Regarding Doug's new sticky on RV accident probable causes:
http://www.vansairforce.net/AccidentsAndSynopsis.htm
I have to give DR a big atta-boy for creating this sticky. I believe Doug is putting real sweat into giving us what many want and all need: A safe place to discuss aircraft accident lessons learned. It’s a SAFE place because it helps us deal with FACTS without speculation. Forgive the long discussion, what follows is my reason for firmly supporting Doug’s Posting Rule #2:
Firstly, I do believe discussions on aviation mishaps have a time and place here in the VAF. Key phrase: Time and place. Consider my background: I am the former Director of Safety for USAF’s Air Combat Command, and the previous Chief of Aviation Safety for the Air Force. I was responsible for executing Safety Investigation Boards for every Air Combat Command mishap. The F-16 that overran the runway at Oshkosh? My staff executed that safety board for my 4-star general boss, who was the convening authority.
Of all the lessons I have learned in my career, and particularly as a flight safety officer, this is the single most important: You NEVER know what you don't know. Without the benefit of all the evidence, no amount of speculation is EVER accurate. Speculation (particularly on open media) taints investigation boards, inaccurately sways public opinion, feeds media sharks, and ultimately threatens GREAT harm fon an otherwise innocent pilot and his/her family. I spent a tremendous amount of effort keeping interested parties (including big scary generals and congressmen) OUT of my safety boards’ proceedings.
I had one advantage: Military safety boards are conducted under what’s called Safety Privilege. That’s an extension of presidential privilege granted by the Supreme Court to the Department of Defense for safety investigations…that’s SAFETY investigations, not legal investigations. Under Safety Privilege rules, the results cannot be released to the public: Not that it’s classified secret, but it just can’t be released outside the DoD and the actual parties involved in the type of aircraft or command. Why? Two words: Mishap Prevention. Safety Investigation results can only be used for mishap prevention. Not for punitive or litigation purposes, not for the media, but ONLY for mishap prevention. Knowing these protections are in place helps witnesses (including the pilot) to more eagerly assist the investigation…they will not get hammered for mistakes admitted to this investigation board.
So when the media reports that the Air Force has announced the results of their accident board, they are actually releasing the results of a SECOND independent investigation conducted by the Judge Advocate (JA). Yep, that’s the one that involves lawyers, and is used for media, punitive, and litigation purposes. The witnesses are read their rights. The JA’s board doesn’t exist for mishap prevention (it doesn’t even generate safety recommendations). In fact, the JAG’s accident board exists specifically to protect the Safety Board’s privilege. All military services follow this construct, in accordance with DoD instruction and Supreme Court edict.
So why do I agree with Doug? Because ill- and un-informed conjecture is the same as mis-informed conjecture, and it’s all poisonous. That’s why after four+ years as a member of this VAF forum, you have never seen me write about fresh mishaps. People have this inner need to guess and build opinions, but I don’t pass up a perfectly good opportunities to keep my mouth shut and listen.
I strongly disagree with any sort of discussions about an OPEN mishap investigation. So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, we should definitely discuss it, but I believe pilots should base their comments entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator’s report, because therein lay the facts. I also submit: Rather than casting darts at what the pilot did, didn’t do, or should have done, we serve each other better by addressing how we can avoid the same calamity if we face a similar situation. What if I face that S-VFR weather in my Skyview-equipped -7A and one of my ADAHRS units has crumped? Would I also flip my -7A on that same grass runway if it’s wet?
Here, Doug has created a process to feed the latest info from CLOSED investigations with the investigators’ statements of probable cause. Now we can discuss these and what-if the event until we're blue in the face.
Thank you, DR. You’re really working hard to satisfy the needs and wants of the VAF masses.
Fly safe, and CHECK 6!
http://www.vansairforce.net/AccidentsAndSynopsis.htm
I have to give DR a big atta-boy for creating this sticky. I believe Doug is putting real sweat into giving us what many want and all need: A safe place to discuss aircraft accident lessons learned. It’s a SAFE place because it helps us deal with FACTS without speculation. Forgive the long discussion, what follows is my reason for firmly supporting Doug’s Posting Rule #2:
Firstly, I do believe discussions on aviation mishaps have a time and place here in the VAF. Key phrase: Time and place. Consider my background: I am the former Director of Safety for USAF’s Air Combat Command, and the previous Chief of Aviation Safety for the Air Force. I was responsible for executing Safety Investigation Boards for every Air Combat Command mishap. The F-16 that overran the runway at Oshkosh? My staff executed that safety board for my 4-star general boss, who was the convening authority.
Of all the lessons I have learned in my career, and particularly as a flight safety officer, this is the single most important: You NEVER know what you don't know. Without the benefit of all the evidence, no amount of speculation is EVER accurate. Speculation (particularly on open media) taints investigation boards, inaccurately sways public opinion, feeds media sharks, and ultimately threatens GREAT harm fon an otherwise innocent pilot and his/her family. I spent a tremendous amount of effort keeping interested parties (including big scary generals and congressmen) OUT of my safety boards’ proceedings.
I had one advantage: Military safety boards are conducted under what’s called Safety Privilege. That’s an extension of presidential privilege granted by the Supreme Court to the Department of Defense for safety investigations…that’s SAFETY investigations, not legal investigations. Under Safety Privilege rules, the results cannot be released to the public: Not that it’s classified secret, but it just can’t be released outside the DoD and the actual parties involved in the type of aircraft or command. Why? Two words: Mishap Prevention. Safety Investigation results can only be used for mishap prevention. Not for punitive or litigation purposes, not for the media, but ONLY for mishap prevention. Knowing these protections are in place helps witnesses (including the pilot) to more eagerly assist the investigation…they will not get hammered for mistakes admitted to this investigation board.
So when the media reports that the Air Force has announced the results of their accident board, they are actually releasing the results of a SECOND independent investigation conducted by the Judge Advocate (JA). Yep, that’s the one that involves lawyers, and is used for media, punitive, and litigation purposes. The witnesses are read their rights. The JA’s board doesn’t exist for mishap prevention (it doesn’t even generate safety recommendations). In fact, the JAG’s accident board exists specifically to protect the Safety Board’s privilege. All military services follow this construct, in accordance with DoD instruction and Supreme Court edict.
So why do I agree with Doug? Because ill- and un-informed conjecture is the same as mis-informed conjecture, and it’s all poisonous. That’s why after four+ years as a member of this VAF forum, you have never seen me write about fresh mishaps. People have this inner need to guess and build opinions, but I don’t pass up a perfectly good opportunities to keep my mouth shut and listen.
I strongly disagree with any sort of discussions about an OPEN mishap investigation. So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, we should definitely discuss it, but I believe pilots should base their comments entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator’s report, because therein lay the facts. I also submit: Rather than casting darts at what the pilot did, didn’t do, or should have done, we serve each other better by addressing how we can avoid the same calamity if we face a similar situation. What if I face that S-VFR weather in my Skyview-equipped -7A and one of my ADAHRS units has crumped? Would I also flip my -7A on that same grass runway if it’s wet?
Here, Doug has created a process to feed the latest info from CLOSED investigations with the investigators’ statements of probable cause. Now we can discuss these and what-if the event until we're blue in the face.
Thank you, DR. You’re really working hard to satisfy the needs and wants of the VAF masses.
Fly safe, and CHECK 6!
Last edited by a moderator: