Final Report on Aviation Disasters Involving Citizens on Government Aircraft

FINAL REPORT

Development of Plans for Responding to Aviation Disasters Involving Civilians on Government Aircraft   Table of Contents    Introduction Disclosure Statement of Rights and Benefits Evaluation of Existing Laws and Regulations A Plan to Affect Improved Family Assistance   Appendices Appendix A: Statement of the CT-43 families regarding the 4.2 Task Force Report   Appendix B: Secretary of Defense letter (not available)   Appendix C: Sample Disclosure Statement for Civilians Traveling Aboard Federal Government Aircraft   Appendix D: Compensation Sources For Those Killed Or Injured Onboard Government Aircraft   Appendix E: Condensed Version of December 1996 Report by Department of the Air Force and Office of Personnel Management   Appendix F: Implementing the Plan   Appendix G: Guidelines for Agencies             REPORT PURSUANT TO RECOMMENDATION 4.2 OF THE WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON AVIATION SAFETY & SECURITY: DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR RESPONDING TO AVIATION DISASTERS INVOLVING CIVILIANS ON GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT   Introduction   This report contains information on how to better assist families following the loss of a loved one in an aviation disaster involving a government owned or operated aircraft.   The aftermath of a plane crash is an extraordinarily painful time for the families of the passengers on board. The shock and sense of loss felt by families of passengers who are killed is incalculable. In a memorandum issued on September 9, 1996, President Clinton recognized that the Federal government bears responsibility for addressing the needs of these families.   When the accident involves a government owned or operated aircraft, the Federal government bears a special responsibility. In its final report issued on February 12, 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (the White House Commission) chaired by Vice President Al Gore, called on the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) to coordinate the development of plans for responding to accidents involving civilians injured or killed while traveling on government aircraft. The White House Commission recognized that families of those who gave their lives serving their country are entitled to receive assistance at least comparable to that provided to families of passengers killed in accidents involving commercial aircraft.   Recommendation 4.2 in the White House Commission’s report states as follows:   “The families of civilians killed while traveling on government aircraft face the same traumas and challenges as those whose loved ones were killed on commercial flights. However, the response to such disasters is covered under different laws and procedures. Those differences, and a clear statement regarding their rights and benefits in the event of an aviation disaster, should be provided to passengers on government aircraft prior to boarding. The Commission believes that it is essential that those families receive assistance comparable to that provided after commercial disasters through the enhanced role of the NTSB. The Commission urges the DOT to work with NTSB, DOD, and other agencies and family members to develop plans to accomplish that goal by September 1997 and to evaluate the need to revise existing laws and regulations governing the rights and benefits of civilians on government aircraft.”   This report is the product of an intergovernmental working group consisting of representatives of ten departments (Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (DOC), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Department of Interior (DOI), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Labor (DOL), Department of State (DOS), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Treasury) and four other Federal agencies (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), General Services Administration (GSA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)), referred to hereafter as “the working group.” The working group’s efforts were coordinated by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The members were experts from the personnel benefits, travel, emergency mental health services, family assistance, tort and general law, and aircraft operations fields. Over thirty agency and departmental representatives took part. The members were organized into smaller, more focused subgroups that met regularly for five months. Family members of the victims of the CT-43 crash in Dubrovnik, Croatia, in April 1996 were welcomed participants in the development of this report. The aftermath of that crash — which took the lives of 35 people, military and civilians, private citizens and Federal employees — provided the working group with valuable lessons about what the government can do to assist families who are coping with the shock and grief that accompanies the loss of a loved one. Family members were invited to meet the working group at the inaugural September meeting, where several of them gave moving verbal and written statements of their experiences. Some families also attended other working group sessions to comment on issues and enter into dialogue with the various smaller teams. While most of this report represents the consensus of the working group, not all parties are in agreement with all of the findings or recommendations. In particular, the CT-43 families have submitted specific comments to this final report (Appendix A).   The DOC, which sponsored the Croatia trade mission, and the DOD, which provided the aircraft and crew, have been involved with the CT-43 families since the day of the accident. The departments performed under extreme pressures and with no precedent to guide them. They have a unique perspective and have gathered a body of knowledge on how to provide a response to families. DOC has put together a “lessons learned” paper and distributed it to all departments and agencies participating in the working group.   Perhaps most importantly, the working group learned that each Federal agency must commit the time and the resources now for planning how best to assist families. Without the right people providing support and assistance to the families, even the best plans could compound families’ loss and grief. Accordingly, each agency should screen personnel to ensure the best people are available to work in such a situation, train them properly in advance, and prepare for the possibility of a crash rather than react only once it has happened.   Much of the work is already underway concerning several of the issues contained in this report. There is a clear need for policies to catch up with the family support that has already been delivered to victims’ and survivors’ families in previous tragedies involving the Federal government.   Many of the experiences of the CT-43 families are similar to those related by the families of passengers killed or injured in commercial aircraft disasters. The working group listened to the CT-43 families and studied the lessons learned in previous commercial air disasters. In particular, the working group relied on the Final Report of the Task Force on Assistance to Families of Aviation Disasters (“the ADFAA Task Force”), which was co-chaired by Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and NTSB Chairman Jim Hall. That Task Force had 22 members, including four family members and one crash survivor. In October 1997, the ADFAA Task Force issued its Final Report containing 61 recommendations to improve family assistance. That report details a helpful inventory of family members’ needs and much insight on the best ways to meet these needs. While the bulk of those recommendations are directed to the airlines and are thus specific to the commercial context, many have general applicability to government air disasters as well. That report provides many useful roadmarkers to successfully guide implementation efforts.   In order to avoid duplicating the work of the ADFAA Task Force, this report is focused on the specific problems that surface following government crashes. As this report was developed by an interagency group, many of the recommendations are general in form. Each of the implementing agencies will need to apply these issues within the context of its own programs and particular concerns. These family support issues can apply in a larger sense to any government mishap that results in injury or death. Agencies should give due consideration to applying these issues and practices to other accident response plans.   The White House Commission asked for a plan to respond to the families of “civilians” involved in government air disasters. The following groups are “civilians” for the purpose of family support: families of Federal workers, families of private citizens, military family members and military retirees and families, who routinely are authorized to fly on military aircraft. Family members may be the next of kin or other individuals who considers themselves to be the family of the victim, such as in the case of a fiance or long-term companion of victims, as well as the victims themselves. This report concentrates on civilian Federal workers, private citizens, and their families. The DOD is leading an effort to fully define the response to families of military members and those civilians who travel on military flights, where the military service providing the aircraft has sole investigatory and lead family assistance responsibilities.   The CT-43 families wanted the working group to address questions related to aviation safety with regard to government aircraft. These questions include whether government and military aircraft are required to meet the same safety standards as commercial aircraft, and whether the NTSB or another non-DOD agency should be required to investigate military air disasters. In particular, the CT-43 families strongly believe that the NTSB should lead the investigation of any aviation disaster involving civilians. The working group acknowledged the importance of these questions, but considered them to be outside the limits of time, resources, or authority of the participants. Therefore, as the White House Commission directed, this report addresses only how to better assist families following an aviation disaster. However, some in the working group consider the two issues of disparate safety standards between commercial and government/military aircraft, and the need for an outside investigatory source for military air disasters involving nonmilitary loss of life, as worthy of further study by appropriate entities. In conjunction with the issuance of this report, the Secretary of Defense sent a letter (Appendix B) to the Secretary of Transportation outlining the steps DOD has taken regarding safety standards for military aircraft, as well as DOD’s policy concerning inviting other Government agencies with special expertise to participate in accident investigations, where appropriate.   The White House Commission called for three deliverables:   a statement of rights and benefits, an evaluation of the existing laws and regulations governing those rights and benefits, and a plan to accomplish the goal of developing and implementing the government’s response to provide family assistance comparable to that provided after commercial disasters. These three items are described below, and are explained in greater detail in appendices to this report.   Disclosure Statement of Rights and Benefits   The White House Commission found, based in part on the testimony of the CT-43 family members, that a disclosure statement of rights, benefits, and possible consequences of boarding a government aircraft should be routinely available to passengers. At this time, there is no systematic process of notifying passengers in advance of boarding of their rights and benefits. The working group found that such notice should be given to passengers at the time of invitation, or at the issuance of the travel orders, depending on the nature of the mission and the type of passenger (private citizen or Federal employee). A sample disclosure statement of rights and benefits is attached as Appendix C. The purpose of the statement is to provide potential passengers adequate notice that traveling on government aircraft is different than traveling on commercial aircraft, and to inform the potential passenger to seek more information if the person so chooses. The OPM should produce a final version of this summarized statement for distribution.   OPM also has an excellent in depth pamphlet, “Work-Related Injuries and Fatalities — What You and Your Family Should Know About Your Benefits,” Publication RI84-2. The pamphlet is clear and concise. It has updated the publication, will reissue it, and has made it available on the Internet. The pamphlet complements the statement of rights and benefits. OPM should coordinate with the GSA to issue the statement of rights and benefits to all agencies, which should establish processes to ensure that their travelers have timely notification of these rights and benefits.     Evaluation of Existing Laws and Regulations   The White House Commission called for an evaluation of existing laws and regulations governing the rights and benefits of civilians who travel aboard government aircraft. Two appendices related to the compensation of aircraft accident victims and their families are attached. Appendix D frames the legal issues as they arise in this context and discusses potential legislative changes should a greater range of options and benefits for accident victims be deemed desirable. Appendix E contains a synopsis of government benefits and other forms of assistance currently available to civilians injured or killed aboard government aircraft.     A Plan to Affect Improved Family Assistance   It is critical for the full development and implementation of all aspects of the government’s response that one entity serve as the focal point while the key support departments and agencies continue to develop and revise their specific parts of the overall effort. In general, personnel management and support issues should be coordinated by OPM, with input from DOL and others it deems appropriate. GSA should take the lead on any travel changes deemed necessary or desirable, and its Interagency Committee for Aircraft Policy (ICAP) should continue its welcomed and expert assistance with regards to implementing air disaster response plans and aircraft flight planning and management issues. However, the NTSB is the one agency that victims’ families recognize as an independent source of representation for them in the event of a crash. Therefore, the NTSB is the best choice to address not only all matters of air disaster response, its area of expertise, but to take the responsibility for overall coordination of family support matters. (The Working Group recognizes the significant family support expertise and statutory responsibilities residing within the DOS for accidents in a foreign country, and with the DOD for military disasters. It further recognizes DOD’s special responsibility to lead the assistance effort for accidents that arise from its missions). The detailed discussion of implementation issues for these three key agencies is attached as Appendix F.   The NTSB has been asked by President Clinton, in a Memorandum dated September 9, 1996, to take the lead role to coordinate the provision of Federal services to families of victims of aviation (and other transportation) disasters. The NTSB’s Office of Family Affairs will serve as the executive agent to coordinate the completion and implementation of all support plans, policy initiatives, and processes necessary to assist families following nonmilitary Federal aviation disasters. While there are many existing policies, laws and regulations that encompass this response, the NTSB is best suited to lead the implementation of these recommendations to improve the response government-wide across the spectrum of personnel, travel, aircraft flight planning and management, interagency cooperation, mental health services, and the many other issues identified in this report, in the ADFAA Task Force’s Final Report, and by the White House Commission.   The NTSB is not authorized to investigate military or intelligence agency aircraft accidents. Their role as family liaison is built around full access to the investigation, which enables them to fully and properly apprise families of developments and coordinate family notifications and media briefings. However, they have agreed to provide technical assistance in family support if requested by DOD or other Federal agencies involved in a military or intelligence related crash. DOD began its own effort in September 1997 by launching an Interservice Task Force to study lessons learned from the CT-43 tragedy. The Secretary of Defense requested that those lessons be documented, disseminated, and acted upon by the military services. Specifically, the goals of this Task Force were to review the procedures, policies, and practices that the Services employ when dealing with tragedies involving private citizens and Federal civilian employees, and ensure that the Services have uniform and efficient procedures for addressing sensitive family support matters such as notification, counseling, and claims processing. Several representatives from DOC, DOS, DOT and DOD shared membership in both the DOD initiative and this effort, addressing mutual issues and concerns and integrating the appropriate findings of the Interservice Task Force as well.   