Proper use of the ASRS system....

[The_Russian]

Proper use of the ASRS....

Let's talk about it. No bashing please. Discuss.....

This post should sum up one of my points concerning proper use of the system. The only reason I am dredging this up is because it is a major topic in one of my classes and I wrote this concerning the topic. I will fill you in on what my classmates respond with. Enjoy.....


The article to be discussed was located in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Publications. It can be found by using the search funtion under the key term "ASRS". It is the first article on the list. I was unable to post the pdf file that contains it. http://www.aiaa.org/

The US Aviation Safety Reporting System
Stephan J. Corrie (FAA, Washington, DC)
AIAA-1997-5562
AIAA and SAE, 1997 World Aviation Congress, Anaheim, CA, Oct. 13-16, 1997

This article is a factual article that points out the facts and proper use of the Aviation Safety Reporting System. I use the article as an example to show what the system is to be used for, and what it is currently used for.

The initial intent for the system was to receive reports from aviation professionals and the public concerning: "identifying unsafe operating conditions". Also, the goal of the program is to issue Alert Bulletins (AB) to the civil and military aviation community to improve aviation safety. Once a certain number of reports have been received concerning a safety issue, the AB will be issued.

The article states that currently less that 1% of the 208,609 reports that have been fully analyzed lead to the development of an AB. This is due to an overwhelming amount of filings from persons seeking protection from litigation in the event that they made an inadvertent operational error. This causes serious consequences within the program. Not only does it flood the NASA officials with reports that do not assist in defining safety issues within our aviation system, it contributes to a thought process which does not support the proper use of the system.

For example, a pilot files an ASRS report to protect the pilot from litigation due to an operational error the pilot made. An inadvertent operational error is not a prominent safety issue which can affect others. So, the NASA employees must file this report with all the other reports forcing the reader to sift through reports much like a miner sifting for gold in the 1800’s. Now that the pilot has done this with the intent of protecting himself, he will continue to use this program as a cover for his mistakes. The pilot will also alert his fellow pilots to the use of the system for this purpose, instead of informing them that the ASRS is for reporting unsafe operation conditions.

In this instance, not only is the system flooded, but the statistics that some study groups are seeking can be misconstrued. From the statistic posted above, we can assume that 99% of the reports are concerning operational error only. And, do not actually contribute to finding safety issues within the system. These filings are only there to provide legal protection to those who filed.

The proper use of this system should be thought of as a safety “hotline”. Much like a hotline you would call concerning a safety issue at your workplace. Some of the confusion related to this issue stems from the interpretation of the aviation regulation 14CFR 91.25. The regulation states:

“The Administrator of the FAA will not use reports submitted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program (or information derived therefrom) in any enforcement action except information concerning accidents or criminal offenses which are wholly excluded from the Program.”

What the regulation does not include is the strict intent of the program. This is identifying unsafe operation conditions, not protecting pilots from litigation due to their own mistakes.

The ASRS program at the time of the article had been active for 21 years. In concurrence with the author, I believe the program requires further improvement. Specifically, improvement is required towards attaining the program’s original goals, to lessen the amount of reports which do not meet the standards of the ASRS, and to create a clear understanding of the program for its users.

 

[Cardinal]

What the regulation does not include is the strict intent of the program. This is identifying unsafe operation conditions, not protecting pilots from litigation due to their own mistakes.

It's one of eleventy million government programs. The vast majority of which are dysfunctional, because a government is by definition inflexible, slow to adapt, and non-responsive to market forces. If Wal-Mart sets out a poor product display, within a week they'll be fixing it because they can track sales and are willing to change. The government has no such infrastructure, and minimal impetus to make the change. We must first view it through the lens of reality.

Perhaps this program has migrated slightly from it's orginial intended purpose, but so be it. It serves another one well - providing an outlet and shelter for honest, dedicated aviation professionals who are willing to discuss the background and nature of the problem they encountered. Let us also remember that a myriad of operational errors submitted to ASRS can be quite valuable in that it creates a database of common errors, such that the powers that be and the individual professional can take steps to prevent them in the future. That alone is a worthy contribution to aviation safety, easily on par with poor runway lighting in KBFE.

Keep in mind that ASAP and FOQA have since been created to fulfill just these sort of needs - for organizations without ASAP, the ASRS provides us with a poor mans means of accomplishing the same. Further, these programs were built on the trust inspired by the astute handling of the ASRS program. ASRS continues to generate alerts on hazardous conditions and trends, and serves it's broader pseudo-ASAP role. Congrats to a bureaucracy creating a program that has performed better and grown larger on it's own merits.

