C-17 4-engine flameout/SIB/FEB questions in here

[LockheedFix]

Wrong.

Check 91-204: From the Witness Promise of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement:

"c. I understand that my confidential statement(s) (written and/or verbal) will not be made public and it will only be used by authorized officials solely for mishap prevention purposes. Additionally, my confidential statement will not be used as evidence to support any claims, litigation, disciplinary action or any adverse administrative action such as a Flying Evaluation Board, line-of-duty status determination, pecuniary liability determination, or elimination from military service. I understand, however, that my statement can be released pursuant to a valid court order on behalf of the defendant in a criminal trial. I further understand that if my statement contains an intentional misrepresentation, then my statement will no longer be considered confidential and can be used to support disciplinary and/or administrative actions against myself and/or others."

Also, Day Man said he was given a referral OPR. 91-204 addresses this as well:

"3.3.2.1. Adverse administrative actions include, but are not limited to, letters of reprimand, counseling, or admonishment, referral EPRs/OPRs, promotion propriety actions (not qualified for promotion, delay and/or denial), administrative separations, selective reenlistment denials, or evidence before any evaluation board and other similar actions. Commanders and supervisors will use other sources of information which are not privileged to take punitive or adverse administrative actions."

Day Man, if I were you, I'd wait 5-10 years, then drag all this info back for a second try at the BCMR process, and ask for retroactive promotions, back pay, and interest.

If I read 91-204 correctly, the way Privileged Safety Information was used against you was a "leak" of Privileged and an investigation of that leak should have occurred. It sounds like your due process rights were violated.

I stand corrected. I was under the impression an FEB was just an extension of the same process as a Q-3.

[BQZip01]

I stand corrected.

Ditto. I'd lawyer up.

[tunes]

1. Props to you for outing yourself on the matter. It is a sign of maturity to accept responsibility for your actions. To be clear, you did NOT completely run the boldface, correct? Your reasoning was that you wanted to give the engines a chance to relight on their own; did you discuss this with anyone else? Was this common practice or something you discussed prior in training or on the ground/in the air? Was this a SEPT discussion?

AMC doesn't do SEPT like ACC does

[amcflyboy]

Hey man, here's something to pull away, like what everyone else is saying. We're not perfect. I've got a couple of stories about crews who tried to throw me under the bus because I'm not Captain "Fvcking" America and don't think like they do. Rest assured, people are learning from your lessons and taking stuff away from this. Were there mistakes? Probably, but we've all made them. As I sit here in my hotel room, getting ready for the return leg back to home with my Airline, I can definitely take away your lessons and put them in my bag of tricks. As a side note, I'm in Jacksonville, FL the day after the bomb scare that evacuated the whole friggin' airport!

The Air Force cut loose a valuable pilot. But their loss is going to be somebody else's gain. The airlines are hiring (as eyes roll), and you can use this lesson to wow the companies. Obviously, just tell them the important points, don't go into too much detail! But this is for you if you so choose to go this route!

You're alive, you're crew is alive, and the PAX are alive. The aircraft was recoverable and is probably back in service. Good luck to you and your family. There was a guy I flew with at my company who is also a C-17 pilot out of TCM who knew the airdrop mishap crew. From what I heard, the A/C was not to blame, but the parachutist was! I'm guessing you're a victim of the AMC/CC not getting his pound of flesh from the airdrop mishap. Just my 2 cents though.

[Hueypilot]

Standard ops. Ignore AFI 91-204 but you better have on the right color of f#cking socks. How can we trust you to be leaders if you can't follow small, insignificant rules? By the way, look the other way while we blow off an entire section of an AFI designed to protect the integrity of the safety investigation process.

[Herk Driver]

Have you even read this full thread? Reference post #10 where Day man said AMC/CC was briefed privileged safety information and also used information given at the FEB that was given under a grant of immunity to justify his decision to overturn the recommendation of the FEB. The only assumption I'm making is that Day man is telling the truth.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

Prior to posting the first time, I read every post in this thread...some several times, including Day Man.

So the big thing I am trying to take away from this is whether or not to give anyone any possibly incriminating evidence if, God forbid, something like this happened to me or someone I know.

In reading the above posted AFI on the confidentiality statement with regards to safety information, it appears that safety privileged information is indeed required to be kept separate from decisions reflecting discipline, FEBs, etc. So it's not about being naive and mixing the two, it's about following regulations, due process, confidentially statements, and the freaking law, in my opinion.

Correct, I was not in the room, but there seems to be a pretty big shitload of evidence here, a lot of it first hand, as to what happened. And it sure as hell appears to me that the AMC guy was wrong to carry over privileged information into a discipline/judiciary hearing. Which is not good in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of who was right, what fuck-ups were made, which boldface items were not completed, and how much other armchair quarterbacking was done.