The DOD report is not yet final. Once released, its recommendations will be developed in partnership with the same key agencies and departments already engaged.   Appendix G details several key family support issues for all departments and agencies involved in government air travel. The issues complement the findings of the ADFAA Task Force in its recommendations for assistance in commercial air disasters. These issues should be incorporated in departmental or agency-specific air disaster response plans to maximize effective family support actions in the event of a government air disaster.   Appendix A: Statement of the CT-43 Families Regarding the 4.2 Task Force Report   The CT-43 families add the following comments to the final report of the 4.2 Task Force. These comments reflect the feelings and experiences the families have shared with the Task Force, but are excluded from the final report. We advocate for a meaningful disclosure statement, safer government aircraft, an impartial and unbiased crash investigations, and the right to sue for wrongful death.   Disclosure Statement   The CT-43 families strongly object to the “Statement of Rights and Benefits” as presented. Recommendation 4.2 from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security report states as follows:   “The families of civilians killed while traveling on government aircraft face the same traumas and challenges as those whose love ones were killed on commercial flights.  However, the response to such disasters is covered under different laws and procedures.  Those differences, and a clear statement regarding their rights and benefits in the event of an aviation disaster, should be provided to passengers on government aircraft prior to boarding. The Commission urges the DOT to work with NTSB, DOD and other agencies and family members to develop plans to accomplish that goal by September 1997 and to evaluate the need to revise existing laws and regulations governing the rights and benefits of civilians on government aircraft.”   Product safety warnings appear on cigarettes, liquor, plastic bags, medicines, appliances, etc. The word WARNING is used purposefully. Original drafts by the 4.2 Task Force called this a “Disclosure Statement: and rightfully so. Despite the objections of the CT-43 families, the Task Force changed the name to “Statement of Rights and Benefits” creating a seemingly harmless, innocuous piece of employer blather instead of presenting a proper warning disclosure and clear statement of differences between commercial and government/military flight.   The “Statement of Rights and Benefits” in the 4.2 Task Force report is:   Vague- it does not clearly state that benefits under FECA could be as little as $10,000; Misleading- it implies that government aircraft are fully governed by the same FAA regulations as commercial aircraft when they are not; Deceptive- it leaves the impression that counseling and emotional support will be provided when in fact the CT-43 families have received no counseling for emotional support; Ambiguous- for example, the word ‘inhabitant’ is not defined when the report states an ‘inhabitant’ of a foreign country may be eligible to file a claim under the Foreign Claims Act; Evasive- the note at the beginning of Appendix A on page 6 (C-1) states “the information in not all-inclusive” leaving one to wonder what was not included; Inadequate- it fails to address the possible invalidation of life insurance claims on government charter flights as well as military flights; and Incomplete- ignores the reality that wrongful death suits against the US government can be and will be denied. The CT-43 families have clearly and forcefully stated that passengers should be informed that wrongful death suits will be denied by the US government. The “Statement ” prepared by the 4.2 Task Force provides little, if any WARNING to those traveling aboard government aircraft and fails to provide a clear and thorough listing of passenger rights and benefits as directed in 4.2. The 4.2 Task Force “Statement” does not adequately address the differences between commercial and government flight leaving the governmental passenger with the false impression that they are the same. The CT-43 families know all too well: they are not! The “Statement” does not call attention to those differences and does not serve the rights of governmental aircraft passengers. A “Disclosure Statement” in needed which realistically defines the differences. The “Statement of Rights and Benefits” in the 4.2 Task Force report does not accomplish the mandate of 4.2     Legislative/Policy Consideration   Legislative/policy considerations remain markedly biased despite our attempts to include a balanced view. The goal of the Task Force appears to be maintained of the status quo rather than offering contrasting opinions. Will a single existing law or regulation be changed as a result of this report? We firmly believe by presenting the pros and cons, our audience is given the opportunity to consider both sides of the issue and a more informed decision will be made. The CT-43 families have previously submitted language to provide balance. For the most part, it has been ignored. Our omitted opinions and ideas follow (in bullet format) regarding the legislative/policy considerations addressed in this report.   Federal Employees Compensation Act (Page 11) (D-4)   Elimination of the “FECA bar” would give families the option to choose a FECA settlement or file a wrongful death suit; Proposing legislation to eliminate the “FECA bar” would provide the opportunity for a dialogue on the current policy concerning worker’s compensation legislation, and Congress routinely writes special interest legislation as broadly or as narrowly as it sees fit irregardless of disparate treatment.  Federal Tort Claims Act (Page 12) (D-5)   Legislation could be drafted to prohibit potential exposure to claims based upon foreign laws; Congress routinely writes special interest legislation as broadly or as narrowly as it sees fit irregardless of disparities in treatment; and It would provide families the election to sue for employer misconduct as currently provided by several states.   Liability Information for Non-Federal Passengers (Page 13) (D-6)   A clear statement of benefits, legal remedies and sources of assistance could lead to improved safety standards for those traveling on government aircraft; Legislation may be preferable as Executive orders only last for the length of that Presidency. Corporate disclaimers and disclosure statements routinely confront and overcome legal complexities in order to avoid vague, meaningless warnings; and For those traveling on government aircraft, such information would be valuable and necessary in assessing potential risks.   Family Counseling Assistance (Page 14) (D-7)   Providing family counseling could facilitate healing and reduce the need for long-term health care and its related costs; and Permanent legislation is preferable to Executive orders which expire at the end of each Presidency.   Travel to Accident Site (Pages 15-16) (D-8 and D-9)   Government policy is contrary to the more compassionate practices adopted by the commercial sector; and Permanent legislation is preferable to Executive orders which expire at the end of each Presidency.   Personal Property Claims   Personal property claims are not addressed in the 4.2 Report. We believe a procedure similar to that developed by the Air Disaster Family Assistance Act Task Force for commercial disasters should be adopted.       Disaster Assistance Plans   Under the Air Disaster Family Assistance Act (ADFAA) the US government requires commercial aircraft (both domestic and foreign) to submit disaster assistance plans, but government aircraft are not required to do the same. The rulemakers don’t follow their own rules.       Air Disaster Family Assistance Act   The CT-43 families believe the government is remiss for its failure to include government aircraft under the ADFAA. The law was created to protect America’s families. The rulemakers MUST follow their own rules. Passengers on government aircraft deserve the same rights and benefits other Americans enjoy.       Membership on 4.2 Task Force   The ADFAA Task Force included four voting family members and one voting crash survivor (5 voting family members). Although the White House Commission urged the DOT to work with NTSB, DOD and other agencies and family members (emphasis added), the 4.2 Task Force did not include family members as did the ADFAA Task Force. Although CT-43 family members were often welcome participants, they were excluded from some Task Force meetings and were not allowed to participate as voting members of the 4.2 Task Force.       Crash Investigations   Greater consideration needs to be given to the issue of crash investigations involving government aircraft. This issue is discussed on page 5 of the 4.2 Report. When transporting non-military passengers, investigations of government/military air disasters should be conducted by the NTSB or another outside agency.       Would Congress, the President or the public allow TWA, Delta or any other commercial airline to:   determine what equipment makes their aircraft airworthy; fly the plane crash the plane; manage the search and rescue, independently conduct and frame the investigation to determine the cause of the disaster without consideration of outside, divergent opinions; write the accident report; manipulate and control the media interaction; decide in secrecy who is responsible for causing the tragedy; determine the appropriate penalty for those liable under a justice system that is separate from civilian law (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) and closed to the public; administer the punishment; control and limit access to information via classification and complex FOIA regulations; and remain impervious to the pressure of public opinion. Too permissive, you say! Not enough oversight, you conclude! A commercial airline would never be given this carte blanche!   Yet, that is precisely how the military functioned in the crash of the CT-43. Under these circumstances, can we trust the results to be unbiased, impartial, factual and honest? Given this framework, it is easy to understand why the families of the CT-43 crash   question the validity, thoroughness, and accuracy of the 7,000 page report prepared by the Air Force, and would like an independent, unbiased third party to reexamine the CT-43 crash and search for answers and explanation to the countless unanswered questions posed by family members. The present system used by the government/military must to be changed if their investigation results are to be considered valid and trustworthy. Military families have also detected flawed, inadequate DOD investigations. All too often these investigations   are cloaked in secrecy; mask the truth; deny families access to information; and lack openness and honesty. It is obvious to the CT-43 families that the present investigative system is glaringly flawed and procedures must be dramatically changed if the the government is to maintain its integrity.     Acknowledgment   The families of the CT-43 crash wish to recognize and acknowledge the members of the 4.2 Task Force for their work on our behalf. We know work schedules were interrupted, unique situations called for non-routine considerations and deadlines added stress to work loads.   We trust having heard our thoughts and ideas regarding the impact current laws, regulations and procedures have had on our lives since the death of our loved ones has heightened your consciousness of not only the frailty of life but also the need for fairness and equity for all citizens… even those on government aircraft whether federal employee, public-spirited volunteer, or invited guest aiding or reporting on the mission.   Thank you for giving the CT-43 families the opportunity to express our heart-felt, yet practical thoughts regarding the government’s response to their own air disasters.     In Memorium   Our efforts to change the laws, regulations and procedures are done in memory of those who lost their lives in Dubrovnik, Croatia on April 3, 1996. They died when the Air Force CT-43 in which they were traveling crashed. There were no survivors. The names of our loved ones appear below.   Gerald Aldrich Kathryn Kellogg Niska Antonini Shelly Kelly Dragica Bebek James Lewek Ronald Brown Frank Maier Duane Christian Charles Meissner Barry Conrad William Morton Paul Cushman Walter Murphy Adam Darling Nathaniel Nash Ashley Davis Lawrence Payne Gail Dobert Leonard Pieroni Robert Donovan John Scoville Claudio Elia Timothy Shafer Robert Farrington Donald Terner David Ford P. Stuart Tholan Carol Hamilton Cheryl Turnage Kathryn Hoffman Naomi Warbasse Lee Jackson Robert Whittaker Stephen Kaminski   Note: The letters and numbers in parentheses refer to the printed copy of the report. If you would like a printed copy of the report, contact George Kuehn, U.S. Department of Transportation, at 202-366-1614.   Appendix C:  DISCLOSURE FOR CIVILIANS TRAVELING ABOARD FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT   NOTE: The disclosure contained herein is not all-inclusive. You should contact your agency’s personnel office, or if you are a private citizen, your agency sponsor or point-of-contact for further assistance.   To all passengers traveling aboard government aircraft:   1) Government-owned aircraft that are not transporting passengers or transporting property for commercial purposes are “public aircraft” as defined at 49 U.S.C. ? 40102(a)(37) and not regulated by the FAA except with regard to certain air traffic rules. Public Law 103-411, the Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994, modified the definition of “public aircraft” to ensure that any Government-owned aircraft utilized to transport passengers would be required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations. Government-owned aircraft (other than armed forces’ or intelligence agencies’) that transport passengers or transport property for commercial purposes are considered civil aircraft and subject to all applicable FAA safety regulations such as certification, maintenance, and training. Any questions regarding the safety standards applicable to the aircraft upon which you will be traveling should be directed to the agency sponsor of the mission.   2) You and your family have certain rights and benefits in the unlikely event you are injured or killed while riding aboard a government-owned or operated aircraft. Federal employees, and some private citizens, are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). When FECA applies, it is the sole remedy. For more information about FECA and its coverage, consult with your agency’s benefits office or contact the Branch of Technical Assistance at the DOL’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs at (202) 693-0044. (These rules also apply to travel on other government-owned or operated conveyances such as cars, vans, or buses.)   3) State or foreign laws may provide for product liability or “third party” causes of action for personal injury or wrongful death. If you have questions about a particular case or believe you have a claim, you should consult with an attorney.   4) Some insurance policies may exclude coverage for injuries or death sustained while traveling aboard a government or military aircraft or while within a combat area. You may wish to check your policy or consult with your insurance provider before your flight. The insurance available to Federal employees through the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program does not contain an exclusion of this type.   5) If you are the victim of an air disaster resulting from criminal activity, Victim and Witness Specialists from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and/or the local U.S. Attorney’s Office will keep you or your family informed about the status of the criminal investigation(s) and provide you or your family with information about rights and services, such as crisis intervention, counseling and emotional support. State crime victim compensation programs may be able to help cover crime-related expenses, such as medical costs, mental health counseling, funeral and burial costs, and lost wages or loss of support. The Office for Victims of Crime (an agency of the DOJ) is authorized by the Antiterrorism Act of 1996 to provide emergency financial assistance to state programs, as well as the U.S. Attorneys Offices, for the benefit of victims of terrorist acts or mass violence.     