To me that is part of the problem. Unless someone regularly watches the news for crashes, or browses Airwarriors for them you may never know a crash happened or that you have something to learn from it.
As someone who manned, in the NAVSAFCEN on a 24hr watch (all e-7s to o-4s had this at least once a month) for ALL mishap phones (Sub, Surface, NSW, Air), we knew within the first 4 hrs. Have you ever read the pre-mishap plan? Do you all have one? I have no idea who you think may have actually RUN the mishap from start (IN) to finish (Final Notification), but that was us. So I knew about ANY mishap, within 4 hrs of occuring. Oh and that's Class A and some Class B.
Then if I want to "search the database" I have to send an email in where I hope the person on the other end gets what I am trying to search for.
Have you ever tried it? I usually got back to any and all of my requests within about 72hrs. And it was the full SIR, up to and including 1951 to present. Your HSM contact sat next to me, and I'm pretty sure that he was just as/more talented than me.
Why cant there be a website where I can put in search terms, or filters like specific causal factors, airframe, date range, etc.? Why not have access open to all pilots so you can read them in your spare time outside of a command directed standdown/training. Seems to me reading through old mishaps is a great study tool for up and coming pilots.
They have been working on the right way to do this for years. I don't know what the delay is, but I know that there's a damn good reason why it's not up yet. Again, I understand your frustration, but instead of just giving up, try contacting your analyst. PM me for his name.
Not arguing against the "certified" crash investigators as I have had great interactions with them. I am arguing against the normal make-up of the pilots that are allowed on a FNAEB.
SIR <> FNAEB <> JAGMAN. Latter is non-punitive and privileged information found or deduced therein cannot be used on the middle, or former, which are BOTH punitive. ALL THREE are different processes. Check out OPNAV 3750, which is the Naval Safety Program
I also beg to differ on the causal factors being scrutinized extensively. The recent trends I have seen point to a witch hunt mentality where a CO (or whoever is directing the board) gets to select who he wants on the board and they come to the conclusions they want to whether right or wrong. And I also know of specific instances where a board specifically ignored the facts and other statements in a case, made up their own "facts" just so they could then make up their own conclusions.
Yep, you don't know what you're talking about or confusing the issues. The FINAL Notification is actually not complete until NAVSAFCEN Actual (right now an O-7, formerly an O-8 and CNO's Safety Officer) has his cut. The CO can say what he wants, but EVERYONE in the chain all the way up gets their own "Concur/Do Not Concur" and comments. I have personally sat through 7-8 Class As in my year at SAFECEN, and our recommendations/factors often differed from CDREs and COs. Check out a FINAL NOTIFICATION and you'll hopefully see what I mean. Oh and any Class A MUST be chaired by an equivalent rank (or higher) from outside your command...pretty hard to force a direction on an SIR. Again, your frustration is certainly misplaced at best, IMHO.
