Military crashes
- Thread starter BCTAv8r
- Start date
Nope. Military accidents are not public-use information since they contain identifying data and also are supposed to be for safety use only, not to be disclosed for punishment purposes. NTSB database does contain information on accidents that are joint military/civil since they would be part of a joint investigation in that case.
PorcoRosso
Well-Known Member
There was a report about the increase in Marine Non Combat accidents for the FY 2004. Something like 10 crashes and 12 deaths in Miramar.
ROFCIBC
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Roger. Are military accidents published anywhere like the NTSB accidents are?
[/ QUOTE ]
A little follow on to what MikeD said.
First off there's the "turf" thing. NTSB falls under the DOT whle the military accident investigation falls under DOD. Two different cabinet level organizations. Each has a "turf" and they defend it! Not that this is necessarily bad as they have two different "missions" just a government fact of life.
Secondly, is what I will call the “philosophical” approach to accidents, specifically aircraft.
A short digression. I spent 28 years in the Air Force a mix of active duty (12yrs) and reserves (16yrs). During the first 9 of my reserve time I was a full time reservist. I started flying for Delta Air Lines in 1987 and continued to fly as a reservist until I retired in 1994. I continued to fly for Delta until I retired (again) in 2003. So I have a mixed background in both military and airline flying.
Back to the “philosophy” thing, and as a disclaimer this is my opinion based on my personal observations.
In the military side an accident investigation has one, and only one purpose. Find the cause to prevent future accidents. Period. The operative word is “cause”. Wherever, whoever…find the cause. Note the absence of “blame” or “fault” or “negligence”. This philosophy IMHO is the way accident investigations should happen. A full and open disclosure by all parties. Disclosure that doesn’t carry the possibility of future use in a “blame”, or “fault” proceeding, one that may involve liabilities, criminal or other wise. In short free expression absent attribution.
On the civilian or NTSB side, it seems to be different. That is, after finding the cause of an accident in order to prevent future accidents, that same information, including testimony becomes public. This is often followed by the lawsuit, the prosecution, the legal system assigning blame or fault then taking sanctions based on those findings. IOW testimony at an NTSB hearing that go to the cause of an accident may end up being used as evidence in a legal proceeding that has nothing to do with prevention of future accidents, but with assignment of blame and the associated compensation, or awarding of monetary damages.
Now this is not to say that in the military investigating system individuals cannot be held responsible, for lack of a better word, “irresponsibility”. Or outright negligence, or even criminal acts that may play a role in an accident. They can, and have been. However that is a distinctly separate proceeding, and one that includes all the protections of any legal proceeding, such as self incrimination. If my memory hasn’t failed me and perhaps MikeD can help me if it has, that proceeding is called a “collateral board”. However this board or proceeding must develop it’s own “evidence” without using what the accident investigation board used. Out of this may actually come prosecutions under the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, the military legal system.
In the military system any individual “blame” or even criminal prosecution involving an aircraft accident must be a separate investigation, one that has all the legal protections for those involved. While the accident investigation board is concerned only with finding the cause in order to prevent future accidents.
See the difference developing?
In the military side these are in fact two parallel, separate, and distinctly different systems. Each with it’s own “agenda” or mission.
In the civilian side these two parallel systems are in fact one. What is presented in an NTSB hearing is open, on the record, and available for use in subsequent legal proceedings. And in fact one can see that in action by merely looking at aviation related lawsuits over liability in aircraft accidents.
AS I said, this is my take on the two systems as I observed them during my “dual” career in both the military and civilian sides of the house. IMHO, and this is my, and mine alone personal opinion, the military side is the best one of the two. Again, this is MY personal opinion having seen both systems.
Roger. Are military accidents published anywhere like the NTSB accidents are?
[/ QUOTE ]
A little follow on to what MikeD said.
First off there's the "turf" thing. NTSB falls under the DOT whle the military accident investigation falls under DOD. Two different cabinet level organizations. Each has a "turf" and they defend it! Not that this is necessarily bad as they have two different "missions" just a government fact of life.
Secondly, is what I will call the “philosophical” approach to accidents, specifically aircraft.
A short digression. I spent 28 years in the Air Force a mix of active duty (12yrs) and reserves (16yrs). During the first 9 of my reserve time I was a full time reservist. I started flying for Delta Air Lines in 1987 and continued to fly as a reservist until I retired in 1994. I continued to fly for Delta until I retired (again) in 2003. So I have a mixed background in both military and airline flying.
Back to the “philosophy” thing, and as a disclaimer this is my opinion based on my personal observations.
