Public release on Dover C-5 crash

[MalteseX]

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.

The data in the video is not privileged. Nor is the video subject to the privilege rules unless it is a recreation based on conclusions drawn.

Privilege rules are the subject of a lot of confusion in the AF. The AF puts that stamp on everything relating to Safety whether or not the rules apply. This is to keep the AF members from trying to determine on their own what is releasable and what is not. So far, nothing I've seen on this board falls into that category.

Many people treat Privileged info the same as they do 'classified' info. It is not the same. You can get full copies of Safety reports under the Freedom of Information Act with the privileged info deleted. Many military guys would be surprised how little of the info in a Safety Report is actually taken out before release. Even toxicology tests are releaseable.

 

[michael707767]

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.

how is it done with a civilian crash? Short of flying a classified mission, I don't think a military crew should have anymore, or less, protections than would be afforded a civilian crew.

 

[afres bum]

The Air Force does not want a lot of information released because it could highlight many issues beyond the crew that would be an embarrassment. There are always multiple aspects to a mishap; many of them systemic of AMC, AFRC, the procurement process for new technologies, and the Air Force as a whole. The privileged aspect of the investigation is to protect a lot more than the crew that was on a given airplane!

 

[MalteseX]

how is it done with a civilian crash? Short of flying a classified mission, I don't think a military crew should have anymore, or less, protections than would be afforded a civilian crew.

The differences are that the military is highly protective of Safety investigation reports. You will not see the Safety investigation published outside the AF unless you request it specifically by FOIA. Then if there are "blacked out" lines, you can't use that info

The military may not release transcripts or copies of CVRs etc. As a civilian, expect it to be released.

In reality, the military has no extra legal protections, but the "company", in this case the AF, investigates their own mishaps (not the NTSB) and they control the release of the info. And the regulations prohibit the release of conclusions finding and recommendations of the "company" investigators.

However, in this C-5 case, Col Torres, the Board President was unusually frank (as compared to most AF Safety Investigation boards) and publicly released the conclusions of the Safety Board in a press conference--all this approved from "above". The AF does not seem to be holding back much on this investigation.

For simplicity, the only parts that cannot be released (by regulation) is "privileged" information. That information is usually limited to:

a. Witness statements, but only if promised confidentiality by the safety investigator
b. Findings, conclusions, causes and recommendations made by safety investigators
c. Computer generated animations not involving "factual" data. Ie animations that were based on analysis and recommendations. (Computer generated recreations of FDRs and CVRs are factual and not subject to safety "privilege")

So in reality, safety privilege in the AF only covers a narrow spectrum of the entire safety report.

 

[MalteseX]

The Air Force does not want a lot of information released because it could highlight many issues beyond the crew that would be an embarrassment. There are always multiple aspects to a mishap; many of them systemic of AMC, AFRC, the procurement process for new technologies, and the Air Force as a whole. The privileged aspect of the investigation is to protect a lot more than the crew that was on a given airplane!

It's sort of funny, but when a lawyer is planning on suing the AF and others for a mishap..... they request under FOIA the AF Accident Report on Mishap "such and such"......And that is EXACTLY what they get. The accident report is the "legal" investigation that comes after the safety board's conclusions.

They almost never ask for FOIA on the "Safety Report" of Mishap 'such and such' ..... THE SAFETY REPORT is the one they are actually wanting......

Kinda funny to get one over on lawyers.

 

[stonewall]

The Air Force does not want a lot of information released because it could highlight many issues beyond the crew that would be an embarrassment. There are always multiple aspects to a mishap; many of them systemic of AMC, AFRC, the procurement process for new technologies, and the Air Force as a whole. The privileged aspect of the investigation is to protect a lot more than the crew that was on a given airplane!

Partly true, but this is NOT the reason behind privilege. Privilege is not given to protect the crew or technology. It's given to get the "whole picture" and to get completely honest answers. The SIB is for accident prevention, and accident prevention only.

 

[LearLove]

how long is the C-5 going to be in the field? I did the dupont4 arrival into philly the other day and as you turn north to Terri you can see the fuselage still in the field.

 

[El-Rushbo]

It's sort of funny, but when a lawyer is planning on suing the AF and others for a mishap..... they request under FOIA the AF Accident Report on Mishap "such and such"......And that is EXACTLY what they get. The accident report is the "legal" investigation that comes after the safety board's conclusions.

They almost never ask for FOIA on the "Safety Report" of Mishap 'such and such' ..... THE SAFETY REPORT is the one they are actually wanting......

Kinda funny to get one over on lawyers.

ACtually, in 1992 Federal law was made, under USC Title 10, protection release of priveleged information from a mishap investigation. There is also SCOTUS ruling on this.

 

[JimNtexas]

The Air Force Times has released a copy of the accident report:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/content/editorial/pdf/af_c5crash_report061606.pdf

The report blames the crew entirely. But reading the report itself, something jumped out at me that hasn't appeared in any of the articles I've read about this:

All crewmembers who were interviewed and/or provided written statements were given the opportunity for adequate crew rest. However given the early alert time on the day of the mishap (0100L) no crewmember from whom data was obtained slept longer than four and one half hours...

(empahsis added)

Well Duh! Four and hours was the most sleep anyone had prior to a flight with a 0100L showtime! No wonder they were not on their A-game!!

The report begs the question of how it came to be that these guys flew on so little sleep? It sure sounds like management may have been a real contributing factor.

Maybe five milligrams of Ambien would have saved this airplane.