Navy Times article on VAW-120 Mishap

[bunk22]

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/navy_hawkeye_102509w/#

Article claims info comes from the JAG investigation. A mixture of brake failure and pilot error.

 

[lowflier03]

Since when are the results of a Mishap Investigation releasable to the public like that? I always thought that kind of stuff was priviliged. I can think of plenty of mishaps that should not end up in a paper.

 

[Flash]

Since when are the results of a Mishap Investigation releasable to the public like that? I always thought that kind of stuff was priviliged. I can think of plenty of mishaps that should not end up in a paper.

Here is your answer.......

Article claims info comes from the JAG investigation.

Different investigation that has different rules.

 

[Bevo16]

The Freedom Of Information Act can be a real bitch sometimes. Something for you to keep in mind when you are doing official business. Sometimes what you think is private is just a reporter's request from being on a front page.

The Navy Times is one of the worst offenders IMHO with that kind of deal. They want the headlines, and are not concerned about accuracy or telling the full story. They just want a headline so you will pick up their rag.

 

[Boomhower]

I think I know who the pilot was for this, but I don't keep in touch with anyone in the RAG anymore. Is he still around, or did he get the axe?

 

[SteveG75]

Since when are the results of a Mishap Investigation releasable to the public like that? I always thought that kind of stuff was priviliged. I can think of plenty of mishaps that should not end up in a paper.

In fact, not all a Mishap Investigation itself is privileged any more (due to the blow up after Hultgreen's VF-213 mshap).

Anything that is public domain information is releasable (i.e training records, maintenance records, weather information, etc). What is not releasable are the interviews where privilege was granted, the conclusions that the board comes to, etc. There is now a Part A and Part B of the SIR (Safety Investigation Report) and only part B is confidential and privileged.

Now, my info came from ASO school back in 2002 but I don't expect that it has changed. This was a very big topic in class.

Read the 3750.6R, especially sections 606 and 708.
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/in...50/3750_6R_Ch1_Ch2_ACN1_ACN2_Ch3_included.pdf

Here is everything that goes in Part A:

716 c. Submission Criteria for Part A (Nonprivileged) Enclosures. Part A enclosures to the SIR may include, when appropriate or when required below,

(1) A copy of all MDR messages. (This is always enclosure (1).

(2) SIR Enclosure Forms (This is always enclosure (2).

(a) SIR Form 1, General Information Data.
(b) SIR Form 2, Individual Background Data.
(c) SIR Form 3, Medical Information.
(d) SIR Form 4, Aviation Physiology, Egress and Water Survival Training Data.
(e) SIR Form 5, Aviation Life Support Systems Data.
(f) SIR Form 6, Escape, Egress Data.
(g) SIR Form 7, Ejection or Bailout Data.
(h) SIR Form 8, Survival and Rescue Data.
(i) SIR Form 9, Aircrew Data.
(j) SIR Form 10, Aircraft Data.
(k) SIR Form 11, Crash Data.
(l) SIR Form 12, Night Vision Device Data
(m) SIR Form 13, Meteorological Data.​

(3) Copies of NATOPS Qualification Jacket Page:

(a) Mission Qualification Record
(b) School/Course Attendance Record
(c) Operational Physiology and Survival Training
(d) Designation Record
(e) Mishap/Flight Violation Record​

(4) Photographic Coverage. Photographs are helpful in analyzing the mishap. Most mishap photographs, except for those contained in the AA, autopsy report, and those staged by the AMB, are factual and nonprivileged (see subparagraph 708c). After removing any privileged captions or markings, place a copy of all nonprivileged photographs in Part A. See paragraphs 716d(3)(b)5 for AA and autopsy photographs and 716d(2) for information on other Part B photographs.

(5) Sketches and Diagrams. Submit only if needed to clarify events which are difficult to explain in the text of the report. Never include information from sources who have been promised confidentiality, or anything which would expose the deliberative process of the AMB. That information resides only in Part B. (See paragraph 708.)

(6) Engineering Investigation. If the AMB promises confidentiality to experts, they must separate the information these experts provide from the factual evidence and submit it as a privileged witness statement under Part B.

(7) Data Recorders.

(8) Autopsy Protocol Reports. Include laboratory and xray reports, if applicable.

(9) Other Nonprivileged Enclosures as Defined in Paragraph 708

 

[ChunksJR]

Something for you to keep in mind when you are doing official business. Sometimes what you think is private is just a reporter's request from being on a front page.

Sometimes, a benign statement from a 2006 Approach article will be used as public evidence against the Navy's "achille's heels" across it's massive fleet of aircraft.

The Navy Times is one of the worst offenders IMHO with that kind of deal. They want the headlines, and are not concerned about accuracy or telling the full story. They just want a headline so you will pick up their rag.

I think that articles like this to aviators are good: based on the "dismissal" of the copilot's suggestion to arrest landing...don't be an idiot and assume the best. Unfortunally probably about 90% of those reading the article won't pick up on the subtle lessons to be learned.

 

[Pags]

JAGMANs are not privileged reports and are releasable. Portions of they SIRs are. Each investigation is conducted independently for different purposes.

 

[Spekkio]

The Freedom Of Information Act can be a real bitch sometimes. Something for you to keep in mind when you are doing official business. Sometimes what you think is private is just a reporter's request from being on a front page.

The Navy Times is one of the worst offenders IMHO with that kind of deal. They want the headlines, and are not concerned about accuracy or telling the full story. They just want a headline so you will pick up their rag.

I remember being astonished the first time I ever laid eyes on the cover of a Navy Times issue. The entire front page was littered with tabloid-esque headlines bashing the Navy. You'd think that the Navy Times would be a little friendlier to the Navy.

 

[Boomhower]

I remember being astonished the first time I ever laid eyes on the cover of a Navy Times issue. The entire front page was littered with tabloid-esque headlines bashing the Navy. You'd think that the Navy Times would be a little friendlier to the Navy.

Think about who their readership is. Young "sea lawyers" that love to bash the Navy every chance they get. Besides, tabloid type of stories sell newspapers. Every other issue is about some Skipper that was nailing his subordinate, or an officer that is dealing drugs, or "How the Navy is screwing over it's Junior Enlisted."

 

[Dirty]

I think that articles like this to aviators are good: based on the "dismissal" of the copilot's suggestion to arrest landing...don't be an idiot and assume the best. Unfortunally probably about 90% of those reading the article won't pick up on the subtle lessons to be learned.

Concur, pretty sure they left a few key details outta that one, read into what you want but keep your opinions of the crew to yo'self....

 

[bunk22]

I think I know who the pilot was for this, but I don't keep in touch with anyone in the RAG anymore. Is he still around, or did he get the axe?

Obviously we don't have all the facts but my guess is he probably got an A4...just a guess though.

 

[Goober]

Obviously we don't have all the facts but my guess is he probably got an A4...just a guess though.

All is well with all involved.

 

[tlord82]

Minor issue, but when is the media going to get it that we don't have field arresting gear "to simulate carrier landings". This is not the first time I have read that explanation for our gear and you think the Navy Times of all people would get it right. Oh well, just venting at the media for their usual lack of military knowledge....

 

[A4sForever]

I remember being astonished the first time I ever laid eyes on the cover of a Navy Times issue. The entire front page was littered with tabloid-esque headlines bashing the Navy. You'd think that the Navy Times would be a little friendlier to the Navy.

NAVY TIMES is NOT what it used to be @ 35 years ago and earlier ...