From: swartzst@pilot.msu.edu (Stephen Swartz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Karen Hultgreen's Mishap Report
Date: 10 May 1996 15:24:55 GMT

In article <4mtgb0$m3g@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan) says:

>MThom51001 (mthom51001@aol.com) wrote:
>: The report is available under the freedom of information act. 
>
>Nope.  Safety investigation reports are NOT made public, and the Supreme
>Court has upheld the "safety privelege" from almost every type of
>compulsion to disclose (FOIA, subpoena, etc.).  The interest in preventing
>accidents outweighs almost every other interest (including the public's
>"right to know").  The immunity from any adverse action and promise of
>confidentiality given to those who speak to safety investigators allows
>for full, honest disclosure of the facts, which in turn allow safety
>investigators to find the true cause of the accident and thus prevent
>reoccurrences. Public disclosure my someone with access to the report
>defeats the purpose of a safety investigation by hampering future
>investigations.  If people have reason to fear their confidential
>statements will "come back to haunt them" then they won't tell the whole 
>story to accident investigators when the time comes.  
>
>Publishing confidential safety reports, in the long run, endangers the lives 
>of aviators but undermining the safety process.
>
>Steve Ryan



Steve:

  This may be just a technicality (not to the participants, certainly!)
but your perception of the legal status and handling of MIPs/Accident
Investigation Reports has changed over the years.  When I had my formal
schooling in AI, what you said above was taught and at that time
absolutely correct and for all the reasons you mentioned.

  Alas, times change.  The DoD/NTSB now have the option to "modify" the
treatment of investigations.  Currently, the "old rules" may be waived
whenever "higher public needs" (political) need to be served.

Hultgreen's MIP was one.  Note the USAF/"Ron Brown" crash investigation
is another.  The "Ron Brown Crash" investigation is being conducted in
a semi-public mode; the popular press has faithfully reported that the
accident investigation team has declared such to be the case.

  Good, bad, indifferent; who knows?  Just don't assume up front that
confidentiality is assured.  That ain't so anymore; since 1993 or so.

  Step 1:  fly the airplane
  Step 2:  limit the damage/help the injured
  Step 3:  secure mission essential equipment
  Step 4:  hire F. Lee Bailey
  Step 5:  claim Miranda and wait for the lawsuits

Ciao,
Steve

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Karen Hultgreen's Mishap Report
Date: 10 May 1996 19:12:20 GMT

Stephen Swartz (swartzst@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

:   This may be just a technicality (not to the participants, certainly!)
: but your perception of the legal status and handling of MIPs/Accident
: Investigation Reports has changed over the years.  When I had my formal
: schooling in AI, what tyou said above was taught and at that time
: absolutely correct and for all the reasons you mentioned.

***

Actually, the Ron Brown/CT-43 crash is a different _type_ of 
investigation.  The SAFETY investigation was waived (which is allowed 
under the regulations for cases where criminal conduct is suspected or 
where there is not much likelihood of getting anything useful from the 
safety privilege (as when everyone is dead). 

There are always 2 investigations (except when the safety inv. is 
waived)--one safety, one for public consumption.  The public one is 
conducted after the safety investigation is completed, and testimony from 
the safety investigation is excluded from the public investigation.  The 
results of this investigation are releasable under FOIA.

The Blackhawk shootdown was of the second variety--the safety 
investigation was started, then halted when it was decided that criminal 
charges would be brought, so the public investigation took over and the 
safety investigation was never completed.

The only significant change (at least in the Air Force) is that cockpit 
recordings are now available for the public investigation.  Until the 
C-21 crash last year (that killed Maj. Gen Profitt) the CVR was 
considered "privileged statements to safety investigators."  This was 
changed, so the cause of that crash, and the later AWACS crash could be 
determined accurately by the public investigation.  

My previous post is still accurate.  Hultgreen's mishap report seems to 
be a leaked safety investigation, not a public investigation.

Steve Ryan