What's at stake here is a loss of confidence in, and a breakdown of the safety-privilege system. Quite honestly, as a safety officer, I would not blame my guys one iota if they chose to not give a single piece of information to the safety investigators if something like this were to happen to them. I have very little confidence left in this system, given what was said here.

Was this the same penis-head who required that anyone who had any kind of taxi incident be flown to AMC headquarters to get bitched out by him? I remember having a small plastic light cover on a wingtip light being broken at a certain less than adequate landing zone in Afghanistan. If the story I head was correct, the aircraft commander had to be sent to the States just to meet with this guy before being sent back over. All the while, aside from wasting thousands of my tax dollars in travel, we had to double our efforts, and pull staff guys to fly the lines that this guy was missing.

The AMC/CC was obviously briefed on the results of the SIB and also on the AIB and the FEB.

Each one of these can have similar or the exact same information in them. Only the priviledged parts of the SIB are protected. What you failed to read of what I wrote was that if information is uncovered by the AIB or the FEB that happens to be the same as info in the SIB and FEB, then it is not priviledged as long as it was uncovered independently by those boards. The fact of the matter is that information independent of the SIB can be used to take admin or other adverse actions. The supposition that because the AMC/CC was briefed on the incident but had no other independent information or enough non-priviledged information is frankly something that you and I do not know and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am thoroughly familiar with being second guessed about decisions when people did not have all the information and made assumptions that only supported their conclusions.

And No, the AMC/CC was not the one that had people stand tall after taxi incidents. It was the 18 AF/CC.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Herk Driver

[Hueypilot]

When it comes to AMC, I'm just not sure. When I was Chief of Flight Safety at OAKN a while back there were a few instances of AMC assets being involved in incidents. I was gathering the information to pass to the SIB when AMC/SE was asking me questions (including info that was privileged) because they seemed more interested in hanging the crews than appointing a SIB. Other MAJCOMs in general did not act that way...I'd notify their respective command safety staff and within 48 hours a SIB was appointed, we'd do a handover within a few days and I'd spend the rest of my time assisting the SIB.

AMC on the other hand seemed to have a different way of doing things...in the case of one mishap it took them nearly two weeks to appoint a SIB but in the days up to that, AMC/SE would call down daily asking if there was any sign the crew screwed up...it was as if investigating the mishap was secondary to hanging someone first...

Now that was my own personal experience, but I was left with a bad impression of their "safety" culture at Scott AFB.

[flyjetz]

Prior to posting the first time, I read every post in this thread...some several times, including Day Man.

The AMC/CC was obviously briefed on the results of the SIB and also on the AIB and the FEB.

Each one of these can have similar or the exact same information in them. Only the priviledged parts of the SIB are protected. What you failed to read of what I wrote was that if information is uncovered by the AIB or the FEB that happens to be the same as info in the SIB and FEB, then it is not priviledged as long as it was uncovered independently by those boards. The fact of the matter is that information independent of the SIB can be used to take admin or other adverse actions. The supposition that because the AMC/CC was briefed on the incident but had no other independent information or enough non-priviledged information is frankly something that you and I do not know and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am thoroughly familiar with being second guessed about decisions when people did not have all the information and made assumptions that only supported their conclusions.

And No, the AMC/CC was not the one that had people stand tall after taxi incidents. It was the 18 AF/CC.

Geez, here we go again. If you have read every post then apparently comprehension is not your strong suit. What AIB? There was no AIB. (Post #117).

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

[JS]

Herk Driver, Day Man said there was no AIB.

So, the big thing I would like to hear everyone's opinion on, is what you would tell any type of investigator if, God forbid, you were involved in any kind of incident/accident and lived to talk about it.

In reading Huey's post (and others), and seeing the way Day Man was treated, if I was involved in an incident where I thought the crew could potentially get hanged, I would not give them any information at all with regards to what might have caused the incident. I would probably want to talk to a lawyer first, given that privileged information is apparently not privileged, and that AMC safety investigators are only "investigating" for things to hang the crew with. What the fuck?

[RTB]

...I went to an FEB. The board decided I should return to flying the C-17. AMC/CC non-concurred and disqualified me from aviation service. I then got a referral OPR D2 that decision, which limited the AFSCs I could crosstrain to (Acft mx). I applied for to get my SUPT ADSC waived...it was approved, and yesterday was my last day on active duty. I am disgusted by the way AMC shared any lessons learned from our incident. For example, my -17 buddy at CHS had no idea our nose was imploded, giving us erroneous airspeed and stall indications.

... AMC/SE was asking me questions (including info that was privileged) because they seemed more interested in hanging the crews than appointing a SIB

And No, the AMC/CC was not the one that had people stand tall after taxi incidents. It was the 18 AF/CC.

