ASRS/ASAP reporting systems - how confidential?

Many people have hailed the implementaiton of NASA's 'Aviation Safety
Reporting System', and the 'Aviation Safety Reporting System' as
confidential means of reporting aviation safety related incidents that would
otherwise go unreported, due to the fear of consequences relating to 'human
error'.

The purpose of these two systems is very similar - to be able to provide
confidential input into saftey incidents in order that future similar
incidents can be prevented. These are supposedly purely saftey related
reporting systems, with an assurance given that no personally identifiable
information will be passed on or reports used to trigger a formal incident
investigation.

As such, I am concerned when reading a public, formal investigation report
that clearly identifies the specific incident, (in this case the crew being
distracted by an ILS lock failure during finals and going too low) and
states the following:

"The commander did not submit any reports about the incident. The co-pilot
reported the incident using both the confidential 'National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) Aviation Safety Reporting System and the
confidential 'Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). The flight engineer
submitted a NASA report."

There it is, plainly for all to see (including the flight commander) of
exactly who reported what to whom in a 'confidential' manner.

Surely this makes a mockery of the whole concept of confidentialy and
undermines the entire programme?


Tim

Tim Epstein wrote:

"The commander did not submit any reports about the incident. The co-pilot
reported the incident using both the confidential 'National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) Aviation Safety Reporting System and the
confidential 'Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). The flight engineer
submitted a NASA report."

There it is, plainly for all to see (including the flight commander) of
exactly who reported what to whom in a 'confidential' manner.

Perhaps the pilots and engineer told the board they filed those reports.

Surely this makes a mockery of the whole concept of confidentialy and
undermines the entire programme?

If you want to use filing one of these reports as a "get out of jail" card,
there has to be some means of proving that you filed one. The confidentiality
part works in the opposite direction. The FAA enforcement department cannot find
out who filed a particular report; hence, they cannot use what's in the report
as evidence. They *can* find out whether or not you filed one, but they can't
find out what report you filed.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Tim Epstein wrote:

"The commander did not submit any reports about the incident. The co-pilot
reported the incident using both the confidential 'National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) Aviation Safety Reporting System and the
confidential 'Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). The flight engineer
submitted a NASA report."

There it is, plainly for all to see (including the flight commander) of
exactly who reported what to whom in a 'confidential' manner.

Perhaps the co-pilot and flight engineer simply admitted to filling out
these forms?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I note that Geroge Patterson and yourself make similar comments ie.


Perhaps the co-pilot and flight engineer simply admitted to filling out
these forms?

Even so, should this information appear in a formal investigation report,
even if it was voluntarily submitted?

To provide fair context, the incident report
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publicati...7b__n523mc.cfm

of this Boeing 747 incident states that the investigation was lanched
independently of the filings I mentioned (through noise complaints related
to low level flight of all things).

However, I see this as a bit of a cop out. For a "confidential" reporting
system to maintain its integrity, it should not be mentioned within the
context of a formal investigation report. Either a 'confidential' report
remains confidential or it doesn't.

George referred to a 'get out of jail' card. I understand this from a human
perspective, but it really blurs the lines and thus undermines the
confidential reporting system.

I see this as a clear and simple deliniation. If you are involved in an
aviation incedent that requires a madatory, formal report, then you are
liable if you fail to lodge the correct report, regardless of any 'informal'
reporting through ASRS/ASAP,etc. In the same respect, if you take your
chances, and only report confidentially through ASRS/ASAP, then this should
be kept confidential regardless of any further investigation.

The analogy is a bit the police "crimebusters" programme that runs in many
countries. If you report an offence confidentially to crimebusters, the you
will not be investigated or "outed" because of your report, even you were
superficially invovled in the incident. However, this will not stop or in
anyway mitigate an independent police investigation that might implicate
yourself. You could not use "well, I phoned crimebusters to report the
murder, even though I only did a small theft" as a defence.

Any time you file a report on ANYTHING, or tell ANYONE something, there
is always a chance that others will find out about.

On 3 Aug 2005 13:55:39 -0700, "Doug"
wrote in . com::

Any time you file a report on ANYTHING, or tell ANYONE something, there
is always a chance that others will find out about.