If you are a Federal employee:   1) If you are injured or killed on the job during the performance of duty — including while traveling aboard a government aircraft or other government-owned or operated conveyance for business purposes — you and your family are eligible to collect workers’ compensation benefits under FECA. You and your family may not file a personal injury or wrongful death suit against the United States or its employees. However, you may have a cause of action against potentially liable third parties.   2) You or your qualifying family members must normally also choose between FECA disability or death benefits, and those payable under your retirement system (either the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement System). You may choose the benefit that is more favorable to you.     If you are a private citizen not employed by the Federal government:   1) Even if you are not regularly employed by the Federal government, if you are rendering personal service to the Federal government on a voluntary basis or for nominal pay, you may be defined as a Federal employee for purposes of FECA. If that is the case, you and your family are eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits under FECA but may not collect in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against the United States or its employees. You and your family may file suit against potentially liable third parties. Before you depart, you may wish to consult with the department or agency sponsoring the flight to clarify whether you are considered a Federal employee.   2) If you are determined not to be a “Federal employee,” you and your family will not be eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits under FECA. If you are traveling for business purposes, you may be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits under state law. Only if the accident occurs within the United States, or its territories, its airspace, or over the high seas, you and your family may claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act or Suits in Admiralty Act. If you are killed aboard a military aircraft, your family may be eligible to receive compensation under the Military Claims Act, or if you are an inhabitant of a foreign country, under the Foreign Claims Act.   Appendix D:  COMPENSATION SOURCES FOR THOSE KILLED OR INJURED ONBOARD GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT     Summary:   Unlike victims of commercial aviation crashes — who frequently recover sizable amounts in litigation against the airline and other responsible parties — Federal employees who are injured or killed while traveling aboard government aircraft are barred from suing the owner or operator of the aircraft because the owner is the United States or its operator is a Federal employee. Principles of workers’ compensation law preclude lawsuits by employees who are killed or injured on the job against their employers. Thus, consistent with the limitations placed on private employees, the sole remedy for Federal employees is Federal workers’ compensation. Although tort recovery is not an option in these situations, other benefits — including a $10,000 death benefit and in-kind services — are available.   The Federal workers’ compensation laws ensure that medical expenses and other benefits, including loss of wages, are paid to a Federal worker who is injured on the job in the performance of duty. The family of a Federal worker who is killed on the job in the performance of duty is also entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits. These benefits are payable on a “no-fault” basis whenever an injury or death occurs in the performance of duty, including while the employee is on official travel aboard a government aircraft.   In some cases, a private citizen who is injured or killed aboard a government aircraft may fall within the definition of “Federal employee” and may likewise be barred from filing a tort action against the Federal government. In other cases, when the private citizen who was injured or killed does not qualify as a Federal employee, he or she (or the victim’s family) may file a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, provided the accident occurred within the United States or one of its territories. For accidents that took place in a foreign country, victims and their families may be eligible to recover under the Military Claims Act or the Foreign Claims Act.   In addition to the monetary benefits discussed above, victims and their families of previous Federal disasters have received further in-kind benefits from the Federal government, including crisis intervention counseling, and assessment and referral services through an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), transportation to accident-related events, as well as food and lodging expenses while there, and the erection of special memorials or other tributes to accident victims. Practices such as these have been considered “necessary expenses” under the extreme circumstances and pressures faced by the government in its attempts to respond in a humanitarian fashion. Each agency must enjoy sufficient flexibility to make these practices a reality when needed, and some of the legal group opined that the law is broad enough to allow such freedom of action. A strict reading of the law has lead GSA to conclude that there is no authority under Title 5, United States Code, Subchapter III to provide transportation or per diem to families of civilians who are killed or critically injured in aviation disasters on government aircraft. GSA may consider proposing changes to Title 5, Subchapter III, including but not limited to these sections: 5741, General Prohibition; 5742, Transportation of remains, dependents, and effects, and Death occurring away from official station or abroad; although some in the group consider such changes as not necessary.   The following discusses the salient points of compensation issues in more detail:   The families of government employees and private citizens aboard the CT-43 have raised the issue of being unable to bring actions for negligence against the Air Force, and have suggested that statutory changes be made in order to permit such litigation.   In order to respond to these concerns, it is important to understand the basic legal framework and philosophy surrounding compensation for persons killed or injured in the course of their employment under United States law.   So long as an individual is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment at the time of death or injury, state statutes generally entitle employees or survivors to receive workers’ compensation benefits from the employer on a “no-fault” basis. Such workers’ compensation benefits are, in most instances, the sole remedy an injured employee has against the employer or co-employees, although several states provide an election to sue at common law or a percentage increase in compensation as the penalty for employer misconduct (such as willful intent to cause injury, failure to provide safety devices, or willful misconduct generally). Because traditional tort remedies for work-related injuries were sometimes slow and always uncertain, workers’ compensation systems, which provide for payment of medical bills, compensation for loss of wages, and other benefits, are generally advantageous for both employee and employer. Both the employer and the employee surrender certain features of the tort system that would be beneficial to them. The employee receives workers’ compensation benefits without having to prove negligence or fault on the part of the employer or awaiting the extended course of civil litigation, while the employer is spared from the possibility of a catastrophically large verdict in a personal injury or wrongful death law. Both also benefit from reduced legal fees and the ability of the workers’ compensation provider to encourage and support an early return to work or vocational rehabilitation necessary for severely injured workers.   Thus, while an employee killed or injured aboard an airliner could sue the airline for negligence, the same injury incurred aboard an aircraft operated by his/her employer will entitle the employee to workers’ compensation benefits. This is because the pilot is a fellow employee, the employer operates the aircraft, and the death or injury occurs within the scope of employment.   Like their counterparts in private employment, Federal employees also are subject to a workers’ compensation program, but theirs is based on Federal, rather than state, law. The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) establishes a comprehensive workers’ compensation program that provides benefits to any of the more than three million Federal employees in 72 different agencies who sustain an injury in the performance of duty. The FECA, like virtually all of the workers’ compensation statutes covering employees in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, is an employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer for an injury that arises in the performance of an employee’s duty. Administration of the FECA has been entrusted to the DOL. DOL regulations delegate this authority to the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), who is responsible for the administration and implementation of the FECA.   Thus, Government employees killed or injured aboard their employer’s aircraft within the course and scope of their employment are, like their private counterparts, barred from suing their employer or fellow employees. FECA’s workers’ compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of these employees against the Government, just as private employees aboard their own employer’s aircraft would be limited to workers’ compensation benefits by state statute.   For Federal or private employees killed aboard their employer’s aircraft, state law may provide a product liability action against the manufacturer of the aircraft, or its components (engines, radios, etc.). Additionally, if other “third parties” are believed to have caused or contributed to the accident, state law normally will provide a cause of action against that third party for personal injury or wrongful death; examples would include actions against a maintenance facility, refueler, airport authority, etc.   Private citizens killed or injured as a result of Government aircraft operations within the United States may have a claim against the department or agency involved pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. ? 1346(b), 2671, et seq. This statute, which is a limited waiver of the Government’s traditional sovereign immunity, establishes an administrative claim procedure by which potential claimants can present their claims to the Federal agency or department alleged to have been negligent; if the claim is not paid or compromised, an action may be brought in Federal District Court against the United States. The liability of the United States is determined by reference to the law of the place where the act or omission occurred, but the Government retains a number of unique defenses under the provisions of the FTCA. One such defense is that provided by 28 U.S.C. ? 2680(k), which exempts from the courts’ jurisdiction any claims “arising in a foreign country.” Thus, for acts and omissions which occur outside of the United States, its territories and possessions, no right of action exists against the government, except where there is admiralty jurisdiction. In the case of military aircraft accidents, the provisions of the Military Claims Act or Foreign Claims Act may, at the discretion of the Secretary of the department involved, provide such compensation as the Secretary deems appropriate under the circumstances.   Other provisions of the FTCA are applicable to Government air crash victims, just as they are to those suffering other forms of governmental acts or omissions. Plaintiffs against the United States under the FTCA cannot recover punitive or exemplary damages; are not entitled to prejudgment interest; and are not entitled to a trial by jury. The “discretionary function” exception (28 U.S.C. 2680(a)) protects the Government’s exercise of policy-level discretion, so that those making policy judgments or carrying out programs imbued with governmental policy do not expose the United States to tort liability for their discretionary acts.   In short, non-Federal passengers killed or injured aboard Government aircraft may have a tort claim for wrongful death or personal injury under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. But this waiver of sovereign immunity is subject to unique conditions and exceptions which may reduce recoveries obtained in comparison to those against a private defendant, or even eliminate the right to recovery altogether.   In order to permit the survivors of Federal employees killed aboard Government aircraft to recover tort damages instead of, or in addition to, FECA benefits, fundamental legislative changes would have to be made to the “exclusive remedy” provisions contained in the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act. If the bar were not eliminated altogether, it could be changed to permit an election of a tort remedy in instances of willful or wanton misconduct, or to provide an enhanced level of benefits.     Legislative and Policy considerations:   elimination of the “FECA bar” would provide less certain but larger, tort-style recoveries in appropriate cases; if proof of willful misconduct or gross negligence were required, it would generate considerable litigation; removing the “FECA bar” could conceivably influence the government to avoid risky operations; it would represent a fundamental shift in policy concerning workers’ compensation; it would be generally inconsistent with state workers’ compensation legislation; if applied only to victims of air crashes, it would create disparate treatment compared to non-aviation accident victims; it would increase transaction costs and litigation expenses for employees and the Government; and recovery for negligence occurring in a foreign country would also require amendment of the FTCA.   FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT CHANGES   In order to permit private citizens to recover for wrongful death or personal injury incurred aboard a Government aircraft in a foreign country, a legislative change would have to be made to the Federal Tort Claims Act to restrict or remove the “foreign country” exception.     Legislative and Policy considerations:   repeal of the foreign country exception would permit recovery for foreign-based negligence/accidents; it would potentially expose the U.S. to claims based upon foreign law, contrary to previously-expressed Congressional wishes; if foreign-based actions were permitted only in aircraft accident cases, it would create disparities in treatment of other accident victims. On the other hand, liability suits would likely engender debate which could lead to safety improvements; and increased payments from these court cases to families would show the value the government places on those killed while serving in the public interest. The families of Government employees and private citizens aboard the CT-43 noted that they were unaware of the nature of benefits, legal remedies, and other sources of assistance prior to the accident.   With respect to Federal employees killed or injured in the course of their employment, a number of resource publications are available. “Work-Related Injuries and Fatalities — What You and Your Family Should Know About Your Benefits,” Publication RI84-2, published by the OPM Retirement and Insurance Service, is comprehensive and concise. It provides information concerning workers’ compensation benefits, retirement benefits and death or disability payments under both the Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employees’ Retirement System, insurance benefits, Thrift Savings Plan, and social security benefit information, as well as special benefits available to public safety officers.   This or a similar publication should presently be available for any Federal employee through their personnel department or directly from the originating agency. Copies of such a publication could be provided to each passenger preparatory to flight aboard a Government aircraft, or could be maintained for reference at air operations bases and via the internet.     Legislative and Policy considerations:   Ready availability of such information minimizes possibility of confusion or uncertainty concerning benefits which may be applicable to Federal employees; A similar rationale would support the furnishing of such information prior to travel by commercial aircraft, train, or automobile; Because of costs and resource/recycling considerations, and the applicability of this information to virtually all Federal employees, agencies may wish to consider utilizing electronic means of providing this information, or maintaining it as a reference directed at those who are frequently in travel status.   