accident, I'd keep my trap shut to the Safety guys as Well as the Lawyers.

 

[MalteseX]

Guys....

Factual data is not "priviliged" under AF rules

Conclusions drawn, testimony etc is or can be privileged.

(as a side note, I never offered "privilege" when interviewing individuals in accidents where I was either the Board President or the investigator--but I never used those statements or offered them to commanders for punishment either).

CVR tapes are not priviliged.

Computer recreations are not if they only include data derived from recordings ---- if they form conclusions, then recreations are releasable.

Hate to sound cynical again but the reason for privilege is to allow conclusions to be drawn without worrying about lawsuits from people/places outside the military (it's not really to protect the crews).


Bottom Line: Links to CVR tapes do not violate privilege. However, they may violate copyright laws, etc.