UVU Wolverine

Thankfully, fatal commercial aviation accidents are quite rare. I was hoping to find more recent example of this type of situation in a case study book of mine involving airlines and crisis communication, but the only one I could find with similar details was Pan Am 103 in 1988. I'm sure there have been more since then where a foreign airline had a fatal crash not in domestic territory, but the text I have is quite thorough and on this very subject. Since it was so long ago, I don't think it is relevant to compare considering the technological changes in communications since then.

Whether or not this situation and how it was handled is viewed as disorganized is a matter of opinion. My overall sentiment towards Asiana is not that they are disorganized, but I think that the move by Asiana to give passengers $10K so long after the accident makes them seem so. It's not the entire situation, but merely a small facet of how the situation was handled.

Since there are so few commercial aviation accidents, there really is no baseline except to compare how one accident was handled versus another. This too though can be less than useful since aviation accidents tend to be very unique. No accident situations will be completely similar, so it's really just comparing how Asiana handled the accident against how other airlines have handled their accidents.

DaviddesJ

No. The theoretical possibility of killing people is a lot less serious than the actual occurrence of killing people.

cerealmarketer

Just when you thought the story of the girl who was killed by the fire rig couldn't get anymore cringe worthy...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...sh-4741338.php

SF Fire Chief now bans helmet cameras for fire fighters.

Conveniently after a helmet camera provided evidence of numerous basic errors by several members of the department.

garykung

My personal experience.

City and County of San Francisco was completely out of control.

As a combined city and county (a political division that responsible for both city and county function), departments rarely communicate with each other.

1. SFFD's photo are not exempted by CPRA (California Public Record Act) or City and County's own Sunshine Ordinance. So the photos may capture how SFFD screwed up as an evidence (and that's why they can't be created).

2. City Attorney's Office and Controller's Office will blame SFFD for the issue and pay the claim using SFFD's money. But none of them will recommend for improvement or action plans.

3. Board of Supervisors will flare up the situation (as most likely the claim will have to be approved by them). But supervisors will do nothing to improve again.

You can imagine the rest.

makfan

This. Also, a major US airport had operational impacts for nearly a week.

I am very curious what happened to that UPS flight, but I can understand why it isn't front page news to the majority of people.

makfan

As a resident, you are sadly correct. Especially point 3.

We'll elect new people in a few years, and still nothing will change.

cerealmarketer

As a NY resident who grew up in the Bay Area I can imagine it all too well. Something unusually clever and powerful about NorCal unions as well that I haven't seen elsewhere.

You hear a lot more about the board of sups power in SF vs NY, where a competent mayor figure can enact meaningful change.

Though derailing here...weak new mayoral candidates here have me fearing an SF model is next in NY.

DaviddesJ

That's a reason to create recordings. Any public agency is supposed to want to serve the public. They aren't supposed to think, "We don't want the public to have too much of the truth."

My prediction is that this ban on recordings does not stand.

payam81

I'm sure there are many honest and competent firefighters serving in the SFFD. Here is hope one who is less politically motivated and more interested in genuinely improving that department comes ahead and eventually replace the current person in charge. (Calling her Chief would have been giving her too much respect.)

Earthlings

That's stupid. Is the fire chief that lady?

nuff

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...as-4744090.php It seems they would allow helmet cams.

JDiver

The Fire Chief banned and then reconsidered - the public reaction was pretty much what was expected.

"Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy, Hayes-White said, trumping whatever benefit came from knowing what the footage shows." (S F Chronicle)

Battalion Chief Kevin Smith (supervisor of the firefighter who ran over Ms. Ye) weighs in with what is likely a valid argument:

"The department seems more concerned with exposure and liability than training and improving efficiency," Smith said. "Helmet cams are the wave of the future - they can be used to improve communication at incidents between firefighters and commanders.

"The department should develop a progressive policy to use this tool in a way that is beneficial and not simply restrict its use," Smith said. "We are public servants, we serve the public - why be secretive?"

The history if these is interesting - it seems they have been seen mostly as mitigating risks of lawsuits, etc. as paramedics then have evidence of treatment and level of care in accident responses, etc. In this case, the risk became greater than the mitigation value, so the knee-jerk reaction was "ban 'em". This is not without precedent - Houston and Baltimore have banned helmet cams.

Thankfully, this appears to not have lasted long. It does paint an unfortunate picture of SFPD's Chief Hayes-White - as an obstructionist and an political hack of the worst kind. (OTOH, Battalion Chief Smith may have a better future with that kind of integrity - I hope.)

More good reasons for a free press, etc. etc.

makfan

Funny how government only cares about privacy when the data might make the government look bad. (Oops, I'm getting into OMNI territory.)

cerealmarketer

And it gets worse again...

The dept is now evaluating disciplinary action against the firefighter who provided the footage (see 'video ban' in middle of article below)

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier...#photo-4998624

Glad to see the rank and file in the dept are getting fed up with it and vocal though.

Just so sad that management is spending so much time investigating this helmet cam policy. They should instead be exclusively investigating what went wrong to cause the girl's death, and how to make sure it never happens again. Then figure out your helmet cam policy. Order of operations terribly out of line here...

You want to go where?

I am not wholly in disagreement with the SF fire chief as some of you are. While I agree that I would like to see it made clear that enough attention is being paid to understanding and preventing a recurrence of the events that followed the Asiana crash, I don't think it is appropriate to be releasing video of the incident to the media. As a plane passenger who may be injured, I am entitled to a certain level of privacy. Given the lurid nature and total lack of ethical values that many of today's media demonstrate, I can't criticize government officials for trying to rein in an employee who want to cash in on the crash of the moment, either in financial terms or notoriety.

However, at the same time, I would want the information contained in those videos to get into the hands of independent investigators and any plaintiffs for whom the videos would be documentary evidence of malfeasance. In the end, I find myself somewhat conflicted as to the appropriate course of action in a general sense. inthis specific case, the release of the information was probably called for given the duck and cover approach of SFFD.