Liability Information for Non-Federal Passengers   With respect to non-Federal passengers aboard Government aircraft, potential tort liability is primarily determined under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or, under some circumstances when an aircraft operates offshore, the Suits in Admiralty Act. Because suits against the United States require a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, potential tort claims against the Government are not without legal complexities and limitations; generally, however, the United States will be held to the same standard of conduct as would apply to non-Government actors under the law of the place where the act or omission complained of occurred. Because the possibility of Government liability for an aircraft accident is not grossly unlike that of a corporate or airline operator, it may not be necessary or desirable to apprise potential civilian passengers of the nuances of FTCA provisions prior to boarding a flight. Such an advisory would, of necessity, be very general in nature, and could not take the place of the advice of competent counsel were an injury or death to be sustained.   A slightly different situation is presented by Government aircraft operating outside the United States in a foreign country. Acts or omissions of Government employees occurring in a foreign country are exempted from potential liability under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. In the case of civilians aboard U.S. military aircraft, claims may be paid under the authority of the Secretary of the military department involved pursuant to the Military Claims Act or the Foreign Claims Act, but there is no judicial recourse or review.     Legislative and Policy considerations:   Provision of employee benefit information to Federal employees requires no legislative action; Can be accomplished by Executive Order or through ICAP coordination of agency efforts; To minimize the use of paper/recycling resources, provision of employee benefit information could be made conveniently available as reference material, provided on a time-based cycle, and/or provided to frequent travelers; For non-Federal employees aboard Government aircraft, provision of basic liability information would not require legislative action, but could be accomplished by Executive order or coordination through ICAP; Because of legal complexities involved, information would have to be very general in nature and thus could be of limited value. The families of Government employees aboard the CT-43 have raised the issue of family counseling assistance following a Government aviation disaster.   Federal agencies have generally been able to provide assessments, short-term counseling and resource referral services through existing EAPs, which are primarily aimed at Federal employees but have been broadly construed to include family members on humanitarian and practical bases. It appears that such measures are within the realm of “necessary expenses” which may be made from an agency’s general funds. While this has generally proven workable, clarification and specific authorization of this practice could be advantageous to victims and the agencies.     Legislative and Policy considerations:   Crisis intervention and assessment and referral for counseling services presently may be provided through application of traditional funding sources. Legislation or Executive order could be used to clarify/authorize expenditure of existing or new sources of funding for these purposes. Model legislative provision which could be added to the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, or another legislative vehicle, could be: Appropriations available to any department or agency during the current fiscal year or thereafter for necessary expenses, including operating expenses, shall also be available for payment for the use of Employee (or family) Assistance Programs to provide grief counseling services and otherwise assist family members of victims in the aftermath of a federal government disaster.   The families of Government employees and private citizens aboard the CT-43 have raised the issue of being provided travel to the accident site and to the special memorial service, and have suggested that the Government provide transportation and accommodations in future Government accidents.   Although Government air disasters of a scale raising these issues are very rare, there appears to be agreement in principle among the Federal agencies and departments with these requests. Because the Government’s mission and its fiscal constraints are far different from those of the commercial airlines and their insurers, Government agencies and departments are constrained in their ability to provide such services, having to utilize discretionary funds or other “catch-all” appropriation items that are otherwise available for such expenditures. As a fundamental principle of appropriations law, public funds may be used only for the purpose or purposes for which appropriated. Thus, if a proposed expenditure is not authorized by or is inconsistent with language in an appropriations act, it would be improper. However, since it is not possible for an appropriations act to specify every item of expenditure, a corollary principle of Federal appropriations law is that agencies have reasonable discretion in determining how to carry out the objectives of an appropriation.   Under the “necessary expense” doctrine, an appropriation made for a specific object is available for expenses normally incident to accomplishing that objective unless the broader objective is prohibited by law or otherwise provided for. A key issue in any necessary expense analysis is whether the proposed item of expenditure is primarily for the benefit of the government or is personal in nature. There are a long line of decisions of the Comptroller General that apply the necessary expense rule. In view of the vast differences among departments and agencies, determinations as to whether proposed expenditures are necessary expenses must be made on a case-by-case basis. While existing DOJ or Comptroller General interpretations of EAP statutes and other similar findings are helpful, specific legislation providing for post-disaster assistance for the families of Government employees could be employed to make this more uniform and comprehensive.   Another practical issue is the nature of the familial or other relationship with the decedent in order to be provided such transportation. The order of precedence established by statutes, such as that governing the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance program, provides a useful model: surviving spouse; children; surviving parents; next-of-kin. Allowing a fixed number of travelers and self-selection by those affected has proven workable in other disasters.     Legislative and Policy considerations:   Legislation or Executive order could be used to clarify the authorization for expenditure of existing departmental or agency funds for travel and accommodations purposes. Degree of affinity with the decedent should emphasize immediate family members but remain flexible; allowing a fixed number of travelers and self-selection by those affected.   Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 CFR, Chapters 301-304).   The General Services Administration (GSA) does not currently have the statutory authority to provide assistance to the families of executive branch civilian employees (or other civilians) who are involved in aviation disasters on government aircraft (or in any other disasters related to Federal government business/employment). GSA’s statutory authority currently is limited to providing the following assistance to civilian employees of the executive branch who are injured or die while on official travel:    Executive branch civilian employees who are injured not due to their own misconduct are entitled to transportation to their posts of duty or homes and for subsistence expenses until such locations are reached. (5 U.S.C. 5702 as implemented in FTR Part 301-12). For executive branch civilian employees who die while on official travel, under 5 U.S.C. 5742 as implemented in FTR Chapter 303, the employing agency may pay from appropriations available for the activity in which the employee was engaged the expense of preparing and transporting the remains and transporting the employee’s baggage to the employee’s post of duty or home. FECA provides several other benefits for employees who die from an injury sustained in the performance of duty. Those benefits are compensation in case of death, funeral and burial of employee, and preparation and transportation of employee’s remains. Non-travel related expenses pertaining to a surviving employee’s injuries are also governed by the FECA. For further information, please contact the DOL, Federal Employee Compensation Division.     Legislative and Policy Considerations:   In addition to changes that would provide for travel for families, GSA recommends evaluating the need for other travel-related changes to 5 U.S.C., which may include, but may not be limited to, the following:   Policy addressing agencies’ authority to send government representatives to attend funerals. In some instances, according to 5 U.S.C. 5742, “If practicable, the agency concerned in respect of the deceased may furnish mortuary services and supplies on a reimbursable basis when ?” (emphasis added). Legislative/policy consideration: remove or redefine “reimbursable basis.” Travel expenses of an escort for remains are not allowable under 5 U.S.C. 5742. This creates problems in retrieving remains from certain countries that won’t release other than to family (requires State Department involvement to obtain release).   Appendix E     This is a condensed version of a December 1996 report issued by the Department of the Air Force and the Office of Personnel Management.   Report on Benefits, Allowances, Services and Forms of Assistance Which May or Shall Be Provided to Any Civilian Employee of the Federal Government or to Any Private Citizen, or the Family of Such Individual, Who Is Killed or Injured While Traveling on an Aircraft Owned, Leased, Chartered, or Operated by the Government of the United States     Introduction   This is a report by the Department of the Air Force and OPM on the benefits, allowances, services and forms of assistance which may or shall be provided to any civilian employee of the Federal Government or to any private citizen, or to the family of such individual, who is killed or injured while traveling on an aircraft owned, leased, chartered, or operated by the Government of the United States, as required by Section 8125 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 as included in Section 101(b) of Public Law 104-208. The report was prepared by the OPM with cooperation and input from the Department of the Air Force.   This report describes the benefits available from various Federal government agencies to Federal employees and their families as a result of injury or death while traveling on Government aircraft, and the benefits and services provided to private citizens under similar circumstances.   In the Event of Injuries: Benefits Available to Federal Employees and to Certain Private Citizens Who Are Injured While Traveling on an Aircraft Owned, Leased, Chartered or Operated by the Government of the United States   I. Workers’ Compensation Benefits   Workers’ compensation benefits are administered by the DOL’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Benefits are available for federal employees who are injured or killed in the performance of duty, including while on official travel. For purposes of workers’ compensation eligibility, “employee” is defined at 5 U.S.C. ? 8101(1) to include not only regular federal employees but also individuals who are rendering personal service to the United States without pay or for nominal pay, when a statute authorizes the acceptance of such service. Thus, in some cases, private citizens who are not regularly employed by the United States will also be eligible for benefits as they are considered “employees” for these purposes.   A. Medical Expenses – All medical expenses related to injuries incurred by Federal employees while traveling on Government aircraft are fully covered by OWCP and paid directly to the persons or facilities providing the treatment.   B. Wage Loss Benefits – If the injury results in total disability, compensation is paid at the rate of two-thirds of current monthly pay. If the injured employee is married or has one or more dependents, compensation is paid at the rate of three-fourths of current monthly pay.   If the injury results in partial disability, compensation is paid at the rate of two-thirds of the difference between monthly pay and wage-earning capacity after the injury. If the injured employee is married or has one or more dependents, compensation is paid at the rate of three-fourths of the difference between monthly pay and wage-earning capacity after the injury.   C. Scheduled Award for Permanent Impairment – The DOL will pay an award scheduled over a fixed period of time for a permanent impairment to certain members or functions of the body (such as loss of the use of an arm, leg, eye or loss of function of or removal of a kidney, etc.). The amounts payable are specified by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). There is an additional award for serious disfigurement of the head, face or neck.   D. Compensation is Only Remedy – FECA specifies that benefits paid by the DOL under FECA are the sole remedy for injury incurred by a Federal employee in the performance of his or her duties. An injured Federal employee who receives compensation benefits is precluded from bringing suit for damages against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Secretary of Labor determines whether compensation benefits are payable and his or her decision is not subject to judicial review.     II. Retirement Benefits   Retirement benefits are administered by the OPM. Federal employees who are injured on the job cannot receive both retirement benefits and compensation from the DOL concurrently. They must make an election between the two benefits. Generally, compensation benefits are higher than retirement benefits.   A. Disability Retirement – Under both the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), a Federal employee who is unable to perform useful and efficient service in his or her position due to illness or injury may retire on disability. The disabling condition must be expected to last for at least a year and, under FERS, the employee must have at least 18 months of civilian service creditable under FERS. A CSRS employee must have at least 5 years of civilian service creditable under CSRS.   The amount paid depends on which system covers the employee and the salary and years of service the employee has. There is a guaranteed minimum amount payable under both systems under certain circumstances. A FERS disability benefit is offset by any Social Security disability benefits that may be payable. A CSRS Offset disability benefit (as opposed to a straight CSRS disability benefit) is also offset by any Social Security disability benefits that may be payable.   B. Voluntary Retirement – A Federal employee who meets the age and service requirements for voluntary retirement under either CSRS or FERS may retire after having incurred an injury on the job. Again though, if the injured employee is eligible for both voluntary retirement and compensation from the Department of Labor, he or she must elect one benefit or the other. An employee cannot receive both compensation for injury and a voluntary retirement annuity under CSRS or FERS. The amount paid depends on which system covers the employee and the salary and the employee’s number of years of service.     III. Insurance Benefits   Generally, medical expenses related to an injury on the job are covered by OWCP, but any medical expenses not related to that injury and any medical expenses for the injured employee’s family members would be covered by any Federal Employees Health Benefits Program plan in which the employee may be enrolled. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) benefits are administered by the OPM.   A Federal employee who loses a foot or a hand or the sight of one eye and is covered by basic Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance will receive one-half of the basic insurance amount as an accidental dismemberment benefit. If the employee loses two or more such members of the body, he or she will receive the full basic insurance amount as an accidental dismemberment benefit. In addition, if the employee is covered by the $10,000 optional insurance, he or she will receive one-half or all of that amount as an accidental dismemberment benefit.     IV. Thrift Savings Plan Benefits   Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) benefits are administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.   