1. Openness and Transparency in Accident Investigation: The U.S. Experience David L. Mayer25 March 2011

2. About the U.S. NTSB Independent organization Lead agency for transportation accident investigation Allow others to participate Make information public Media briefings, advisories Docket Public hearings and Board meeting Final report

3. Evolution

4. Poor coordination 1996 TWA flight 800, New York 1999 Bellingham, Washington

5. NTSB Priority An NTSB investigation has priority over any investigation by another department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government The NTSB shall provide for appropriate participation by other departments, agencies, or instrumentalities in the investigation

6. In Practice If circumstances indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act, the NTSB relinquishes investigative priority Therefore, the NTSB leads investigations, even if there is evidence of an crime that was unintentional

9. The Right Balance An accident raises a number of different public interests such as the prevention of future accidents and the proper administration of justice. Those interests go beyond the individual interests of the parties involved and beyond the specific event. The right balance among all interests is necessary to guarantee the overall public interest.

10. Different Approaches Attachment E suggests that any person seeking disclosure of safety information should justify its release In the U.S., there is a presumption of transparency and requirement to justify non-release

11. Transparency U.S. public and Congress expect transparency U.S. law requires transparency U.S. law specifically requires the NTSB to make investigative information available to the public U.S. law prohibits the NTSB from releasing CVR recording

12. Why transparency? Credibility of the NTSB Confidence in the investigation Intense pressure for answers Safety improvements may prevent a similar accident Public understanding helps motivate safety improvements

13. Balanced Transparency Certain protections are needed (for example, CVR recordings, and voluntary safety data) Carefully design narrow legal protections for specific types of data Routine, required operational records may not need the same protection

14. Sharing Data with Judiciary Professionally collected and examined evidence Provides information quickly Overprotection could create competition, rather than cooperation Might push safety investigation to secondary position, and delay

15. The U.S. Experience Investigation records: The public gets full access Exceptions for CVR, voice/image recordings, trade secrets Voluntary and self-disclosed data: Fully protected Ensures availability for accident prevention safety related purposes Access to investigative data by other departments Allows them to accomplish their responsibilities efficiently Coordination with judiciary Recognizes judicial primacy to investigate intentional criminal acts

16. The Result A balanced approach: allows significant sharing of information permits safety and judicial investigations to cooperate and work efficiently has ensured the continued availability of information