In the military side an accident investigation has one, and only one purpose. Find the cause to prevent future accidents. Period. The operative word is “cause”. Wherever, whoever…find the cause. Note the absence of “blame” or “fault” or “negligence”. This philosophy IMHO is the way accident investigations should happen. A full and open disclosure by all parties. Disclosure that doesn’t carry the possibility of future use in a “blame”, or “fault” proceeding, one that may involve liabilities, criminal or other wise. In short free expression absent attribution.
On the civilian or NTSB side, it seems to be different. That is, after finding the cause of an accident in order to prevent future accidents, that same information, including testimony becomes public. This is often followed by the lawsuit, the prosecution, the legal system assigning blame or fault then taking sanctions based on those findings. IOW testimony at an NTSB hearing that go to the cause of an accident may end up being used as evidence in a legal proceeding that has nothing to do with prevention of future accidents, but with assignment of blame and the associated compensation, or awarding of monetary damages.
Now this is not to say that in the military investigating system individuals cannot be held responsible, for lack of a better word, “irresponsibility”. Or outright negligence, or even criminal acts that may play a role in an accident. They can, and have been. However that is a distinctly separate proceeding, and one that includes all the protections of any legal proceeding, such as self incrimination. If my memory hasn’t failed me and perhaps MikeD can help me if it has, that proceeding is called a “collateral board”. However this board or proceeding must develop it’s own “evidence” without using what the accident investigation board used. Out of this may actually come prosecutions under the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, the military legal system.
In the military system any individual “blame” or even criminal prosecution involving an aircraft accident must be a separate investigation, one that has all the legal protections for those involved. While the accident investigation board is concerned only with finding the cause in order to prevent future accidents.
See the difference developing?
In the military side these are in fact two parallel, separate, and distinctly different systems. Each with it’s own “agenda” or mission.
In the civilian side these two parallel systems are in fact one. What is presented in an NTSB hearing is open, on the record, and available for use in subsequent legal proceedings. And in fact one can see that in action by merely looking at aviation related lawsuits over liability in aircraft accidents.
AS I said, this is my take on the two systems as I observed them during my “dual” career in both the military and civilian sides of the house. IMHO, and this is my, and mine alone personal opinion, the military side is the best one of the two. Again, this is MY personal opinion having seen both systems.
[ QUOTE ]
In the military side these are in fact two parallel, separate, and distinctly different systems. Each with it’s own “agenda” or mission.
[/ QUOTE ]
ROFCIBC,
You're fully correct, sir. The same system you described in very good detail is the same system that exists to this day: safety board and collateral board....one to prevent accidents, the other to hang someone.
In the military side these are in fact two parallel, separate, and distinctly different systems. Each with it’s own “agenda” or mission.
[/ QUOTE ]
ROFCIBC,
You're fully correct, sir. The same system you described in very good detail is the same system that exists to this day: safety board and collateral board....one to prevent accidents, the other to hang someone.
Looking4Lower
New Member
Nicely said, ROFCIBC. I used to work at a private consulting company that did accident investigation and research, usually involving litigation. It was absolutely fascinating to see how the system works, or doesn't work depending on how you look at it.
In my opinion, the NTSB seems to do their job well: perform the most factual and fair investigation possible and not assign blame for punitive purposes. If you ever get a chance to see an actual NTSB report (not the brief narratives you see on the internet, I'm talking about the real-deal factual reports that are packed with information to say the least) you would have a better idea of what goes on here.
* A brief aside here, you can argue that there is some bias in the civilain accident-investigation system because many times the NTSB calls in experts from the aircraft/component manufacturers to assist with the accident analysis, but I digress... *
But beyond the NTSB analysis, lawyers can use the NTSB's factual information to build a case for litigation. This is outside the scope of the "official" investigation.
With a large volume of factual accident data (NTSB reports, police reports, FAA airman records and aircraft records, aircraft logs, witness statements, ATC radar data, etc. etc) a lawyer can build case for various potential causes of an accident depening on what tidbits of info can be culled from the reports (regardless of what the NTSB concludes). Another lawyer can refute that case using other bits of info from the same reports.
In my opinion, the NTSB seems to do their job well: perform the most factual and fair investigation possible and not assign blame for punitive purposes. If you ever get a chance to see an actual NTSB report (not the brief narratives you see on the internet, I'm talking about the real-deal factual reports that are packed with information to say the least) you would have a better idea of what goes on here.
* A brief aside here, you can argue that there is some bias in the civilain accident-investigation system because many times the NTSB calls in experts from the aircraft/component manufacturers to assist with the accident analysis, but I digress... *
But beyond the NTSB analysis, lawyers can use the NTSB's factual information to build a case for litigation. This is outside the scope of the "official" investigation.
