Madrid ICAO-COPAC Regional Seminar25 March 2011

Panel 5: Protection of information in accident investigation - The experience on the field -

P.L. Arslanian

Reminders

Safety is a combination of individual behaviour & vigilance collective organisation & information

Failure of punitive approaches

Search for structural causes

We need confidence, trust, and unbiased cooperation from everybody

A prevention policy

Often unavoidable criminal in many cases civil in most cases public opinion + victimisation => criminalisation of disasters

Criminal: adversarial or inquisitorial Links with safety investigation

protection of evidence interferences with investigative acts (recovery, examinations) communication and information interferences utilisation of findings or recommendations risk of diverging findings In any case, interferences of interest for parties

The judicial investigations

After an accident

The safety role of the investigation

• Collect and validate facts• Determine the (probable? possible?) causes• Issue recommendations

for the use of authorities and operators

Notes: - The time factor is essential: neither authorities nor operators

can wait for the issuance of the final report- Detailed information, or access to data, is essential: neither

authorities nor operators can rely only on the investigators guarantee

-There may be interferences from criminal proceedings

The social role of the investigation

• Handle the confusion• Determine the causes• Explain and inform

for the benefit of the families and the public

Notes: - Results may be challenged by “experts” or groups of interest- The investigation time scale and the necessary technical

prudence are often incompatible with the treatment of information by the medias

- There may be interferences from Political or Judicial Authorities

Theory: a timely scenario

Safety Investigators collect facts and determine circumstances, in liaison with the manufacturer and the operator

They inform the relevant AuthorityThey issue safety recommendationsAuthority, manufacturer & operator act

preventively and adjust eventually Justice acts separately

Practice: a crisis scenario

Investigators have (?) the dataAuthorities and Industry are under pressure:

they have to decide NOW they want to speak

The medias rush to inform (?) “Experts” explain (!) or speculateAccusations pop in Other investigations or agendas blur the

picture

We have to deal with

A wide variety of situations

Organization and culture political judicial administrative social

The event itself: circumstances, POB, etc. Context and involved people The handling of the first days

The needs (contents, timing) are different for the investigating authority the airworthiness authority / manufacturer the State of the victims etc.

Information can be released by the investigating authority an authorised but not necessarily competent authority a non authorised source, often with distortion (Internet)

Information Release (1)

Type of data data can be

confidential: § 5.12, but also privacy info, proprietary, etc.protected by A13 - § 5.26 and § 6.2received for safety purposes (A13)formal (letter, transcript, ...) or informal (notes, draft, ...)

origin of data can be domestic or foreign isolated or non validated data may

have to be released for safety purposes (precautionary principle)

impact negatively someone’s reputation or a product image initiate unnecessary debates or fears

Information Release (2)

Legal divulgation of data

divulgation can be donedirectly, through request to the investigating authorityindirectly, through request to participants

demands may be issuedfor judicial purposes (requisition, discovery)under freedom of information actsfor safety purposes (authorities or for another investigation)

Information Release (3)

The same underlying problems

Different approaches between States different cultures or strategies misunderstandings

Which behaviour towards the public and the media? Liabilities and potential ground for blame Role and rights of the advisers

access to data – and for which purpose? specific interests (source of suspicion, possible biases?) comments on draft report (yes? how? status?)

Role and rights of third parties authorities, insurance companies, associations and unions participation, separate access to data, use of data?

Over-simplification, shortcuts hamper progress

Role (s) of the investigation?

Crisis management? Healing the wounds? Data provider (SMS)? Safety Watchdog?

Different communication policiesGlobalisation

Families and foreign accidents Internet Multiple investigations

Independence

Present Social Challenges

To Conclude

In short

Recurrent Problems Judicial (and other) interferences Protection of confidential data Improper use of released data Breaches to Annex 13 provisions Potential conflicts of interest Challenges to the investigation and the findings

What is needed? Realistic and effective policy on confidentiality Improved communication (including training, resources) Clarification of roles (who’s doing what?) with the judiciary Improved relationship with the judiciary Clarification of the role and privileges of advisers (Annex 13?) Clarification of third parties access to the data

How to?

• Make the difference• Gain confidence• Not interfere with Justice role (liabilities and possible blame)

Organise the work and the contacts in advanceCommunicate clearly and systematicallyAND… make a robust and professional investigation

Notes: - Be careful on how to formulate things- Never speculate, never give non established facts - Do not feel in competition- Accept and take into account the obligations of other groups, but

without letting them interfere with the investigation