Absolutely.


Here's some additional information:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0507.html
There is always the issue of confessing to bureaucrats, and expecting
them to have the same concern for confidentiality that the confessor
holds; unrealistic.

The aviation safety reporting program
BY JOHN S. YODICE (From AOPA Pilot, July 2005.)

John S. Yodice and his associates provide legal counsel to AOPA's more
than 400,000 members.

Experience is telling us that it is time to remind pilots of the NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Many, far too many, pilots
are calling, seeking legal guidance about an operational incident that
could lead to FAA enforcement, such as temporary flight restriction
(TFR) and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) incidents, and when
we ask, too many say they did not file an ASRS report. They explain
they had forgotten about the program, or some say they never were
aware of it. By then our reminder is usually too late to do the pilot
any good.

We should start by explaining that the main reason for the ASRS really
has little to do with FAA enforcement. The main reason is to provide a
free flow of safety information to the FAA and others. The program
accomplishes this by inviting information from the persons most likely
to encounter unsafe conditions in our National Airspace System, pilots
particularly. The FAA understands that pilots and others might be
reluctant to relate incidents that are embarrassing to them and that
could arguably involve violations of the federal aviation regulations.
To overcome this reluctance, the FAA has adopted, as part of the
program, a method by which the FAA can receive such information
anonymously and confidentially. In return, the FAA will waive
disciplinary action if the incident being reported involves an
inadvertent violation of the FARs. The free flow of information that
has resulted from this program has led to many safety improvements.

For our purposes in this column, though, we want to emphasize the
immunity aspect of the program. It can provide protection to a pilot
from the danger of losing his or her pilot certificate in the event of
an inadvertent operational violation. Most pilot operational
violations are inadvertent.

Here is how the program works. In order to guarantee the
confidentiality of the reports and the anonymity of the reporters,
NASA acts as a third party to receive and de-identify the reports
before any information is passed on to the FAA. NASA has developed a
set of forms. The ARC Form 277B, the one for general use, is the one
pilots should use. The forms, which are preaddressed to NASA and
franked (postage paid), are widely available. It is frequently
advisable to send the form certified, return receipt requested,
against the possibility of lost mail. The form is in two parts: a
tear-off identification strip and a second part that calls for
detailed information on the event or situation. When NASA receives it,
the identification strip is date-stamped, removed, and returned to the
reporter. This is the pilot's proof that a report has been timely
filed. NASA then deletes all information in the rest of the report
that could be used to identify the reporter. To further tighten up
this security, the FAA has adopted a regulation, FAR 91.25, which
specifically prohibits the use of these reports in any FAA enforcement
action.

There is an important 10-day limit. To get the immunity benefit of
avoiding a suspension of a pilot certificate or a fine, the pilot must
act promptly to mail (or deliver) an aviation safety report within 10
days of an incident. The FAA applies this timing requirement strictly.

The FAA puts some limitations on the program. These limitations have
not been troublesome to the overall benefit of the program to pilots,
though they are obviously troublesome in the specific situations in
which they apply. As we will explain, the program only applies to
violations that are inadvertent and not deliberate. The program does
not apply to reports evidencing criminal conduct, or to accidents, and
it does not apply to reports evidencing that an airman lacks
qualification or competency. It does not apply to repeat offenders
within five years.

Unless the violation was "inadvertent and not deliberate," the FAA
will not grant the immunity aspect of the program. Even though that
language is broad, the FAA has been mostly reasonable in its
application. Unless the conduct was really deliberate, or grossly
negligent, the FAA has been granting immunity. To give some examples
of how deliberate a violation must be, the FAA has not granted
immunity for intentional flight below minimum safe altitudes
(buzzing), illegal aerobatics, an intentional decision to fly an
unairworthy aircraft, and the like. On the other hand, most TFR
violations, reliance on a misleading aeronautical chart, and missing
items on a preflight inspection have been ruled inadvertent.

