Printable View
Take a look at the "Avy in Haines Ak ?" thread.
The last update from the Haines Avalanche Information Center: "This is a unique accident in that a guided operation was involved. Because of the legalities of the situation, information is limited. A full report will not be released to the public until it is OK'd by the company involved"
Why does the company control the report?
I looked at the thread. I do not know HAIC. My guess is that there is no connection to the heli company. The only one who probably did any kind of a report on the incident is the heli company. I do not know why they would need to make it public. I would imagine if legal action was involved a report would come out. I do not understand what difference a full report would make. It is a tragedy. Mistakes were made and people died. What else do you think is important? I do think the families of the victims especially the client deserves some type of closure from this event. Hopefully the company is providing that.
It is possible that there is an investigation by state and even federal agencies (OSHA? since an employee of the company was involved). The avy center might be called on to provide materials/input. Often with such an investigation the company gets a chance to respond to the initial report. Maybe this is what they are referring to. It wouldn't usually mean that the company can control publication of the final report.
I would have guessed that there is certainly an investigation, but don't know anything about Alaska laws/regulations.
Where I live (Colorado) the CAIC tries to issue a report on avalanche accidents and fatalities whenever they can. I have never heard of them not issuing a report due to a commercial venture being involved. Having said that, not too many guided tours end up with fatalities here. I can think of one guide with friends on his own time and one death during an avalanche course. Private, unguided parties are involved in the vast majority of deaths here.
BFD, I would have an issue with a guiding company being in charge of an investigation in which they were the responsible party. It would be too easy to hide negligence or sweep things under the rug when investigating themselves. There needs to be an independent investigation when someone dies. I also think information regarding conditions or accidents should be made public so others can become more aware. Accident reports should be factual and unbiased for educational or informational purposes. Closure for families should be secondary to an honest appraisal
None of the American avalanche centers have any "legal authority" to make folks involved in accidents/incidents speak with them. Several times when I worked for the CAIC we had folks decline to speak with us, and they where both private and "commercial" outfits.
Liability....
I understand the CAIC not having authority. There could be an investigation by a sheriff dept. A lot of SAR organizations operate under the authority of the local sheriffs dept and they could conduct a valid report. The part that Willdowning was probably thinking was bullshit is this, " A full report will not be released to the public until it is OK'd by the company involved".Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw
If I were representing the company, I would say: Don't say anything to anyone until a settlement is reached with the estates and survivors of the deceased.
that may be f'd up , bu it's my best guess as to what happened
Not answering questions, if asked by law enforcement, could be considered hindering an investigation. It depends who is asking the questions, and if any 5th ammendment issues could come up. I do not think I have ever heard of charges being brought up for a back country avy death. Civil lawsuits are another issue.
Really? Actually, not answering questions posed by law enforcement is a perfectly legitimate response to an investigation (insisting on the silence of one's employees less so) But, that's not the issue here.
Not really effed up, having a bunch of full, partial and mis-information circulate within the community while the legal end is taken care of doesn't benefit the victims' families, AH, or the community at large. A somewhat minor inconvenience to the heli community that more info isn't out based on the premise of incident report analysis helping to prevent future occurrence, though in this case that is outweighed by what I'd consider the right of both victims' families and AH to reach a fair and legal outcome, without external interference or undue damage to AH's reputation and future business.