-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
JAG/Mishap investigations
- Thread starter exhelodrvr
- Start date
The senior member does for less than an A.
Ok … first I know I might upset some people here by questioning gospel, but I think this will be an interesting and informative discussion for everybody. Before people get too upset, I spent a good amount of time reading through OPNAVISNT 5102.D and DODI 6055.07 for background information. I am not 100% sure what the answer is, but I want to bring up the discussion.
Does having privileged information in safety reports really increase fleet safety, or would a more open report be better?
There are only two reasons for privilege listed in 5102.D. First that it encourages investigators and endorsers “to provide complete, open, and forthright information, opinions, causes, and recommendations about a mishap.” The second reason listed is so that individuals will be willing to fully cooperate with the investigation without fear of reprisal.
I don’t believe that the investigation board or endorsers would change their causal factors if the report were to be public and available for use in administrative matters. Everybody in the chain of command and community sees the SIR, so any pressure to appease the politics within your community remains. I can’t believe that facts found, casual factors, and recommendations would be different would differ if they were could be used for administrative proceedings.
I feel that the second reason was the genesis for having a privileged safety report, but I am not sure how relevant it is now. In the past, there was less information available to investigators outside of individual statements. Now with data recorders in more and more aircraft, and better reconstructive techniques boards need not solely rely on an individual’s statements. Also, if you are involved in mishap that leads to a FNAEB and think that the old man at the other end of the green table doesn’t have the SIR in the back of his mind and only knows the JAGMAN, you are kidding yourself.
So if the gains made by keeping the reports privileged are only marginal, are there greater safety gains to be made my making the reports public? While military flying and civilian flying are different in many aspects, safety lessons that could be applied from a military mishap could prevent civilian accidents. Also because of the privileged nature of safety reports, there is very little sharing of information between services. Every service has H-60s, but I have never seen anything from any of the other safety centers. I am sure that there are valuable lessons that each service has had to learn individually that should have been shared.
The point of the safety report is to improve safety. I am not sure that hiding information behind the screen of privilege contributes. The NTSB only function is safety and it effectively produces reports that are available to the public. What is the unique nature of military safety investigations that requires us to keep them secret? Is there a better way to address this concern? After 25 years, a safety report is no longer privileged. Why after 25 years is it ok to release the info? Should it be a shorter period?
I hope we can have a reasonable discussion about the role of privileged information, but I am not asking for any speculation about current or past events. I have never had any personal involvement in a AMB so maybe there is something I am missing.
ghost
Does having privileged information in safety reports really increase fleet safety, or would a more open report be better?
There are only two reasons for privilege listed in 5102.D. First that it encourages investigators and endorsers “to provide complete, open, and forthright information, opinions, causes, and recommendations about a mishap.” The second reason listed is so that individuals will be willing to fully cooperate with the investigation without fear of reprisal.
I don’t believe that the investigation board or endorsers would change their causal factors if the report were to be public and available for use in administrative matters. Everybody in the chain of command and community sees the SIR, so any pressure to appease the politics within your community remains. I can’t believe that facts found, casual factors, and recommendations would be different would differ if they were could be used for administrative proceedings.
I feel that the second reason was the genesis for having a privileged safety report, but I am not sure how relevant it is now. In the past, there was less information available to investigators outside of individual statements. Now with data recorders in more and more aircraft, and better reconstructive techniques boards need not solely rely on an individual’s statements. Also, if you are involved in mishap that leads to a FNAEB and think that the old man at the other end of the green table doesn’t have the SIR in the back of his mind and only knows the JAGMAN, you are kidding yourself.
So if the gains made by keeping the reports privileged are only marginal, are there greater safety gains to be made my making the reports public? While military flying and civilian flying are different in many aspects, safety lessons that could be applied from a military mishap could prevent civilian accidents. Also because of the privileged nature of safety reports, there is very little sharing of information between services. Every service has H-60s, but I have never seen anything from any of the other safety centers. I am sure that there are valuable lessons that each service has had to learn individually that should have been shared.
The point of the safety report is to improve safety. I am not sure that hiding information behind the screen of privilege contributes. The NTSB only function is safety and it effectively produces reports that are available to the public. What is the unique nature of military safety investigations that requires us to keep them secret? Is there a better way to address this concern? After 25 years, a safety report is no longer privileged. Why after 25 years is it ok to release the info? Should it be a shorter period?
I hope we can have a reasonable discussion about the role of privileged information, but I am not asking for any speculation about current or past events. I have never had any personal involvement in a AMB so maybe there is something I am missing.
ghost
^ I think the problem is that people will be less likely to give opinions that are only marginally backed up by the findings (but still worth considering) if those are going to be made public.
And like it or not, in today's society the potential for lawsuits needs to be taken into consideration.
As far as flight recorders, they don't have those in military aircraft yet, do they?
And like it or not, in today's society the potential for lawsuits needs to be taken into consideration.
As far as flight recorders, they don't have those in military aircraft yet, do they?
