Matters of public safety

I can only concur that it is the duty of the media to "inform the public of matters of grave public concern" (editorial, July 7). Rest assured that this is also the obligation of the Bureau of Air Accident Investigation.

The conduct of the BAAI is regulated by Legal Notice 135 (2002) and EU Directive 94/56/EC. Reports of investigations conducted by the bureau are compiled independently of any regulating or judicial body and, as Chief Inspector, I am committed to make public the findings of such safety investigations. Investigation reports are published on the bureau website.

In its editorial, The Times misrepresented the facts when it stated that I "complained when somebody leaked the report to The Sunday Times".

To set the record straight, Legal Notice 135 requires the BAAI to serve persons (whose reputations may be affected by the findings of the investigation) with a copy of the draft report. A 28-day period is allowed for representations to be made to the Chief Inspector by such persons. However, those persons (or any other, for that matter) who are made privy to the draft report are committed by law and so advised by the BAAI not to "disclose or cause to be disclosed information contained in the draft report".

Notwithstanding, information contained in the near-miss draft report involving an Air Malta Boeing and a microlight aircraft was published in The Sunday Times edition of June 15 prior to the final report being published or a copy received by the minister. It can only be surmised that the draft report had been illicitly disclosed to the media. The correspondent responsible for the article should have known better than allow himself to be instrumental in making public the contents of the draft report and, thus, being party to a contravention of the law.

It was this contravention that I "complained" about in my correspondence delivered with the final report which was tabled in Parliament.

In the editorial The Times also mentioned that it took well over a year to conclude the investigation. The Legal Notice allows 12 months for the investigation to be concluded, if possible. I would draw the attention of The Times to the introduction to the final report, where it is stated that the BAAI was handed the investigation on June 10, 2007. As such, the BAAI concluded its investigations and published the final report within the stipulated time.

Although a year is allowed for the publication of a safety report, this is not to say that interim safety recommendations (the BAAI has no enforcement jurisdiction) are not made to regulating bodies or the ministry. Indeed, the media have a very important role to play when it comes to public safety awareness. However, the public may be better served if the media were to await the full and official version of an investigation report than sensationalise a draft report which is subject to amendment.

Editor's note: Capt. Caruana is, of course, free to give his own interpretation of the meaning of "complained". The Sunday Times did its duty and nothing but its duty when it carried the information about the findings of the investigation. The source of the information is nobody's business. If, as Capt. Caruana says in his letter, "the media have a very important role to play when it comes to public safety awareness" he should have welcomed the report on The Sunday Times and, indeed, invited the media following the publication of the report to seek any further clarifications they may require, such as those raised in the editorial in question but which Capt. Caruana does not address in his letter.