A retiring Federal employee may leave the amounts to his or her credit in the Thrift Savings Plan until age 70 1/2, and they will continue to earn tax-deferred earnings until they are withdrawn. The retiree may continue to manage these funds through Interfund Transfers. The retiree also may withdraw the funds in any of several ways (in a lump sum, an annuity payable for life, or in monthly installments). A disability retiree is not subject to the early withdrawal tax penalty, although the normal taxes would be due.     V. Social Security Benefits   Social security benefits are administered by the Social Security Administration.   Federal employees who work under Social Security (usually those covered by FERS, CSRS Offset or no retirement system) may be entitled to disability benefits if they meet the quarters of coverage requirements and are disabled for all positions in the economy for which they qualify. Disability under Social Security means that an employee is so severely disabled that he or she cannot perform any substantial gainful work and the disability is expected to last for at least a year or result in death. Benefits do not begin until after a 5-month waiting period after the onset of the disability. The amount of the benefit is based on earnings under Social Security without reduction for age.   In addition to his or her own benefit, the disabled employee’s qualified spouse and/or children may also receive benefits based on the disabled employee’s Social Security covered earnings while the employee receives disability benefits. If the employee is receiving workers’ compensation benefits from the DOL, the Social Security disability benefit will be reduced. The total of all disability benefits (Social Security, workers’ compensation, and CSRS or FERS benefits) may not exceed 80 percent of earnings before the disability began.   A Federal employee who is age 62 or older and has the required quarters of coverage would be eligible for regular old-age benefits, rather than any disability benefit, as would his or her spouse and/or children.     VI. Public Safety Officers’ Benefits   The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the DOJ.   A public safety officer found to have been permanently and totally disabled and permanently unable to perform any gainful employment as the direct result of a catastrophic injury sustained in the line of duty is entitled to a lump-sum benefit of $138,461.00. This amount is for 1997 and is subject to annual cost-of-living adjustments. A public safety officer is defined to be any individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, police, corrections, probation, parole and judicial officer, firefighter, rescue squad member or ambulance crew member. A public agency means an agency of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States, or any unit of State or local government.     In the Event of Death: Benefits Available to the Families of Federal Employees and Certain Private Citizens Who Are Killed While Traveling on an Aircraft Owned, Leased, Chartered or Operated by the Government of the United States   I. Workers’ Compensation Benefits   For purposes of workers’ compensation eligibility, “employee” is defined at 5 U.S.C. ? 8101(1) to include not only regular federal employees but also individuals who are rendering authorized personal service to the United States without pay or for nominal pay. Thus, in some cases, the family of an individual who was killed while rendering service to the Federal government will be eligible for compensation benefits.   A. Survivors’ Benefits – If a Federal employee is killed on the job while performing official duties (including while traveling on official travel), his or her surviving spouse and dependents may qualify for monthly compensation benefits from the DOL. The surviving spouse must be living with or dependent for support on the deceased employee at the time of death or living apart for reasonable cause or because of the employee’s desertion. Children must be under age 18 or between 18 and 22 and full-time students or disabled.   If no children are eligible for benefits, the surviving spouse receives 50 percent of the deceased employee’s salary. If there are children eligible, the surviving spouse receives 45 percent of the deceased employee’s salary plus an additional 15 percent for each child up to a maximum of 75 percent of salary. The compensation benefits could be reduced if the survivors are eligible for Social Security benefits based on the deceased employee’s Federal employment.   B. Funeral Expenses- The DOL will also pay funeral and burial expenses up to a maximum of $800 to a surviving spouse or children. In addition, a sum of $200 will be paid to a personal representative for reimbursement of the costs of termination of the deceased employee’s status as a Federal employee.   C. Compensation Is Only Remedy – The FECA specifies that benefits paid by the DOL under FECA are the sole remedy for injury or death incurred by a Federal employee in the performance of his or her duties. The survivors of a deceased Federal employee who receive compensation benefits (including just the burial expense allowance) are precluded from bringing suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Secretary of Labor determines whether compensation benefits are payable and his or her decision is not subject to judicial review.     II. Retirement Benefits   Survivors of Federal employees who are killed on the job cannot receive both retirement survivor benefits and survivors’ compensation from the DOL. They must make an election between the two benefits. Generally, compensation benefits are higher than retirement benefits.   A. Survivor’s Annuity – In most cases, a surviving spouse or child will elect compensation benefits over Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) benefits, as they are generally higher. In some instances, compensation benefits are not payable, e.g., when there are court-ordered survivor benefits for a former spouse, or the surviving spouse is not living with the deceased employee at the time of his or her death, or the surviving spouse remarries prior to age 55 and the remarriage ends. Under these circumstances, the CSRS or FERS survivor annuity will be payable. FERS survivor annuity benefits are payable to a surviving spouse if the deceased employee had at least 18 months of civilian service and 10 years of total service creditable under FERS. Children must be under 18 or between 18 and 22 and full-time students or disabled.   This benefit is equal to 55 percent of what the deceased employee would have received had he or she retired on the date of death (for CSRS) or 50 percent of the deceased employee’s earned annuity (for FERS). Benefits payable under CSRS Offset may be offset by Social Security benefits based on the deceased employee’s CSRS Offset service.   B. Lump Sum Payment of Retirement Contributions – If there is no survivor annuity payable, either because there is no surviving spouse or child or because compensation benefits have been elected, a lump sum payment of the deceased employee’s retirement contributions will be paid in accordance with the statutory order of precedence. The order is: first, to the designated beneficiary; if none designated, to the surviving spouse; if none, to the child or children and descendants of deceased children, by representation; if none, to any surviving parents; if none, to the duly appointed executor or administrator of the estate; if none, to the next of kin.   C. FERS Basic Employee Death Benefit – If the deceased employee had at least 18 months of civilian service creditable under FERS, the surviving spouse may receive a basic employee death benefit equal to one-half of the annual rate of pay at death or one-half the high-3 average salary (whichever is higher) plus $20,208.59 in 1997. (Amount is adjusted annually.) The surviving spouse cannot receive this benefit if he or she elects to receive compensation benefits from the DOL.     III. Insurance Benefits   A. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program – If the deceased employee had a self and family enrollment with a Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plan, his or her eligible family members may continue coverage in that or any other FEHB plan as long as one or more survivor is receiving either workers’ compensation survivor benefits or CSRS or FERS survivor benefits.   B. Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance – Most Federal employees, unless they waive coverage, have Basic Life Insurance under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program. Basic Life Insurance is equal to the deceased employee’s actual rate of annual basic pay (rounded to the next $1,000) plus $2,000, or $10,000, whichever is greater. In addition, there is an extra benefit for employees under age 45: Double life insurance benefits until age 36, decreasing at 10 percent per year until age 45, at which time the extra coverage will end. Basic Life Insurance also includes Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage. Accidental death benefits are equal to the amount of the Basic Insurance Amount but without the extra benefit for being under age 45 and are paid in addition to the basic insurance benefit in the case of accidental death. Some employees may also have optional insurance coverage. Optional coverage for employees may be $10,000 (Option A-Standard, which doubles in case of accidental death), and/or one to five multiples of pay (Option B-Additional).   Life insurance benefits are paid under a statutory order of precedence: first, to the designated beneficiary; if none designated, to the surviving spouse; if none, to the child or children and descendants of deceased children, by representation; if none, to any surviving parents; if none, to the duly appointed executor or administrator of the estate; if none, to the next of kin. Life insurance would be paid in addition to any workers’ compensation, Social Security, CSRS or FERS benefit, or thrift savings plan payment.     IV. Thrift Savings Plan   If an employee dies with a TSP account, the entire balance will be paid under a statutory order of precedence: first, to the designated beneficiary; if none designated, to the surviving spouse; if none, to the child or children and descendants of deceased children, by representation; if none, to any surviving parents; if none, to the duly appointed executor or administrator of the estate; if none, to the next of kin. Only a surviving spouse may have the TSP transfer or “roll over” all or any part of the payment to an Individual Retirement Arrangement to continue tax deferral.     V. Unpaid Compensation   When an employee dies in service, his or her agency pays the survivors the employee’s final pay and any unused annual leave in a lump sum. The payment is made under the statutory order of precedence: first, to the designated beneficiary; if none designated, to the surviving spouse; if none, to the child or children and descendants of deceased children, by representation; if none, to any surviving parents; if none, to the duly appointed executor or administrator of the estate; if none, to the next of kin.     VI. Social Security Benefits   The survivors of deceased Federal employees who worked under Social Security (usually those covered by FERS, CSRS Offset or no retirement system) may be entitled to Social Security survivor benefits. For the surviving spouse to qualify, he or she must be age 60, or between the ages of 50 and 59 and disabled, or any age and caring for a child under age 16 or a disabled child. Children may qualify if they are under age 18 (or under age 19, if in high school) or disabled. Dependent parents and former spouses may also qualify for survivor benefits.   The amount of the benefit depends on the deceased employee’s Social Security covered earnings and the number of survivors eligible for benefits. The Social Security spousal benefit may be reduced if the surviving spouse is eligible for benefits based on his or her own employment and that employment was not covered by Social Security, such as employment under CSRS.     VII. Public Safety Officers’ Benefits   The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Act of 1976, as amended, authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance to pay a benefit to specified survivors of public safety officers found to have died as the direct and proximate result of a traumatic injury involving external force sustained in the line of duty. The amount of the benefit is $138,461 for 1997 and is increased each year for the cost of living.   The PSOB death benefit is payable in a lump sum to the spouse and eligible children of a deceased public safety officer. One-half of the benefit is payable to the spouse and one-half of the benefit would be paid, in equal amounts, to the eligible children. Eligible children are defined as children 18 years of age or younger, children 19 through 22 years who are full-time students, and children 19 years of age or older and incapable of self-support because of a physical or mental disability. The PSOB death benefit will be paid to the deceased public safety officer’s parents if no surviving spouse or children are eligible for the benefit. If the public safety officer is not survived by any eligible spouse, children, or parents, the PSOB death benefit will not be paid.   The PSOB death benefit is payable to a qualified survivor of a Federal employee in addition to death benefits payable to the survivor from CSRS, FERS, and OWCP.     VIII. Reimbursement for Burial Costs of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Employees under Public Law 103-332   The representative of any employee of any department or agency with appropriations from a DOI and Related Agencies Appropriations Act who is killed in the line of duty may be paid reimbursement for burial costs and related out-of-pocket expenses up to a maximum of $10,000. This amount is over and above the $800 funeral expense payable by the DOL to a surviving spouse or children of a Federal employee killed in the line of duty.     IX. Death Gratuity Payment under Public Law 104-208   At the discretion of the head of the department or agency, the personal representative of any Federal employee who dies from an injury sustained on or after August 2, 1990, in the line of duty may be paid a death gratuity of up to $10,000. While the authority is discretionary, the OPM encourages all department and agency heads to make full use of this authority.   The gratuity, when combined with certain other payments, may not exceed $10,000. The other payments that must be considered are: (1) the up to $800 payable by the DOL to a surviving spouse or children for funeral expenses of a Federal employee who died as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty; (2) the $200 payable by the DOL for reimbursement of the costs of termination of the deceased employee’s status as a Federal employee; and (3) any amount paid under Public Law 103-332 above to the representative of any employee of any department or agency with appropriations from a DOI and Related Agencies Appropriations Act who is killed in the line of duty.     X. Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act   The DOS administers Victims of Terrorism Compensation benefits for incidents that occur in a foreign country, while the head of the agency involved administers benefits payable due to hostile actions in a domestic situation. The Secretary of State determines when a hostile action under this Act has taken place and, in conjunction with the Secretary of Labor, when a Federal employee or a private citizen is entitled to compensation under this Act for incidents abroad. For domestic situations, the Secretary of State with the Attorney General and other agency heads will determine when a hostile action under this Act has occurred and when benefits are payable. These determinations are not subject to judicial review, although there is an administrative reconsideration process.   When a Federal employee is killed because of hostile action abroad or in the United States that is a result of the individual’s relationship with the U.S. Government, the Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act provides for a death benefit equal to 1 year’s salary at the time of death. This benefit is reduced by any other death or disability benefits funded in whole or in part by the United States, including FECA benefits. The death benefit is payable as follows: first, to the widow or widower; second to the dependent child, or children in equal shares, if there is no widow or widower; third, to the dependent parent, or dependent parents in equal shares, if there is no widow, widower, or dependent children; fourth, to adult, non-dependent children in equal shares. If there are no survivors as described, no payment shall be made.   