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I believe the V-22 has one, and I know that the 53K is going to have one. Based on the fact that we're the red-headed stepchildren, I would assume that the jet guys have them...
Now you know why airline pilots don't want cameras in the cockpit recording every move they make ....
Mishap Investigation Database
So after all of these reports have been finalized, are they available online for public view? Sort of like a "center for lessons learned" kind of thing? I don't really want to have to request information through the FOIA, so how do we look up old investigation data?
The ntsb.gov site doesn't seem to include military mishaps, especially ones outside of CONUS.
So after all of these reports have been finalized, are they available online for public view? Sort of like a "center for lessons learned" kind of thing? I don't really want to have to request information through the FOIA, so how do we look up old investigation data?
The ntsb.gov site doesn't seem to include military mishaps, especially ones outside of CONUS.
They're available to aviation commands, but in a very limited capacity. A formal request (usually an email) to the records people has to be made, usually be the Safety Officer of the command. The mishap investigation is privileged, and therefore not fit for public consumption. The JAGMAN is available, I believe under FOIA, but I'm not sure how you go about getting that.
Supposedly, the mishap investigations will become available on the new and improved WESS (or whatever it's going to be called) website, but I have yet to see that come to fruition.
Having sat on a couple of AMB's, including a Class A with all 4 crew lost, the 'privlidge' statements allow the personnel called before the board to speculate.
When it's a Class A and everyone in the crew dies, this speculation allows the board something to consider when everyone involved in the mishap aircraft has died. The privlidge also includes non-attribution along with it. Without this, the witnesses would be less likely to speak freely due to represussions regarding thier thoughts on what may have caused the mishap.
There was an helo squadron that had some serious command climate issues about a decade ago. The squadron had a Class A with fatalities The statements of all concerned resulted in the CO being relieved.
Back at HS-10 we used to get 'Flight Facts' which was the Army's version of Approach. My opinion is that other services don't treat mishap data in the same light, so other services may be reluctant to 'fess up about stuff publically.
When it's a Class A and everyone in the crew dies, this speculation allows the board something to consider when everyone involved in the mishap aircraft has died. The privlidge also includes non-attribution along with it. Without this, the witnesses would be less likely to speak freely due to represussions regarding thier thoughts on what may have caused the mishap.
There was an helo squadron that had some serious command climate issues about a decade ago. The squadron had a Class A with fatalities The statements of all concerned resulted in the CO being relieved.
Back at HS-10 we used to get 'Flight Facts' which was the Army's version of Approach. My opinion is that other services don't treat mishap data in the same light, so other services may be reluctant to 'fess up about stuff publically.
Which kind of negates the non-retribution. I guess if the CO dimed himself out, then he wouldn't get fired. Yes, I'm joking. I'm curious, do you know if the CO was fired because of the mishap investigation or the JAGMAN? Seems like a sticky situation for the higher ups to fire someone due to privileged info, but at the same time, it certainly can make a positive impact on safety.
According to the Safety Nerds at SAS, the Air Force is the one service that takes it even more serious than the Navy/MC. They (SAS) are also of the opinion that privilege will eventually go away at some point, despite all the court cases that have managed to uphold it.
I think you hit it on the head with the "greater good" of safety. If all the statements held the same theme of a poor command climate that would have made it into the report without singling out a certain statement. From there the higher ups claiming a "loss of faith/confidence in command abilities" seems a pretty easy and the prudent thing to do.
I don't think you can legally fire someone from a safety investigation due to the privileged/non-attribution status of what you say to the AMB. Someone can be fired from a JAGMAN though and it seems that the JAGMAN and the AMB often come to very similar conclusions. If the CO is a dick, chances are people are going to say the same thing to the JAGMAN and the AMB, an airing of the grievances of a sort. Having a senior aviator come in and be willing to listen to what people have to say might be very cathartic to a wardroom (if you've ever been part of a climate survey, you'll know what I'm talking about).
Indeed.
Since the JAGMAN did not go into the Human Factors that were involved, the CO was relieved due to the findings of the AMB. NOTE: The AMB did NOT recommend the CO be relieved, he was relieved for the mishap and the issues that were uncovered during the AMB.
The senior member of the board, an XO from sister squadron on the seawall, was out on the ship for a week doing the AMB. As soon as he got back, he made a bee-line for the Commodore's Office. The SIR was published in a couple of weeks but the CO was already sacked by then.
The Commodore had the senior member debrief the findings, specifically the human factors involved, to every squadron on the seawall.
The non-retribution means you can be punished for bringing things up to the board. When the findings are released, the names are not included with the statements that go out on the official report.
However, if you're AFU, then you can be taken down by the AMB.
No. The portions containing priviledged info are only released to you if you have a need-to-know. They shouldn't even be posted on Squadron Message Boards unless they are tightly controlled. Priviledged info is immune from a FOIA request. If you have a valid request, you send it to the Safety Center for ajudication.
NTSB hand;es "National Transportation". Each service handles it own mishaps although the highly trained Mishap Investigations (MI) sometimes assist each other. With fewer mishaps these days, the MIs need exposure and certainly have the time.