Wes,

I suggest reading the following articles:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-99/03-05-99/a06wn024.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/cavalese-cable-car-disaster

I'm a 20-year USAF veteran.  I can tell you from personal experience that
accident investigations are handled far differently than criminal
investigations.  Criminal investigations seek to lay blame; accident
investigations seek facts to prevent future accidents -- two very different
goals.

Ordinarily, reports derived from interviews and investigations conducted by
a safety board are used exclusively for accident prevention -- they are not
usable in criminal proceedings, although they sometimes show up in civil
actions.  This convention provides those involved protection from
self-incrimination so that safety investigators can get the facts.  BTW, the
use of safety investigation reports in tort cases has made safety
investigators' jobs that much harder.  Anyone with a modicum of foresight
knows they can be named in a lawsuit and their testimony to the accident
investigator might just show up in the courtroom.  As you might imagine,
this can have a rather chilling affect on one's desire to "prevent future
accidents."

I can't say what the Judge and panel on this case intended by aquitting the
pilot, but I have my opinion... the US did avoid quite a mess.  Had the
pilot been convicted, then the USMC, and by default, the US Government,
would also have been guilty.  With victims' families already seeking
damages, how would this have played out in the Italian courts?

You believe that the crew's decisions and behavior on this flight were legal
and proper based on the results of the criminal proceeding.  I submit that
your opinion would be far different if you had access to the accident
investigation report.

Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com




Posted for Wesley Hunt <wshunt@cox.net>:

  Your facts regarding the EA6B incident are completely incorrect. The  crew
was involved in a low level, authorized mission that followed  the flight
plan. The military routinely conducts such training to  achieve and maintain
flight skills required for combat. The altitudes  and air speeds were within
the expected limits for such training. The  cause of the accident was that
the
gondola cable was not depicted on  the DOD charts provided for the aircrew.
All the facts of the  incident were throughly reviewed by the Court Marshal
and the pilot  and other aircrew were exonerated of all charges, except
concealing  evidence. To state that this is an example of "rogue" flying
behavior  is simply incorrect, unless you believe that routine low level
flight  training conducted by the USAF, USN and USMC constitutes "rogue"
  behavior.