Immunity will not be granted if the FAA's independent investigation
determines that the pilot is not qualified or competent to hold his or
her pilot certificate. Here, too, the FAA has interpreted this
limitation reasonably, at least in our experience.

Here is the one limitation to the immunity aspect of the program that
is most frequently misunderstood. Immunity will not be granted if, in
the previous five years, the pilot has been involved in an FAA
enforcement action and found in violation of any part of the FARs.
This limitation is often misunderstood to mean that only one report
may be filed in a five-year period. That's wrong. There is no limit to
the number of times reports may be filed. It is only after an official
finding of violation is made that immunity cannot be claimed during
the next five years.

In the exceptions that we have explained, even though the immunity
aspect will not be granted, the report will still be treated as
confidential and anonymous. It is only in the next two exceptions that
confidentiality and anonymity are lost. So, except for these remaining
two exceptions, there is hardly any reason not to file a report
following any unusual flying event.

Immunity will be granted only if the violation did not involve a
criminal offense or an aircraft accident. It is important to be aware
that information concerning a criminal offense will be sent to the
U.S. Department of Justice and to the FAA. Information concerning
accidents will be sent to the NTSB and to the FAA. In both cases,
there will be no confidentiality or anonymity. The information will be
sent without being de-identified. So, it bears repeating, except for
these two exceptions, there is hardly any reason not to file a report
following any unusual flying event.

Copies of the reporting forms are available from a number of sources,
including AOPA (visit the AOPA Web site at
https://www.aopa.org/apps/iforms/nasa/ or call 800/USA-AOPA), FAA
flight standards district offices, flight service stations, NASA (by
mail to NASA ASRS, Post Office Box 189, Moffett Field, California
94035-9800, and online (www.awp.faa.gov/new/fsdo/general.pdf).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/safety/asrsinfo.html
NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)
What Is the Aviation Safety Reporting System?
On any given day, AOPA receives contacts from pilots wanting to
improve safety by reporting problems, mishaps, or confusion that they
incur in the course of their flying activities. Many comment "there
should be a way to pass safety information directly to the FAA" —
there is. Surprisingly, many pilots are not aware of a program that
has been in place since 1975 that allows pilots, dispatchers, ground
personnel, controllers, mechanics, and cabin crews to anonymously
inform the FAA of potential problems.

The purpose of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) program,
commonly referred to as the NASA program, is to collect, analyze, and
respond to voluntarily submitted aviation safety incident reports in
order to lessen the likelihood of aviation accidents. Since the
beginning of the program, NASA has processed more than 300,000
reports. These reports are used to identify deficiencies and
discrepancies in the National Airspace System (NAS) support policy
formulation, planning, and improvements to the NAS and to strengthen
the foundation of aviation human factors safety research.

With this purpose in mind, one would think all pilots would
participate in the program. With over 600,000 certificated pilots and
only 300,000 reports over the years, this does not seem to be the
case. The FAA has gone one step further — a person who participates in
a timely manner may be eligible to have disciplinary action waived in
an enforcement case that stems from the flight in question.

Here's how the program works: First, an airman must contact the
program within 10 days of the incident in question to be eligible for
the waiver. NASA provides the ARC Form 227, which is preaddressed and
postage paid and provides space for a description of the incident.
These forms are available through many sources, including the AOPA Web
site, AOPA's Airport Directory, and the AOPA Pilot Information Center.
The airman completes the form and sends it to NASA, which acts as an
insulating third party between the airman and FAA. NASA reviews and
desensitizes the form of any information that could link it back to
the airman. The top portion of the form containing the airman's name
and address is mailed back to the airman and provides proof of
participation in the program within the 10-day period. AOPA recommends
the form be sent certified mail with a return receipt requested as
additional proof. NASA then provides this information to the FAA and
the aviation industry in numerous formats, including Callback, a
monthly safety publication, and ASRS Directline, a periodic
publication geared to flight crews.

