C-17 Crash in Alaska

[Gatordev]

Because the Air Force actually wants their pilots to hear about and learn from their mishaps. That way (ideally) they won't happen again.

The Navy/Marine Corps has adopted a form of "Top Secret/Cone of Silence" mentality to anything and everything related to all of our mishaps.

You'll also notice that the Air Force writes their reports in plain English as opposed to the idiotic all-caps/coded message style format that we use (as if it were translated from Morse code on some 1940's communication center).

We had a thread about this before. Bottom line (IMHO), the Safety Center cares more about privacy and secrecy than they do about getting the word out on the causes of mishaps. That leads to rampant rumors (which the ASO brownshirts try valiantly to stamp out) and a lot of folks wondering what, if anything, is wrong with their aircraft or procedures that might someday kill them.

The Air Force knows those answers and makes sure that they get the word out. Look at their mishap rate and tell me how bad it's screwing them.

I'm not sure this is a (Air Force version) SIR. This may be their JAGMAN. The Air Force is actually even more anal about privilege than the Navy, at least during the investigation process.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I'm not sure this is a (Air Force version) SIR. This may be their JAGMAN. The Air Force is actually even more anal about privilege than the Navy, at least during the investigation process.

Could be. I have, however, read several of their mishap reports and they are 10x better than ours. No secret decoder ring required.

The fact that this executive summary is even available speaks volumes to what I was saying.

Maybe they are more anal during the investigation. Maybe (probably) that's a good thing. I don't know.

What I DO know is that our mishap reports suck and we do not disseminate them adequately.

I'd rather get force fed mishap reports in a comprehensible format than receive the same "security notification/MCLL/ground safety/DUI" emails over and over again.

My personal favorite was when I got the email about the DoD ban on chain emails. Seven times.

 

[nittany03]

I'm not sure this is a (Air Force version) SIR. This may be their JAGMAN. The Air Force is actually even more anal about privilege than the Navy, at least during the investigation process.

I was under the impression that JAGMANs (or equivalent) are legally admissible in court, which this "executive summary" is specifically stated not to be. The whole deal about encouraging people to speak freely to the Safety Center without fear of prosecution or subpoena via privilege.

That's also why I found it interesting that it was on a public site, disclaimers notwithstanding. Isn't it a truism in law that you can order something stricken from the record but not from a juror's mind?

 

[BigIron]

I think the Navy is so protective of its privilege during safety investigations because of the illegal release of the LT Hultgreen SIR (parts A and B) to the press.

There is no central repository for SIR perusal that I know of. The Naval Safety Center has them and I believe you have to request information from your T/M/S NSC Safety Analyst.

I think the AF publishes their executive summaries publicly with the italicized caveat: Under 10 U.S.C. 2254(d0, any opinion of the accident investigators as to the cause of, or the factors contributing to, the accident set forth in the accident investigation report, if any, may not be considered as evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding arising from the accident, nor may such information be considered an admission of liability of the United States or by any person referred to in those conclusions or statements.

 

[phrogpilot73]

The Naval Safety Center has them and I believe you have to request information from your T/M/S NSC Safety Analyst.

Not entirely true... You don't have to go through your T/M/S NSC Safety Analyst, and you can get ANY SIR that you want (caveat this with the fact that I was a squadron ASO calling). You can even say "Hey, I want to brief this part of CRM - you have a good SIR that addresses it?" The Naval Safety Center is full of good peeps.

 

[Pags]

Not entirely true... You don't have to go through your T/M/S NSC Safety Analyst, and you can get ANY SIR that you want (caveat this with the fact that I was a squadron ASO calling). You can even say "Hey, I want to brief this part of CRM - you have a good SIR that addresses it?" The Naval Safety Center is full of good peeps.

I've never had any issues in getting an SIR when I needed it, but I think there's something to be said for some sort of CAC protected website that would enable an ASO and other interested and qualified parties to log on and search for HAZREPs and SIRs by TMS, subject, or maybe even causal factor. I don't know if this is the direction they want to take WAMHRS in, but under the old WESS finding something as benign as a HAZREP was impossible. Not only did you have to know who reported it, but you had to know their UIC. Their was no by TMS or subject search. Such a thing might have led to learning some good cross community lessons.

 

[HackerF15E]

I think you guys are confusing the fact that the USAF has two different investigations that take place after a mishap;

- a Safety Investigation (SIB), which is not publicly-releasable, doesn't censor any of the facts, and cannot be used as evidence in prosecution of anyone, and
- an Accident Investigation (SIB), which is released to the public, has some facts censored, and may be used in prosecution of any of the players involved

What you guys are seeing that has been released in the last few days is the AIB. This is the version that is releasable to the public.

The SIB has been out for the community all ready for several weeks, and includes different (and privileged) information.

 

[Gatordev]

Could be. I have, however, read several of their mishap reports and they are 10x better than ours. No secret decoder ring required.

The fact that this executive summary is even available speaks volumes to what I was saying.

Maybe they are more anal during the investigation. Maybe (probably) that's a good thing. I don't know.

What I DO know is that our mishap reports suck and we do not disseminate them adequately.

And the intent of my post was not to argue any of the above.

I'd rather get force fed mishap reports in a comprehensible format than receive the same "security notification/MCLL/ground safety/DUI" emails over and over again.

My personal favorite was when I got the email about the DoD ban on chain emails. Seven times.

Look, just because YOU have failed as a leader by not resending emails out which were OBVIOUSLY important (like the menu at the galley) doesn't mean you have to cop an attitude with me and my "Forward" button. Maybe some day you can learn the advanced skill of forwarding an attachment (which may or may not be very important) but only put "Please read." in the text of the body. I can only hope to master this advanced leadership technique, but I may require some advanced PME to do so.

I think you guys are confusing the fact that the USAF has two different investigations that take place after a mishap;

- a Safety Investigation (SIB), which is not publicly-releasable, doesn't censor any of the facts, and cannot be used as evidence in prosecution of anyone, and
- an Accident Investigation (SIB), which is released to the public, has some facts censored, and may be used in prosecution of any of the players involved

What you guys are seeing that has been released in the last few days is the AIB. This is the version that is releasable to the public.

The SIB has been out for the community all ready for several weeks, and includes different (and privileged) information.

Well, there you go. More "facts" from the horses mouth. That actually explains a lot and further validates HD's point.