With a large volume of factual accident data (NTSB reports, police reports, FAA airman records and aircraft records, aircraft logs, witness statements, ATC radar data, etc. etc) a lawyer can build case for various potential causes of an accident depening on what tidbits of info can be culled from the reports (regardless of what the NTSB concludes). Another lawyer can refute that case using other bits of info from the same reports.
[ QUOTE ]
*
But beyond the NTSB analysis, lawyers can use the NTSB's factual information to build a case for litigation. This is outside the scope of the "official" investigation.
With a large volume of factual accident data (NTSB reports, police reports, FAA airman records and aircraft records, aircraft logs, witness statements, ATC radar data, etc. etc) a lawyer can build case for various potential causes of an accident depening on what tidbits of info can be culled from the reports (regardless of what the NTSB concludes). Another lawyer can refute that case using other bits of info from the same reports.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree. I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons the military keeps their accident findings as privliged information for official use only. You will find out info on the safety side, but items such as names or other identifying info is kept pretty tight, even though you'll many times see that info in the news.
*
But beyond the NTSB analysis, lawyers can use the NTSB's factual information to build a case for litigation. This is outside the scope of the "official" investigation.
With a large volume of factual accident data (NTSB reports, police reports, FAA airman records and aircraft records, aircraft logs, witness statements, ATC radar data, etc. etc) a lawyer can build case for various potential causes of an accident depening on what tidbits of info can be culled from the reports (regardless of what the NTSB concludes). Another lawyer can refute that case using other bits of info from the same reports.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree. I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons the military keeps their accident findings as privliged information for official use only. You will find out info on the safety side, but items such as names or other identifying info is kept pretty tight, even though you'll many times see that info in the news.
ROFCIBC
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the NTSB seems to do their job well: perform the most factual and fair investigation possible and not assign blame for punitive purposes. If you ever get a chance to see an actual NTSB report (not the brief narratives you see on the internet, I'm talking about the real-deal factual reports that are packed with information to say the least) you would have a better idea of what goes on here.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree and have seen several of the full reports in addition to attending a few hearings. I got interested when the Delta 727 crashed on takeoff at DFW back in August, maybe September 1988. I knew the flight engineer and took an interest in the entire proceedings because of that. The NTSB does a pretty good job. They are hampered from time to time, the most notable TWA 800 when the FBI got into the accident investigation business. Despite that distraction they did a thorough job, all the conspiracy nuts notwithstanding!
A pilot training (Oct 1966) classmate of mine was an NTSB investigator and we talked on several occasions about some of the outside influenced they had to deal with.
I similarly got involved in an Air Force investigation when a KC10 blew up on the ramp back in 1985ish. A real tragedy as a young airman maintenance type was killed.
Each one has a group of dedicate people all wanting to accomplish the same thing, prevent future accidents. I just like the way the military keeps things more closely held when it comes to public release of information. Sometimes they are criticized for this, but the free and open disclosure depends on it. That too me is worth the flak the get from time to time.
I'll be interested in seeing what the NTSB comes up with on the Hendrick Motorsports crash last October near Martinsville. I'm a Jeff Gordon fan and a Delta pilot's husband is his pilot. Kind of personalizes it.
In my opinion, the NTSB seems to do their job well: perform the most factual and fair investigation possible and not assign blame for punitive purposes. If you ever get a chance to see an actual NTSB report (not the brief narratives you see on the internet, I'm talking about the real-deal factual reports that are packed with information to say the least) you would have a better idea of what goes on here.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree and have seen several of the full reports in addition to attending a few hearings. I got interested when the Delta 727 crashed on takeoff at DFW back in August, maybe September 1988. I knew the flight engineer and took an interest in the entire proceedings because of that. The NTSB does a pretty good job. They are hampered from time to time, the most notable TWA 800 when the FBI got into the accident investigation business. Despite that distraction they did a thorough job, all the conspiracy nuts notwithstanding!
A pilot training (Oct 1966) classmate of mine was an NTSB investigator and we talked on several occasions about some of the outside influenced they had to deal with.
I similarly got involved in an Air Force investigation when a KC10 blew up on the ramp back in 1985ish. A real tragedy as a young airman maintenance type was killed.
Each one has a group of dedicate people all wanting to accomplish the same thing, prevent future accidents. I just like the way the military keeps things more closely held when it comes to public release of information. Sometimes they are criticized for this, but the free and open disclosure depends on it. That too me is worth the flak the get from time to time.
I'll be interested in seeing what the NTSB comes up with on the Hendrick Motorsports crash last October near Martinsville. I'm a Jeff Gordon fan and a Delta pilot's husband is his pilot. Kind of personalizes it.