Appendix F:  Implementing the Plan: National Transportation Safety Board     Several government agencies already have in place response plans to help them deal effectively and proactively with family support in an aviation disaster. However, we recognized the need to provide one core plan with a baseline of minimum and uniform support tasks which would at the same time bring the government’s response to levels comparable to that required and developed by commercial air carriers. The NTSB has agreed to develop a model response plan to serve as the baseline for nonmilitary agencies’ use in developing their own agency-specific plans. The NTSB has modified its proven Federal Family Assistance Plan for government use. Its plan is anchored in the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act and these practices will be incorporated by agencies as they develop their own specific plans. The NTSB has sent its draft plan out to the appropriate departments and agencies for comments. After the final plan is sent out, agencies will have six months to submit their detailed plans to the NTSB, similar to the process required of the commercial carriers in the Act.   The NTSB Office of Family Affairs has agreed to coordinate family assistance following a nonmilitary government air disaster to the same extent it provides this service following a commercial disaster. It will coordinate the efforts of other federal, state and local agencies, nonprofit and volunteer organizations, and any government charter airline should one be involved. Government agencies that sponsor flights need to have the NTSB’s unique expertise available to help them most effectively handle the many dynamics present at the crash site. The NTSB has agreed to extend its role in this capacity as a logical outgrowth of its current responsibilities.     Office of Personnel Management   Working closely with GSA, OPM has agreed to develop the final statement of rights and benefits, and already has updated its existing pamphlet that details Federal payments to employees and family members for job-related injury or death. The pamphlet is now available to all current and future employees through the OPM web site. Agencies can also obtain a hard copy through the Government Printing Office. OPM will finalize the disclosure statement of rights, benefits, and possible consequences for all passengers involved in a government-sponsored flight. The disclosure statement will normally be made available at the time of issuance of travel orders. They also should improve and regulate the process to have comprehensive and regularly updated emergency contact information available in personnel files.   OPM should develop and distribute to agencies a policy statement authorizing the use of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in emergency mental health services for short term crisis intervention and classic EAP assessment and referral for longer term counseling appropriate to a family’s situation. They should recommend an appropriate time frame for families to be able to access this service. In addition, OPM should draft a letter to the Comptroller General requesting guidance on extending EAP services to family members of private citizens who become victims of a government aircraft disaster. Under NTSB’s overall coordination, OPM will establish a methodology to work with EAP providers and the American Red Cross at an aircraft disaster site, and with families either at the site or at their homes. OPM will also be available within staffing constraints to provide expert consultation to agencies, prospectively and during or following a disaster, on managing the human component of traumatic events. This will help agencies create the proper environment to move towards resolution of traumas and prevent further damage.   OPM has agreed to participate in a multi-agency group under NTSB coordination to develop the criteria and processes that agencies will use to screen and train Federal employees who interact with families involved in air disasters. They will parallel the effort of the ADFAA Task Force as detailed in its Final Report (recommendation 1.4), and develop employee screening and training program models for agencies’ use.   OPM should coordinate with other departmental/agency personnel organizations as needed, particularly DOD and NTSB, to ensure a uniform approach to family support benefits.   Lastly, OPM will cooperate with NTSB and GSA to develop and publicize a plan to inform and orient personnel and travel organizations and employees about family assistance issues.     General Services Administration   The GSA has agreed to work closely with the NTSB, DOD, OPM, and others as necessary to implement air response plans and passenger manifest enhancements through the Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP), and to consider proposing appropriate legislative changes (when necessary) and then revising related federal travel regulations to facilitate agencies’ abilities to provide travel and transportation related support services for families and agency representatives.   GSA will work closely with OPM to develop and implement the process for agencies to use to notify Federal and non-Federal passengers, well before a prospective flight, of their rights and benefits. The process to notify passengers will need to be put into agencies’ travel procedures.   GSA should work closely with ICAP and develop an enhanced passenger manifest requirement to facilitate speedy and accurate family notification. The manifest should require the following data: full name of the passenger, and for each passenger, a contact phone number and a contact name. These data elements should be implemented through changes to 41 CFR 101-37, Government Aviation Administration and Coordination.   GSA is examining travel and transportation statutes and regulations, and will consider proposing changes as necessary. GSA will develop and publish flexible and responsive family member definitions for eligibility for various travel, lodging, and transportation benefits and services. They should consult with the DOD with regard to their military travel regulations to help ensure a uniform approach.   GSA will also examine and revise policies now barring agency escorts for deceased employees’ bodies, agency authority for agency funeral representatives’ travel, and look towards elimination of the reimbursable nature of mortuary services and supplies.   GSA and DOD should lead a joint effort to study life insurance coverage exclusions for travel aboard military aircraft and pursue remedies with both the federal travel card suppliers and life insurance industry representatives. The existing Federal government travel charge card contains an exclusion to its $200,000 accidental death or dismemberment payment if flying in aircraft not assigned to the Air Mobility Command, and various private life insurers have similar restrictions. However, the military frequently transports civilian government employees and invited guests in all sorts of aircraft for official, though non-military missions. GSA and DOD should work together to attempt to have the future travel card insurer amend its policy in this regard, and to approach and educate the life insurance industry on the varied missions of military aircraft.   GSA will coordinate with other departmental and agency travel organizations as needed to ensure a uniform approach to these support issues, and will work with OPM and NTSB to develop and implement a plan to orient personnel and travel organizations and employees about family assistance issues.   Appendix G:  Guidelines for Agencies     All Departments and Agencies   The following guidelines are drawn from the Task Force’s Final Report. Departments and agencies should incorporate these guidelines into their own family support plans and policies.   1. Adopt as flexible a set of definitions for “family members” as possible, where not already prescribed by existing statutes. The experiences of the airlines after air disasters have pointed to the need to recognize the diversity in contemporary family structures.   It has been the airlines’ experience that several individuals could consider themselves “family” of the victim, even if the law doesn’t formally acknowledge such a relationship. Such would be the case for fianc?es, long-time companions, former spouses, step-family members, etc. With regard to notification, the definition should be as broad and flexible as possible, in order to best ensure that key family members are reached in a timely fashion by the government’s representatives possessing knowledge of the passenger’s status in an accident.   With regard to eligibility for support and benefits, for example travel to the site and workers’ compensation or death benefits, the definitions need to be more restricted and in accordance with existing laws and regulations, but still allow sufficient flexibility to respond according to the circumstances of the specific air accident. It may be appropriate to provide travel and accommodations to more than the legally-defined next of kin. The degree of affinity of a person to the victim should establish precedence, but agencies should remain sufficiently flexible, allowing a fixed number of travelers for example, while allowing the family to self-select those who participate.   2. Require passengers aboard a government flight to provide a point of contact by name and phone number to the agency operating the flight, prior to boarding. Commercial airlines have made the point of contact data collection optional for its passengers, given the delays and ensuing costs in completion of a form and the collection of data. However, the working group recognized the advantage of having an emergency point of contact to best ensure timely family notification. The practice of maintaining emergency data on family contacts is a long-standing one in the military. A similar practice should be adopted for nonmilitary Federal employees, in the interest of aiding agencies with their notification responsibilities. Enhanced manifests shall contain the passenger’s full name, and for each passenger, the name and phone number of one contact. Manifest forms can be flexibly designed according to agencies’ needs but should be available for immediate transmission by the quickest means should it be called for.   3. Each agency should identify a single point of contact for liaison with support agencies, and with affected families, in the event of a federal aviation disaster. There is ample evidence of the need for a clear line of communication and a single source of information for family members. The agency or Department sponsoring the flight should have lead agency responsibilities for ensuring that family notifications are made and information is provided to families as it becomes available. They should also be the main conduit to other agencies that might be participating in the sponsoring agency’s mission, or with the agency operating the aircraft, should that be different than the sponsoring agency. In addition, each agency should identify an emergency contact and after hours telephone number (i.e., Operations Center) for the NTSB to use in the event of a domestic or international emergency.   In the event of an accident overseas, the DOS has certain statutory responsibilities with regard to notification of death and conservation of the estates of U.S. citizen victims. The DOS will discharge these responsibilities by working closely with the sponsoring agency who will remain the lead agency with regard to family assistance. (The DOD is required to officially report the deaths of its military and civilian personnel.)   The sponsoring agency would also be the single point of contact for the families of both its employees, and any private citizens that might be involved. It would be the source for all information about status of loved ones, assistance to survivors, identification of remains, the investigation (in concert with NTSB), memorial services, recovery of personal effects, transportation of remains, funeral representation details, administrative and disciplinary actions when appropriate, survivor benefits counseling, and any other counseling or support issues that might arise. The key is to make it easy for family members to have a known and reliable point of contact, for both the short and long term.   The sponsoring agency would also be the primary point of contact for family members with other government branches and agencies, serving as a limited “advocate” for them by facilitating introductions to the right organizations and persons for whatever issues the families would want to pursue.   4. Develop proactive and sensitive family notification and media contact procedures. Those responsible for notifying family members face a difficult situation in many regards. First, they must have accurate and easily obtainable passenger and contact information. Then, they must deal with a many different family structures and people who are probably unknown to them. Apart from the sometimes non-traditional family makeup or boundaries, the truly “key” members of a particular family may not be known to those needing to make the call. Further, the government representatives could be deluged with incoming calls from a large number of persons claiming family status, tying up limited communications capabilities and diluting the agency’s best efforts to reach all the affected families as quickly as possible. Nonetheless, how the family is initially contacted and handled for the first couple of days makes all the difference in their perception of a caring and effective response. Families want to be contacted by the agency, or someone “in a position to know,” before hearing of the accident or their loved one’s death from the media.   Ideally, notification by an agency to family members of their loved one’s death or injury should be in person. If it is performed by other means, it should be followed promptly by a person-to-person contact from either the agency, the American Red Cross, or another official entity, if offered to and accepted by family members.   When making initial notification to a family that a loved one was a passenger on an aircraft involved in an aviation disaster, the agency should inquire if there is another family member who should also receive formal notification. These secondary contacts would be notified after initial notification to families of all passengers. Families should designate a primary contact point for purposes of information sharing in the aftermath of the disaster. While it may be necessary for families to have more than one contact point, agencies should try to get the family to limit the numbers of contacts, keep the agency out of any family dynamics like “factions,” and have the family keep itself informed.   Agencies should put in place systems and procedures to establish communication with family members as soon as possible. Information should be provided on a “rolling basis” — that is, make speedy initial contact, even with incomplete information, and keep making regular periodic contact with the family, either when new information is available, or simply to let them know that additional information is not available. Both are vital to the families’ ability to cope.   The sponsoring agency should assume primary responsibility for establishing and especially, sustaining contact with family members. If a third party is involved initially, (e. g. Red Cross, or DOS for incidents in a foreign country) assume primary contact duties as soon as possible. Adopt policies to ascertain the family’s needs (financial and otherwise) in the immediate aftermath of aviation disasters, and provide assistance as appropriate. Its representatives should specifically inquire if the person contacted is alone, and needs support, and follow through as necessary.   Agencies should advise family members that the name of their loved one will not be publicly released by the agency until the family has personally notified other family members. Ask the family contact how much time is needed to complete their own notifications within the family. Establish procedures designed to respect the privacy of family members after an air crash. Inform families that it is their choice if they want to interact with the media. Family members of the victim should have time to cope with the initial shock of the tragedy prior to having the victim’s name publicly released, and should be provided an opportunity to personally notify other loved ones of their family member’s involvement in an aviation disaster. Agencies should work closely with the NTSB, which should serve as a liaison between family members and the press during the initial days following an aviation disaster and work with the families and the media to appropriately limit media contact with the families so that families can decide in advance whether they wish to speak with the media.   5. Consider paying for family members’ travel expenses (including on-site room and board) related to the accident. As a best practice, departments and agencies should be encouraged to transport family members to crash sites when feasible, and to memorial services or monument dedication ceremonies. It has become a general practice with commercial air carriers to do so, and it addresses key psychological needs. While the government is somewhat hampered in its ability to provide such services for accident-related events, there is leeway to enable travel and accommodations to take place (Appendix D).   