If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Any time you file a report on ANYTHING, or tell ANYONE something, there
is always a chance that others will find out about. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[ICSEng'05] Final CFP - due date March 10, 2005 | Utthaman | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 5th 05 09:07 AM |
Int. Conf. on Systems Engineering'05 - August 16-18, 2005 | avinash | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 29th 05 10:13 PM |
RAAF F/A-18 Hornet Targetting Systems Upgrade | Thommo | Military Aviation | 19 | July 20th 04 09:45 PM |
Remote controled weapons in WWII | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 12 | January 21st 04 05:07 AM |
PIREP - Reiff Preheat Systems | Joe Young | Owning | 19 | December 14th 03 06:38 PM |