...I'm guessing you're a victim of the AMC/CC not getting his pound of flesh from the airdrop mishap...

Both my WG/CC and SQ/CC told me they were hopeful for the final outcome and I was instructed to be "ready to fly" when the decision came down. 2 years later they both signed off on my referral OPR.

The AMC/CC is a well-known Ass Hole.

It's crazy to know that the FEB recommended you stay but the AMC/CC decided to make an example of you and give you the boot. He also tried to end the careers of those involved in the airdrop incident. I personally seen how their careers were affected while the AMC/CC kept these good people in limbo for over a year while trying his best to screw them as much as he could.

I will echo that the briefing we received at a quarterly session was basically what 3-Holer said, the crew was dumb. The brief was lacking sufficient detail and I didn't learn anything.

For those of you living the AMC dream...I'm sorry. That command sounds awesome.

[Herk Driver]

Herk Driver, Day Man said there was no AIB.

So, the big thing I would like to hear everyone's opinion on, is what you would tell any type of investigator if, God forbid, you were involved in any kind of incident/accident and lived to talk about it.

In reading Huey's post (and others), and seeing the way Day Man was treated, if I was involved in an incident where I thought the crew could potentially get hanged, I would not give them any information at all with regards to what might have caused the incident. I would probably want to talk to a lawyer first, given that privileged information is apparently not privileged, and that AMC safety investigators are only "investigating" for things to hang the crew with. What the fuck?

Got it. Thought I had taken that out and replaced with CDI when I edited the post. My mistake.

What I was trying to say (however ineffective it was), in different words, was that any information that is not priviledged (from whatever source, including the SIB or an AIB (if one is convened in any given scenario, not necessarily this one)) or a CDI can be used for adverse action. When you are the subject of an FEB, it is not fun. You are being looked at for whether people believe that you should continue to fly or not and in what capacity. Like it or not, the board makes a recommendation to the convening authority who ultimately makes the decision. He makes that decision based upon all the FEB information. Although an admin proceeding versus a legal proceeding, per se, the case gets reviewed similar to a Court-Martial conviction and sentence. The "convening authority" gets to review and either approve or take other action like overturning it.

What I don't get here is the "accusation" that the only information the convening authority had was privileged information and that he made a decision based on only that priviledged information to take a guy's wings. The whole thread mixes apples and oranges when it comes to privilege and safety versus non-safety information. The restriction in 91-204 applies to information that is given under privilege to an SIB. Those statements cannot be used for the FEB or the other actions listed. However, any other non-privileged information can be used.

It sounds like the CDI uncovered enough independent information to justify an FEB and then that FEB ran its course. What I am hearing is that the board made a recommendation that the convening authority disagreed with. That led to accusations that people believe that he used privileged info to make all of his decisions. I disagree. While I have not seen all the FEB information, I have seen these cases happen before and it is not that difficult to get to most of the information in an incident. There are no pieces of privilege that would be needed in these circumstances. It appears that the CDI was used as the basis for the FEB and for the referral OPR.

As far as the immunity for the FEB testimony in each other's FEBs, that is a different story altogether. The exact details of the grant of immunity would have to be revealed here, but the immunity grant is not going to wipe out all of the facts of the case.

Here is a question. Was the combat camera video part of the SIB and was it privileged? Based on this out of 91-204, and the absence of analysis (unless added later) I would guess that it is not privileged.

3.2.1. Privileged information includes:

3.2.1.1. Findings, conclusions, causes, recommendations, analysis, and the deliberative process of

safety investigators. Diagrams and exhibits if they contain information which depicts the analysis

of safety investigators. This includes draft versions of the above material.

3.2.1.2. Information given to safety investigators pursuant to a promise of confidentiality (paragraph 3.4.).

3.2.1.3. Computer generated animations, simulations, or simulator reenactments in which safety

investigator analysis is incorporated. Animations made exclusively from recorder data (including

Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance data) are not privileged.

3.2.1.4. Photographs, imagery, and animations that reveal the deliberative process of the board,

including photographs with markings.

3.2.1.5. Life Sciences Material that contain analysis by a safety or life sciences investigator.

NOTE: 72-hour histories, 14 day histories and interview narratives by Medical Officer are only

privileged if privilege was granted.

If it was not privileged, was it used in the FEB?

As far as your question, I will tell you what I always told those I supervised...if ever read your rights, ask for a lawyer. Don't answer questions unless you have a lawyer present. As far as a SIB, unless granted immunity, I would keep my mouth shut as well.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Herk Driver

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

For those of you living the AMC dream...I'm sorry. That command sounds awesome.

Still better than AETC.

[Azimuth]

Still better than AETC.

As a student in AETC, sure. As an instructor in AETC, not really.

[Day Man]

If it was not privileged, was it used in the FEB?