It is important to note that the NASA form will not alert the FAA to a
possible regulatory violation, nor is it allowed to use them as part
of the enforcement process per FAR 91.25. That is to say, the NASA
form will not begin an investigation; the FAA would have to become
aware of the possible violation through other means. The airman, if
contacted by the FAA regarding an investigation and possible
enforcement action, may choose to disclose his participation in the
program at some point. If the FAA finds that a violation did occur and
that the airman met all of the requirements of the ASRS program, it
should waive the penalty for the violation. This is not to say that
the violation did not occur or that it will not show on an airman's
record. The FAA will waive the certificate suspension or civil
penalty, and the action will appear on the airman's record with a note
that the penalty was waived for participation in the ASRS program.
This is not a bad trade-off for participating in a program that
provides the FAA with some well-needed safety information.

What is this "NASA Form"?
A "NASA Form," or ARC Form 277B, is available to pilots, mechanics,
and air traffic controllers to report aviation operations that may
compromise safety. Under certain circumstances, it can also protect
pilots from fines and/or suspensions.

It is an integral part of the FAA's Aviation Safety Reporting Program.

NASA acts as a third party to receive and analyze Aviation Safety
Reports.
NASA designed and administers the Aviation Safety Reporting System
(ASRS).
Reports can be submitted by pilots, controllers, and mechanics.
Program structured to guarantee confidentiality and anonymity.
Primary purpose:

To improve safety by providing for the free, unrestricted flow of
information from the users of the NAS.
Immunity from disciplinary action under certain circumstances.
Immunity from fine or penalty granted if:

The "NASA Form" was sent within 10 days of event.
The burden of proof is on the reporter (you) that the report was sent.
Violation was inadvertent and not deliberate.
Violation did not involve a criminal offense or accident.
Reporter was not previously found in violation of the regulations
within five years before date of event.
FAA does not determine pilot was not qualified or competent to hold
the certificate he claimed to be operating under.
Procedu

Send in "NASA Form" within 10 days of event (certified mail, return
receipt requested is suggested).
NASA ARC Form 277 is postage-paid
The form is also available online. You may print it off, complete it
and mail to: NASA ASRS, Post Office Box 189, Moffett Field, California
94035-0189.
NASA de-identifies reporter in most circumstances.
Report not de-identified in case of:
A criminal offense (FAA and Department of Justice are notified).
An accident (NTSB and FAA are notified).
Portion of form that contains name and address is stamped and returned
to reporter.
Some information used in public newsletter and/or FAA policies.
The FAA will fully investigate if a violation is suspected, but will
not query NASA or alleged violator to see if a "NASA form" had been
submitted. It is only during FAA's formal enforcement action that you
may request immunity. Though immunity could be granted, the violation
becomes part of the reporter's file.

Sources:

AOPA's Interactive ASRS NASA Form
Advisory Circular 00-46D: Aviation Safety Reporting Program
FAR 91.25
"The Aviation Safety Reporting System." John Yodice. AOPA Pilot, July
1994: p. 128
Aviation Safety Reporting System Home Page

NASA forms are available online. They are in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
format and require the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
General (for pilots) | Mechanics
Controllers | Cabin Crew



Additional Resources:
AOPA's An Overview of FAA Enforcement
The AOPA Legal Service Plan
Pilot Counsel: The aviation safety reporting program
By John S. Yodice
AOPA Pilot, July 2005
Experience is telling us that it is time to remind pilots of the NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Many, far too many, pilots
are calling, seeking legal guidance about an operational incident that
could lead to FAA enforcement, such as temporary flight restriction
(TFR) and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) incidents, and when
we ask, too many say they did not file an ASRS report. They explain
they had forgotten about the program, or some say they never were
aware of it. By then our reminder is usually too late to do the pilot
any good.
"Pilot Counsel: The aviation safety reporting program," By John S.
Yodice, May 1999 Pilot
"AOPA Access: Get out of jail free?" By Kathy Minner, December 1998
Pilot

Doug wrote:
Any time you file a report on ANYTHING, or tell ANYONE something, there
is always a chance that others will find out about.

True, but the point of the ASRS is that it is a bar to prosecution by
the FAA. Your insurance company could probable act on the info, however.

Stubby wrote:

Your insurance company could probable act on the info, however.

Just how would they be able to access it?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.