Additionally, the following key principles as articulated in Recommendation 1.3 of the ADFAA Task Force Final Report should be adopted, should a department or agency decide to offer transportation and accommodations to family members:   Transportation to the accident scene, if deemed appropriate and families desire to go, should be provided in the most expeditious manner possible, including commercial airlines. When the family accepts such travel to the scene or a memorial service, the agency should agree to transport and house a minimum of two persons per family. At such stressful or traumatic times one person should not be expected to go through these experiences alone. Given the wide range of grief dynamics within families, department and agency heads should be flexible in response to individual needs. Not all family members may be psychologically or otherwise able to travel to a memorial or the accident scene for some time. Agencies should consider providing transportation to an accident-related event or locale for up to two years after the disaster. This kind of flexibility has been validated in the experiences of the CT-43 families and we see this flexibility as a properly accommodating humanitarian response. 6. Ensure that government employees who are assigned to interact with families following an aviation disaster are screened and receive adequate training. The families of the CT-43 crash reported a wide spectrum of impact by those government representatives who made initial contact with them, ranging from excellent to disastrous. Clearly, the untrained and unaware can needlessly compound a difficult and tragic situation even through unintentional actions and statements. Just as important are the contacts made by government representatives with family members in the longer term. Recommendation 1.4 of the ADFAA Task Force Final Report delineates key mental health and emotional components of training programs for anyone who interacts with victims’ families and should be adopted by government agencies as part of their response plans.   NTSB will coordinate a partnered effort among OPM, which provides expert consultation in the matters of mass trauma and grief dynamics, the ARC, and the DOJ (Office for Victims of Crime), DOS (Overseas Citizens Services), and HHS (Federal Occupational Health division), which provide much of the notification to families who lose loved ones, to develop employee screening processes and training programs to best equip the government with the proactive and compassionate response that is critical to the families’ needs in dealing with tragic loss.   The screening and training processes, once developed, should be a mandatory part of each agency-specific response plan, which is consistent with the ADFAA Task Force’s recommendation for airlines in this regard.   7. Provide emergency mental health services for family members in partnership with the NTSB and through the Employee Assistance Program model for assessment and referral for longer term care. According to the NTSB plan, the ARC provides counseling for family members at the crash site or at their homes for those who do not travel to the site. One different dynamic of the response to a government air disaster is the widespread existence of Employee Assistance Programs (EAP). OPM, as the government’s EAP policymaker, should develop sufficient policies in partnership with the NTSB, the ARC, and with EAP providers to be able to respond with proper crisis intervention in the immediate aftermath of an air disaster, and with assessment and referral to outside grief counseling in the longer term through the classic EAP model for those who so desire.   The division of Federal Occupational Health (FOH), of the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Public Health Service, is the government’s largest (but not only) single EAP provider. It has over 400 interagency agreements covering more than 1.4 million Federal employees (including the Postal Service), and has screened and certified a nationwide network of over 6,000 licensed professional counselors. FOH and other federal EAP providers should assist the ARC, which is the first responder in accordance with the NTSB Family Assistance Plan. Should the ARC not be in a position to respond, the FOH would be able to provide those services. Should ARC need augmentation, FOH is situated through its national provider network to assist them.   An agency needing to provide such emergency services to either family members or its own employees in the aftermath of an air disaster should first evaluate its own EAP’s capabilities and respond appropriately. But should the EAP be evaluated as inadequate for the task, the agency point of contact should contact FOH which could then either augment or fully provide the emergency services and counseling needed.   OPM EAP policy writers should amend basic EAP requirements for agencies to reflect the need to be able to fully address emergency mental health services for not only employees and their family members, but family members of private citizens involved in government air disasters. EAP has been consistently expanded in its scope to include these groups in disaster situations. Humanitarian expenses such as these can, through precedent (the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing) and Attorney General and Comptroller General decisions be considered within the realm of a department’s or agency’s “necessary expenses.” We urge the speedy enablement of such practices through OPM policy.   OPM should require those agencies that routinely participate in aviation missions to have the ability to deliver those services, either through their own EAP or in an agreement with FOH.   8. Develop policies to ensure personal effects are returned to family members. While recognizing that the identification and association of personal effects is difficult, families often have an emotional need for the return of the last articles of clothing the passengers wore or the purses or wallets that the victims carried, as such effects are the last association or connection with their loved one. It is critical that the families be consulted about the personal effects of the passengers, that the government return personal effects to families unless retained for accident or criminal investigation, and that any unclaimed possession will be retained by the responsible agency for a minimum of 18 months.   The process for the return of unassociated personal effects is deliberate and can be time consuming. To do this correctly, all items are first cleaned as needed, inventoried, numbered, and photographed. Once this process is complete, a photo catalogue is produced and sent to all victims or their families. To allow for a wide range of emotional reactions upon receipt of the catalogue, notify the families before it is sent, or clearly identify the mailing container as to its contents. Instructions should be provided on how to claim an item. Once all victims or families have responded, items claimed by only one person are returned per their instructions. Claims by more than one party must be substantiated and proven by pictures, invoices, or other means. The item is returned once ownership is determined. There is a growing number of commercial firms that specialize in the proper preparation and return of personal effects. The NTSB can provide the firms’ names for agency consideration. Agencies should contact the DOS (Overseas Citizens Services) if the disaster occurred in a foreign country or if a victim resided overseas, for their assistance concerning the protection and return of personal effects, property, and estates. The DOS has a statutory responsibility to safeguard the estates of deceased U.S. citizens overseas.   9. Consult with family members in planning memorial services and markers. The erection of memorials and the holding of services are recognized as key elements in the healing the grief that family members experience. Should services be held and/or a monument built, involve interested family members early and keep them involved as appropriate. Some important factors are: notification of all families, due consideration to the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs, easy accessibility to the monument by visiting family members, and public and private funding sources.   Appendix F:  Implementing the Plan: National Transportation Safety Board     Several government agencies already have in place response plans to help them deal effectively and proactively with family support in an aviation disaster. However, we recognized the need to provide one core plan with a baseline of minimum and uniform support tasks which would at the same time bring the government’s response to levels comparable to that required and developed by commercial air carriers. The NTSB has agreed to develop a model response plan to serve as the baseline for nonmilitary agencies’ use in developing their own agency-specific plans. The NTSB has modified its proven Federal Family Assistance Plan for government use. Its plan is anchored in the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act and these practices will be incorporated by agencies as they develop their own specific plans. The NTSB has sent its draft plan out to the appropriate departments and agencies for comments. After the final plan is sent out, agencies will have six months to submit their detailed plans to the NTSB, similar to the process required of the commercial carriers in the Act.   The NTSB Office of Family Affairs has agreed to coordinate family assistance following a nonmilitary government air disaster to the same extent it provides this service following a commercial disaster. It will coordinate the efforts of other federal, state and local agencies, nonprofit and volunteer organizations, and any government charter airline should one be involved. Government agencies that sponsor flights need to have the NTSB’s unique expertise available to help them most effectively handle the many dynamics present at the crash site. The NTSB has agreed to extend its role in this capacity as a logical outgrowth of its current responsibilities.     Office of Personnel Management   Working closely with GSA, OPM has agreed to develop the final statement of rights and benefits, and already has updated its existing pamphlet that details Federal payments to employees and family members for job-related injury or death. The pamphlet is now available to all current and future employees through the OPM web site. Agencies can also obtain a hard copy through the Government Printing Office. OPM will finalize the disclosure statement of rights, benefits, and possible consequences for all passengers involved in a government-sponsored flight. The disclosure statement will normally be made available at the time of issuance of travel orders. They also should improve and regulate the process to have comprehensive and regularly updated emergency contact information available in personnel files.   OPM should develop and distribute to agencies a policy statement authorizing the use of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in emergency mental health services for short term crisis intervention and classic EAP assessment and referral for longer term counseling appropriate to a family’s situation. They should recommend an appropriate time frame for families to be able to access this service. In addition, OPM should draft a letter to the Comptroller General requesting guidance on extending EAP services to family members of private citizens who become victims of a government aircraft disaster. Under NTSB’s overall coordination, OPM will establish a methodology to work with EAP providers and the American Red Cross at an aircraft disaster site, and with families either at the site or at their homes. OPM will also be available within staffing constraints to provide expert consultation to agencies, prospectively and during or following a disaster, on managing the human component of traumatic events. This will help agencies create the proper environment to move towards resolution of traumas and prevent further damage.   OPM has agreed to participate in a multi-agency group under NTSB coordination to develop the criteria and processes that agencies will use to screen and train Federal employees who interact with families involved in air disasters. They will parallel the effort of the ADFAA Task Force as detailed in its Final Report (recommendation 1.4), and develop employee screening and training program models for agencies’ use.   OPM should coordinate with other departmental/agency personnel organizations as needed, particularly DOD and NTSB, to ensure a uniform approach to family support benefits.   Lastly, OPM will cooperate with NTSB and GSA to develop and publicize a plan to inform and orient personnel and travel organizations and employees about family assistance issues.     General Services Administration   The GSA has agreed to work closely with the NTSB, DOD, OPM, and others as necessary to implement air response plans and passenger manifest enhancements through the Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP), and to consider proposing appropriate legislative changes (when necessary) and then revising related federal travel regulations to facilitate agencies’ abilities to provide travel and transportation related support services for families and agency representatives.   GSA will work closely with OPM to develop and implement the process for agencies to use to notify Federal and non-Federal passengers, well before a prospective flight, of their rights and benefits. The process to notify passengers will need to be put into agencies’ travel procedures.   GSA should work closely with ICAP and develop an enhanced passenger manifest requirement to facilitate speedy and accurate family notification. The manifest should require the following data: full name of the passenger, and for each passenger, a contact phone number and a contact name. These data elements should be implemented through changes to 41 CFR 101-37, Government Aviation Administration and Coordination.   GSA is examining travel and transportation statutes and regulations, and will consider proposing changes as necessary. GSA will develop and publish flexible and responsive family member definitions for eligibility for various travel, lodging, and transportation benefits and services. They should consult with the DOD with regard to their military travel regulations to help ensure a uniform approach.   GSA will also examine and revise policies now barring agency escorts for deceased employees’ bodies, agency authority for agency funeral representatives’ travel, and look towards elimination of the reimbursable nature of mortuary services and supplies.   GSA and DOD should lead a joint effort to study life insurance coverage exclusions for travel aboard military aircraft and pursue remedies with both the federal travel card suppliers and life insurance industry representatives. The existing Federal government travel charge card contains an exclusion to its $200,000 accidental death or dismemberment payment if flying in aircraft not assigned to the Air Mobility Command, and various private life insurers have similar restrictions. However, the military frequently transports civilian government employees and invited guests in all sorts of aircraft for official, though non-military missions. GSA and DOD should work together to attempt to have the future travel card insurer amend its policy in this regard, and to approach and educate the life insurance industry on the varied missions of military aircraft.   GSA will coordinate with other departmental and agency travel organizations as needed to ensure a uniform approach to these support issues, and will work with OPM and NTSB to develop and implement a plan to orient personnel and travel organizations and employees about family assistance issues.   Appendix G:  Guidelines for Agencies     All Departments and Agencies   The following guidelines are drawn from the Task Force’s Final Report. Departments and agencies should incorporate these guidelines into their own family support plans and policies.   1. Adopt as flexible a set of definitions for “family members” as possible, where not already prescribed by existing statutes. The experiences of the airlines after air disasters have pointed to the need to recognize the diversity in contemporary family structures.   It has been the airlines’ experience that several individuals could consider themselves “family” of the victim, even if the law doesn’t formally acknowledge such a relationship. Such would be the case for fianc?es, long-time companions, former spouses, step-family members, etc. With regard to notification, the definition should be as broad and flexible as possible, in order to best ensure that key family members are reached in a timely fashion by the government’s representatives possessing knowledge of the passenger’s status in an accident.   