Flight TWA800, which exploded and crashed into the ocean near East Moriches, New York, on the 17th of July 1996, is one of the most complex cases of aviation disasters in american history. To explain us something on the disaster, Pat Philbin, who back then was the Chief of Coast Guard Media Relations accepted our request for an interview we are today offering our readers.
Nastro di Mobius: How was this case different from others you've been involved with?
Pat Philbin: Operationally, the case was no different other than its magnitude in terms of loss of life and its location to the U.S. coast. From a media perspective, these variables created an immediate challenge to determine what we were able to verify and share with other U.S. agencies that were involved and in our ability to release information to the public. The Coast Guard’s public affairs policy regarding the release of information has always been extraordinarily transparent and simple. Essentially, if a Coast Guard person had authority for something, he/she had a responsibility to answer questions with only four exceptions: if the information had to do with security, accuracy, privacy or propriety (company trade secrets), then the Coast Guard could withhold information. This was known as SAPP.
Nastro di Mobius: What was the feeling of the investigators in the first phases, before it became clear it was caused by an electric problem?
Pat Philbin: I had little or no interaction with the investigators on the scene; however, given the potential for terrorism-related possibilities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has jurisdiction over such issues, was designated as the lead U.S. agency for the investigation. The Coast Guard was a supporting element.
Nastro di Mobius: Is it common in your experience that eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts like it happened with TWA 800?
Pat Philbin: As a researcher, I am familiar with studies that highlight exactly this challenge. I cannot speak to the conflicting accounts in this case, but again, there are studies that suggest people see what they believe, vice believing what they see as you have noted in some of your blog posts (e.g. cognitive dissonance).
Nastro di Mobius: Why do you think this case received so much media attention?
Pat Philbin: In general, immediacy, location, and the inability to verify a root cause quickly create uncertainty that motivate people to want explanations.
Nastro di Mobius: Do you think media pressure had an impact on the investigation? If so, a positive one or a negative one?
Pat Philbin: If you are asking whether the U.S. government changed its way of investigating such incidents, my opinion is no - but it is only my opinion from a supporting perspective of the response.
Nastro di Mobius: How was the cooperation between all different agencies involved in the investigation? Was it easy and smooth or somehow difficult?
Pat Philbin: In general, I recall the cooperation being smooth between federal agencies because of the FBI’s role, which was designated in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Nastro di Mobius: What "lesson learned" did you gain from this case?
Pat Philbin: Government agencies must have clear policies for information release and platforms, or technologies, to facilitate the free flow of information to those who are most relevant. Trust requires that leaders be the primary authoritative source of credible information, supported by evidence to minimize the potential for unsubstantiated allegations that may emerge. Transparency is key. Trained personnel are key. Speed is key. Plans are key. The ideal “systems approach” in responding well to incidents – regardless of the type, is to have well trained personnel whose reactions are based on “muscle memory” created by clear policies, sound planning, and robust exercises, complemented by leading edge technologies and strong leadership to “stay the course” in spite of crushing demand for information until high confidence can be established of the root cause of an incident.
