Transparency in mishap investigations is an important principle, and we often and repeatedly hear about the public’s and the media’s “right to know.” But candor can also be essential to identifying and addressing the root causes of incidents.

Accordingly, and ironically, in our system of government, sometimes transparency and candor work against each other.

This tension often comes to the fore between the legislative and executive branches. Our Constitution allows our elected representatives in Congress to make the laws and the executive branch to execute them faithfully.

One central method for Congress to hold the executive branch accountable is through the power of oversight, including the subpoena power, which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld as far-reaching.

The Armed Services committees have jurisdictional oversight of the Pentagon, but there are also committees with broad oversight jurisdiction, such as the House Oversight & Accountability Committee.

In a recent example of the tension between transparency and candor, that committee has been investigating the fatal mishap involving a U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey off the coast of Japan. This is taking place even as the Pentagon has been conducting its own investigation of the mishap.

The committee requested documents and statements from the Pentagon, and it held a hearing in June that left members of Congress unsatisfied with the responses from the Pentagon’s witnesses.

Although the witnesses seemed unprepared to answer some questions, other questions simply cannot be answered during an ongoing investigation. Moreover, some information is too sensitive to release due to national security issues.

It was unfortunate that the witnesses did not elaborate on why safety information is privileged. As a former military aviation safety officer and a current aviation safety consultant and auditor, I can assure you there are good reasons.

First, it’s important to note that everyone in the military wants our service members to accomplish their missions and return home safely — every single time.

However, getting to the truth of the cause of a mishap requires providing a space where people can be candid about what happened without fear of negative repercussions. There can be many potential reasons for a mishap, some of which are due to operator error; others can result from mechanical or material issues. This is where the concept of privileged safety information comes into play in a military safety investigation. Information about the incident or accident may be discussed truthfully and openly with safety investigators to quickly get to the root cause of the accident and address the failings. This saves lives.

Courts have consistently upheld that this safety information is privileged from disclosure outside the Department of Defense safety community, consisting of DOD personnel and certain contractors with very specific, need-to-know credentials. These decisions protect the integrity of the investigative process and make promises of confidentiality to witnesses ironclad.

In the civilian aviation community, investigators don’t have a protected tool to use, such as the concept of privilege. Remarkable strides are happening in the civilian aviation community concerning Just Culture, a concept of not punishing an individual for coming forward with the truth about mistakes, incidents and/or accidents unless gross negligence, criminal activities, or intentional severe violation of standards and rules is involved. Information found in civilian accident investigations can be, and most often is, used in litigation and punishments.

After the investigations into the Osprey mishaps are completed, I am confident that whatever issues the investigations uncover will be addressed. That’s because we all want our service members to be able to accomplish their missions and return home safely. It should be noted that in most cases, those involved in the safety investigation fly or maintain the same aircraft. It’s personal.

The Osprey gets singled out — quite unfairly, in my opinion — for its safety record. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith recently said in a Brookings Institution interview, “The MV-22 is a safe airplane. Its mishap rate per 100,000 flight hours is equal to or less than any airframe we’ve flown — than our 53s, than our 46s … the aircraft is safe for flight, and I’ll fly in it today.”

Having conducted an in-depth review of V-22 incidents in the past, I concur with the commandant. Moreover, I am confident the DOD will get to the heart of the cause of the mishap, they will identify and implement a fix. That’s for the safety of the crews and passengers, yes, but it’s also because the Osprey has capabilities that the Marines have come to depend on, which no other aircraft can match. I believe that traditional helicopters are not survivable on the modern battlefield due to speed and range issues. This is where tilt-rotor technology will and does make a difference.

It’s natural for Congress and the media to press for “transparency,” but getting to the heart of the problem and addressing it appropriately requires privileged candor in safety discussions, where lives hang in the balance.

Congress and the press will never stop asking for more, but they should understand why the safety privilege exists and respect the rationale.

W. Daniel Cerkan, a retired U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, is president of Balefire Safety Systems Inc., an aviation safety consulting and auditing company. He has been involved in aviation safety for 27 years, having served as an aviation safety officer, director of safety and standardization at the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, and the fixed and rotary wing aviation safety officer at the Commandant of the Marine Corps Safety Division.