With regard to eligibility for support and benefits, for example travel to the site and workers’ compensation or death benefits, the definitions need to be more restricted and in accordance with existing laws and regulations, but still allow sufficient flexibility to respond according to the circumstances of the specific air accident. It may be appropriate to provide travel and accommodations to more than the legally-defined next of kin. The degree of affinity of a person to the victim should establish precedence, but agencies should remain sufficiently flexible, allowing a fixed number of travelers for example, while allowing the family to self-select those who participate.   2. Require passengers aboard a government flight to provide a point of contact by name and phone number to the agency operating the flight, prior to boarding. Commercial airlines have made the point of contact data collection optional for its passengers, given the delays and ensuing costs in completion of a form and the collection of data. However, the working group recognized the advantage of having an emergency point of contact to best ensure timely family notification. The practice of maintaining emergency data on family contacts is a long-standing one in the military. A similar practice should be adopted for nonmilitary Federal employees, in the interest of aiding agencies with their notification responsibilities. Enhanced manifests shall contain the passenger’s full name, and for each passenger, the name and phone number of one contact. Manifest forms can be flexibly designed according to agencies’ needs but should be available for immediate transmission by the quickest means should it be called for.   3. Each agency should identify a single point of contact for liaison with support agencies, and with affected families, in the event of a federal aviation disaster. There is ample evidence of the need for a clear line of communication and a single source of information for family members. The agency or Department sponsoring the flight should have lead agency responsibilities for ensuring that family notifications are made and information is provided to families as it becomes available. They should also be the main conduit to other agencies that might be participating in the sponsoring agency’s mission, or with the agency operating the aircraft, should that be different than the sponsoring agency. In addition, each agency should identify an emergency contact and after hours telephone number (i.e., Operations Center) for the NTSB to use in the event of a domestic or international emergency.   In the event of an accident overseas, the DOS has certain statutory responsibilities with regard to notification of death and conservation of the estates of U.S. citizen victims. The DOS will discharge these responsibilities by working closely with the sponsoring agency who will remain the lead agency with regard to family assistance. (The DOD is required to officially report the deaths of its military and civilian personnel.)   The sponsoring agency would also be the single point of contact for the families of both its employees, and any private citizens that might be involved. It would be the source for all information about status of loved ones, assistance to survivors, identification of remains, the investigation (in concert with NTSB), memorial services, recovery of personal effects, transportation of remains, funeral representation details, administrative and disciplinary actions when appropriate, survivor benefits counseling, and any other counseling or support issues that might arise. The key is to make it easy for family members to have a known and reliable point of contact, for both the short and long term.   The sponsoring agency would also be the primary point of contact for family members with other government branches and agencies, serving as a limited “advocate” for them by facilitating introductions to the right organizations and persons for whatever issues the families would want to pursue.   4. Develop proactive and sensitive family notification and media contact procedures. Those responsible for notifying family members face a difficult situation in many regards. First, they must have accurate and easily obtainable passenger and contact information. Then, they must deal with a many different family structures and people who are probably unknown to them. Apart from the sometimes non-traditional family makeup or boundaries, the truly “key” members of a particular family may not be known to those needing to make the call. Further, the government representatives could be deluged with incoming calls from a large number of persons claiming family status, tying up limited communications capabilities and diluting the agency’s best efforts to reach all the affected families as quickly as possible. Nonetheless, how the family is initially contacted and handled for the first couple of days makes all the difference in their perception of a caring and effective response. Families want to be contacted by the agency, or someone “in a position to know,” before hearing of the accident or their loved one’s death from the media.   Ideally, notification by an agency to family members of their loved one’s death or injury should be in person. If it is performed by other means, it should be followed promptly by a person-to-person contact from either the agency, the American Red Cross, or another official entity, if offered to and accepted by family members.   When making initial notification to a family that a loved one was a passenger on an aircraft involved in an aviation disaster, the agency should inquire if there is another family member who should also receive formal notification. These secondary contacts would be notified after initial notification to families of all passengers. Families should designate a primary contact point for purposes of information sharing in the aftermath of the disaster. While it may be necessary for families to have more than one contact point, agencies should try to get the family to limit the numbers of contacts, keep the agency out of any family dynamics like “factions,” and have the family keep itself informed.   Agencies should put in place systems and procedures to establish communication with family members as soon as possible. Information should be provided on a “rolling basis” — that is, make speedy initial contact, even with incomplete information, and keep making regular periodic contact with the family, either when new information is available, or simply to let them know that additional information is not available. Both are vital to the families’ ability to cope.   The sponsoring agency should assume primary responsibility for establishing and especially, sustaining contact with family members. If a third party is involved initially, (e. g. Red Cross, or DOS for incidents in a foreign country) assume primary contact duties as soon as possible. Adopt policies to ascertain the family’s needs (financial and otherwise) in the immediate aftermath of aviation disasters, and provide assistance as appropriate. Its representatives should specifically inquire if the person contacted is alone, and needs support, and follow through as necessary.   Agencies should advise family members that the name of their loved one will not be publicly released by the agency until the family has personally notified other family members. Ask the family contact how much time is needed to complete their own notifications within the family. Establish procedures designed to respect the privacy of family members after an air crash. Inform families that it is their choice if they want to interact with the media. Family members of the victim should have time to cope with the initial shock of the tragedy prior to having the victim’s name publicly released, and should be provided an opportunity to personally notify other loved ones of their family member’s involvement in an aviation disaster. Agencies should work closely with the NTSB, which should serve as a liaison between family members and the press during the initial days following an aviation disaster and work with the families and the media to appropriately limit media contact with the families so that families can decide in advance whether they wish to speak with the media.   5. Consider paying for family members’ travel expenses (including on-site room and board) related to the accident. As a best practice, departments and agencies should be encouraged to transport family members to crash sites when feasible, and to memorial services or monument dedication ceremonies. It has become a general practice with commercial air carriers to do so, and it addresses key psychological needs. While the government is somewhat hampered in its ability to provide such services for accident-related events, there is leeway to enable travel and accommodations to take place (Appendix D).   Additionally, the following key principles as articulated in Recommendation 1.3 of the ADFAA Task Force Final Report should be adopted, should a department or agency decide to offer transportation and accommodations to family members:   Transportation to the accident scene, if deemed appropriate and families desire to go, should be provided in the most expeditious manner possible, including commercial airlines. When the family accepts such travel to the scene or a memorial service, the agency should agree to transport and house a minimum of two persons per family. At such stressful or traumatic times one person should not be expected to go through these experiences alone. Given the wide range of grief dynamics within families, department and agency heads should be flexible in response to individual needs. Not all family members may be psychologically or otherwise able to travel to a memorial or the accident scene for some time. Agencies should consider providing transportation to an accident-related event or locale for up to two years after the disaster. This kind of flexibility has been validated in the experiences of the CT-43 families and we see this flexibility as a properly accommodating humanitarian response. 6. Ensure that government employees who are assigned to interact with families following an aviation disaster are screened and receive adequate training. The families of the CT-43 crash reported a wide spectrum of impact by those government representatives who made initial contact with them, ranging from excellent to disastrous. Clearly, the untrained and unaware can needlessly compound a difficult and tragic situation even through unintentional actions and statements. Just as important are the contacts made by government representatives with family members in the longer term. Recommendation 1.4 of the ADFAA Task Force Final Report delineates key mental health and emotional components of training programs for anyone who interacts with victims’ families and should be adopted by government agencies as part of their response plans.   NTSB will coordinate a partnered effort among OPM, which provides expert consultation in the matters of mass trauma and grief dynamics, the ARC, and the DOJ (Office for Victims of Crime), DOS (Overseas Citizens Services), and HHS (Federal Occupational Health division), which provide much of the notification to families who lose loved ones, to develop employee screening processes and training programs to best equip the government with the proactive and compassionate response that is critical to the families’ needs in dealing with tragic loss.   The screening and training processes, once developed, should be a mandatory part of each agency-specific response plan, which is consistent with the ADFAA Task Force’s recommendation for airlines in this regard.   7. Provide emergency mental health services for family members in partnership with the NTSB and through the Employee Assistance Program model for assessment and referral for longer term care. According to the NTSB plan, the ARC provides counseling for family members at the crash site or at their homes for those who do not travel to the site. One different dynamic of the response to a government air disaster is the widespread existence of Employee Assistance Programs (EAP). OPM, as the government’s EAP policymaker, should develop sufficient policies in partnership with the NTSB, the ARC, and with EAP providers to be able to respond with proper crisis intervention in the immediate aftermath of an air disaster, and with assessment and referral to outside grief counseling in the longer term through the classic EAP model for those who so desire.   The division of Federal Occupational Health (FOH), of the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Public Health Service, is the government’s largest (but not only) single EAP provider. It has over 400 interagency agreements covering more than 1.4 million Federal employees (including the Postal Service), and has screened and certified a nationwide network of over 6,000 licensed professional counselors. FOH and other federal EAP providers should assist the ARC, which is the first responder in accordance with the NTSB Family Assistance Plan. Should the ARC not be in a position to respond, the FOH would be able to provide those services. Should ARC need augmentation, FOH is situated through its national provider network to assist them.   An agency needing to provide such emergency services to either family members or its own employees in the aftermath of an air disaster should first evaluate its own EAP’s capabilities and respond appropriately. But should the EAP be evaluated as inadequate for the task, the agency point of contact should contact FOH which could then either augment or fully provide the emergency services and counseling needed.   OPM EAP policy writers should amend basic EAP requirements for agencies to reflect the need to be able to fully address emergency mental health services for not only employees and their family members, but family members of private citizens involved in government air disasters. EAP has been consistently expanded in its scope to include these groups in disaster situations. Humanitarian expenses such as these can, through precedent (the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing) and Attorney General and Comptroller General decisions be considered within the realm of a department’s or agency’s “necessary expenses.” We urge the speedy enablement of such practices through OPM policy.   OPM should require those agencies that routinely participate in aviation missions to have the ability to deliver those services, either through their own EAP or in an agreement with FOH.   8. Develop policies to ensure personal effects are returned to family members. While recognizing that the identification and association of personal effects is difficult, families often have an emotional need for the return of the last articles of clothing the passengers wore or the purses or wallets that the victims carried, as such effects are the last association or connection with their loved one. It is critical that the families be consulted about the personal effects of the passengers, that the government return personal effects to families unless retained for accident or criminal investigation, and that any unclaimed possession will be retained by the responsible agency for a minimum of 18 months.   The process for the return of unassociated personal effects is deliberate and can be time consuming. To do this correctly, all items are first cleaned as needed, inventoried, numbered, and photographed. Once this process is complete, a photo catalogue is produced and sent to all victims or their families. To allow for a wide range of emotional reactions upon receipt of the catalogue, notify the families before it is sent, or clearly identify the mailing container as to its contents. Instructions should be provided on how to claim an item. Once all victims or families have responded, items claimed by only one person are returned per their instructions. Claims by more than one party must be substantiated and proven by pictures, invoices, or other means. The item is returned once ownership is determined. There is a growing number of commercial firms that specialize in the proper preparation and return of personal effects. The NTSB can provide the firms’ names for agency consideration. Agencies should contact the DOS (Overseas Citizens Services) if the disaster occurred in a foreign country or if a victim resided overseas, for their assistance concerning the protection and return of personal effects, property, and estates. The DOS has a statutory responsibility to safeguard the estates of deceased U.S. citizens overseas.   9. Consult with family members in planning memorial services and markers. The erection of memorials and the holding of services are recognized as key elements in the healing the grief that family members experience. Should services be held and/or a monument built, involve interested family members early and keep them involved as appropriate. Some important factors are: notification of all families, due consideration to the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs, easy accessibility to the monument by visiting family members, and public and private funding sources.