As far as your question, I will tell you what I always told those I supervised...if ever read your rights, ask for a lawyer. Don't answer questions unless you have a lawyer present. As far as a SIB, unless granted immunity, I would keep my mouth shut as well.

Not privileged, used in the CDI & FEB. Agree with the bolded part...one of their super important CDI questions was "why we weren't wearing our deployed sq patch"...their intent was obvious.

Edited October 4, 2013 by day man

[Fuzz]

one of their super important CDI questions was "why we weren't wearing our deployed sq patch"...their intent was obvious.

YGTFSM!

[HerkFE]

...one of their super important CDI questions was "why we weren't wearing our deployed sq patch"...their intent was obvious.

If I were smart enough to figure out how to do it, I'd insert that Llama .gif right here.

[Toro]

Still better than AETC.

Well, I've personally seen two SIBs take place recently in AETC with two different commanders. In both cases there was pilot error, but in neither case was there any effort to punish them.

[Keydet]

If I were smart enough to figure out how to do it, I'd insert that Llama .gif right here.

[Hueypilot]

AMC is the new SAC when it comes to throwing crews under the bus.

FWIW I did a Class A ISB while at OAKN for an ACC asset. Luckily no one died or got seriously hurt but the aircraft was destroyed. I saw zero talk of "so, what did the crew screw up? The leadership wants to know" with that one or the other Class Bs I ran. But I got asked that during the three AMC mishaps...there was definitely a different tone.

[Prozac]

If AMC is having so many problems with crews doing stupid things, the command should take a look at itself. I think there are some deep seeded problems there. There are issues with initial qualification and upgrade training. People are being upgraded to AC and IP before they are ready and for the wrong reasons. There is a lot of emphasis on non-flying related things as we all know. When I was in the command, it was not unheard of for a crewmember to open up his PME books (yes, we had books once) while in an orbit in the AOR. Leadership went through the roof when they heard about it, but couldn't seem to make the connection that their subordinates were reacting to the priorities that leadership had clearly set. AMC is reaping what it has sown WRT to emphasis on what we call queep. It continues to react with leadership by FCIF. Emphasis on REACT. The command has got to become more proactive. Instead of focusing on punishing people for their poor decision making skills, it needs to understand that it has lost focus on providing people with the tools needed to make GOOD decisions.

[JS]

As far as your question, I will tell you what I always told those I supervised...if ever read your rights, ask for a lawyer. Don't answer questions unless you have a lawyer present. As far as a SIB, unless granted immunity, I would keep my mouth shut as well.

Good post, and good points. I guess I just keep thinking of a legal analogy. If a jury finds you not guilty of manslaughter, the case does not automatically go to a single judge for review, who then sentences you to 20 years in prison for manslaughter. I realize this is admin versus a legal case, but the whole thing still scares me.

Good advice on asking for a lawyer. So my next question - are you normally read your rights at the beginning of a safety investigation, or were you just talking about other legal stuff in general? As far as a SIB - do they just start asking questions, or do they specifically say this part is under immunity while this part is not?

[ThreeHoler]

JS, you are never read your rights as part of a SIB (unless something major has changed recently). When something happens that warrants it, the base will form an Interim Safety Board (ISB). The ISB will attempt to collect all perishable data/evidence/etc. When I went through FSO training, we were trained to extend Privilege (as appropriate) before we conducted interviews; however, I have heard that AFSEC is now teaching "only extend privilege AFTER someone asks for it."

Bottom line: If you have not specifically been granted Privilege, be very careful. Get it in writing. Also, Privilege is only for flight and usually not for ground or weapons mishaps.

If anyone has newer information, please correct where I am wrong.

[Hueypilot]

Threeholer you are correct. Privilege used to be granted by the IO when they felt it was necessary to extend privilege to get the whole story. Now they are saying to grant privilege when the Board President authorizes it or if someone requests it...and even then I believe the BP can deny the privilege.

[MooseBoost]

If anyone is interested, there is a mil only link to the "C-17A Mishap Primer" floating around (put together by McChord), it includes plenty of relevant non-privileged (but FOUO) information including the 4-engine flameout and plenty of other mishaps you may or may not have heard about in the C-17. It doesn't have some of the more recent mishaps; but overall it does a great job of showing a smattering of significant incidents that have happened in the community. I will personally comment that from what I've seen, many of these mishaps and/or near-accidents are fairly well protected against with new training, pubs, and regs (not that any of those things prevent pilot error/buffoonery, but it at least provides a greater safety margin). PM me if you want the link, again, this can be accessed on a mil network only.

[moosepileit]

2.

We put that on our epubs study material section of the iPads along w/ the summary of C-141 mishaps. I do NOT want to see history repeat itself w/ the losses after years of combat and a drawdown that the C-141 suffered.