Interviewing, accident information

The incident scene is sometimes a desirable location for the interview. When the interview is conducted at the incident scene, it will seem less like an interview and more like an informal discussion this will help to relax the witness. The visual cues at the incident scene may help the witness to remember information. The witness will also have something to do during the interview, walking around and pointing out equipment, which will put him more at ease so he will tend to talk more. There is also a great deal of information that the witness will commimicate at the incident scene that they may not otherwise think to tell the interviewer, for example, the distance between a valve and indicator. However, there are some reasons not to conduct the interview at the accident scene. They include the potential distractions at the scene such as other personnel, repair activities, demolition activities, the presence of other potential witnesses, unsafe conditions. In addition, poor weather can also be a problem. Finally, the accident scene may be too emotionally painful for the witness, especially if a friend of the witness was injured or killed. 

Determining the cause of the accident, contributing factors, direct and indirect causes, getting information from people, conducting successful interviews, and filling out accident reports. 

Since the investigation must be initiated within 48 hours, it is important to have investigators or an investigation team trained and designated prior to any occurrence. That team should have an experienced leader, additional technical expertise, and a person knowledgeable of the process involved in the mishap. Data and records analysis, information review, reconstruction, interviews, equipment examination, and continuous team consultation are important to efficient closure. An Accident Investigation Report form is included in the OSHA Pamphlet 3133 (US. Department of Labor, OSHA 1992). 

In examining the impact of economic deregulation on safety in the aviation industry, the literature surveyed in the previous chapter provides an excellent starting point. In particular, two books based on interviews with airline pilots, mechanics, FAA inspectors, accident investigators, and others (O Malley, 1993 Nance, 1986) provide first-hand perspectives on experiences in the aviation industry in the years after deregulation. These books serve as a useful supplement to the statistical analyses and other empirical data stunmarized in Chapter 2, and provide detailed information based on extensive interviews. 

Interview witnesses individually and never in a group setting. If possible, interview a witness at the scene of the accident. It also may be preferable to carry out interviews in a quiet location. Seek to establish a rapport with the witness and document information using their words to describe the event. Put the witness at ease and emphasize the reason for the investigation. Let the witness talk and listen carefully and validate all statements. Take notes or get approval to record the interview. Never intimidate, interrupt, or prompt the wimess. Use probing questions that require witnesses to provide detailed answers. Never use leading questions. Ensure that logic and not emotion directs the interview process. Always close the interview on a positive note. 

Synthesize the information gathered from the witnesses interviewed and evidence collected to determine the accident cause... 

The collection of facts should begin immediately after an accident occurs. Start with an accident site walk-through, interviews, and actual physical material collection. This will increase the accuracy of the information that is collected and help eliminate any uncertainty or vagueness. It wiU also help when it comes time to put together the event s causal factor chain. At this stage, the details will prove necessary. It is important to have as much information as possible in order to have an ideal accident investigation, including the events and the conditions at the time. 

Accident Analyses. Among the written documentation used for obtaining ergonomic data are accident statistics and reports. It should be mentioned, however, that the content of such documentation is somewhat unreliable, especially where the description of human error is concerned. Since accidents occur relatively rarely, an alternative approach is to study critical incidents instead of accidents. These are intermediate events which do not result in accidents, e.g., the faulty reading of an airplane instrument. The required information is obtained by means of interviews or questionnaires, whereby it is of vital importance to convince the respondents of the confidentiality of their statements. 

The other specific area explored by the interviews was sources of information about accidents on the railway Responses on this subject again revealed strong hierarchical differences. Directors and safety managers learnt of serious accidents, involving a loss of life and/or widespread disruption, immediately. Their information about other accidents came mainly from the periodic accident statistics collected by the company ... 

It was surprising that safety representatives were not better informed, since pro-cedurally they should be informed of accidents. Also, one might have expected that they would be more involved in the investigation of local accidents, but no evidence of this emerged from the interviews. 

Seeking out aity further information required. This could include an MSDS incident and accident statistics information from expert bodies standards methods of control of the risk used in other companies and industries or interviewing other employees. 

It is necessary to identify witnesses, including those who saw the events leading to the accident, those who saw the accident happen and those who came upon the scene itmnediately following the accident. Atty others who may have useful information should not be overlooked. Witnesses and others should be interviewed as soon as possible to minimize the possibihty that they will subconsciousfy adjust their stories to fit the interviewer s concept of what occurred, or to protect someone involved. Witnesses... 

The two main sources of information are observation of the accident site and interviews with those involved (the injured person, witnesses, those who rendered assistance and so on). Observation of the site is fairly straightforward but interviewing is a skill which has to be learned. There are a number of key points to be followed for good interviewing. 

A similar picture emerged when Jentsch, Hitt and Bowers (2002) examined the 61 aviation training issues contained within Funk and Lyall s (1997) human-automation interaction database of accident and incident reports, interviews, research reviews, and questionnaire data. Jentsch, Hitt and Bowers (2002) used an information processing model similar to that proposed by Nagel (1988) to classify automation-related problems. The results indicated that 86.9 per cent of issues were associated with perception and decision-making, while only 13.1 per cent of issues were associated with the action stage of human performance. Similarly, in air traffic control, 91.1 per cent of problems emerging from the introduction of a new air traffic control facility were classified as perceptual or decision-related in nature, while action issues accounted for only 8.9 per cent of concerns (Jentsch, Hitt and Bowers, 2002). 

Step 2 Gathering evidence and information. Studying accident evidence and interviewing witnesses is the primary mode of gathering information. 

---