Public release on Dover C-5 crash

[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.

 

[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.