 

[A Squared]

Ok,

Suppose that you had fallen into a sewage treatment settling pond, and were quite literally, drowning in $hit. Now suppose someone heard your cries for help and reached out to you with a garden rake. Would you say to yourself: "self, that is a garden rake, the purpose of a garden rake is to cultivate gardens, not rescue people from drowning in $hit. It wouldn't be right for me to overburden the rake by using it for a purpose other than it's intended purpose."

Or would you grab the rake and drag yourself out of the $hit?

I'm thinking that you'd grab the rake.

As long as there is an agency which is eager and willing to take away my means of making a living for a simple human mistake. I'm not going to hesitate to employ ASRS to prevent then from doing that, nor will I apologize for it.

 

[Way2Broke]

:nuts: A-squared.... said only like you could have said it. I'll take that rake any day, but then again I'm a country boy. I've met some city folks that would rather drown.

 

[avbug]

Mr. Corrie gave that presentation ten years ago. If indeed the system is so flawed as to negate it's very value, why do you suppose NASA has not changed the system in ten years? Perhaps the facts don't support the opinion.

The FAA does not administer the program. The FAA has graciously offered to not punish pilots for contributing. Additionally, the FAA has stipulated as a matter of course that they will view participation in the system as an atittude of compliance. NASA has nothing to do with the FAA policy. The FAA has nothing to do wtih NASA...see the relationship? THERE ISN'T ONE!

The FAA has no responsibility to NASA in this case, and NASA dosn't give information to the FAA. Both have charters and obligations toward aerospace safety and share a common goal. In this case, long ago the determination was correctly made that potentially valueable information would be withheld or lost if pilots were afraid to contribute. A move was made to alleviate pilot fears (and other crewmembers, controllers, mechanics, etc), and the program moves on, successfully, in a big way, without a single violation of confidence, and an unending supply of submitted reports.

Now you may fail to see the value in the reports. A pilot who reports an alittude deviation because he was busy picking lint from his bellybutton may be doing it for the purpose of protecting his certificate. However, if a trend of altitude deviations occurs for reasons largely tied to lint, a connection may be made, and change effected. No report is wasted. Everything has a cause, and effect.

Personally, I've spent many hours viewing ASRS reports, and receive the ASRS Callback newsletter. I've used the data in the reports in a number of ways, from writing a safety program manual to responding to individual posts on subjects such as Personal Electronic Device interference in navigation and flight controls. The database is certainly NOT deeply contaminated with useless information, and NASA makes a point of sending out examples every month to those interested enough to subscribe. I find the ASRS Callback newsletter very informative, and save my copies.

The motives behind the pilot submitting the report are irrelevant. If a pilot has violated a regulation and is covering himself or herself, the pilot is also reporting on a potential area that needs to be addressed. Why did the pilot violate the regulation? Why didn't the mistake get caught? What can be done to prevent it in the future. A trend of deviations during long trips may be the impetus to consider crew rest issues. A trend of ground incursions lead to the development and implementation of new taxiway markings.

Regulations are written in blood; seldom changed until lives are lost and pressure forces the change. The regulations do not exist without reason; they're a living document which is responsive to changes in the industry and with some degree of retrospect, to recent events at any given time. Violations of those regulations, then, represent incursions into issues of safety in varying degrees, and are therefore certainly viable candidates to be considered in an aviation safety reporting system.

 

[The_Russian]

Cardinal,

Well said. The government, being reactive instead of proactive, plays a major part in the program being disfunctional from its original intent. Additionally, the statistics are a very important part of the human factors research behind the program. That is why I believe there should be education on how to file safety reports properly. Instead of the pilot seeking protection from litigation for him/her self, they should file concerning the actual safety issue itself. Good post, man. You sum it up well from a moderate standpoint. Do you mind if I add it as a contribution to my class discussion?

Ruskie

 

[A Squared]

Russian,

It would appear that you view words as a sort of Rorshach ink blot, in which you are free to assign them your own desired meaning. This is the only way I can conceive of you believing that "Cardinal" agrees with your silly little book report.

I would encourage you to re-read Cardinal's post, this time with the help of a dictionary.

Specifically, I would suggest that you take a look at the following quotes. Take your time and thnik about the words carefully, as it is obvious his meaning has completely escaped you the first time.

Perhaps this program has migrated slightly from it's orginial intended purpose, but so be it.

It serves another one well - providing an outlet and shelter for honest, dedicated aviation professionals who are willing to discuss the background and nature of the problem they encountered.

Congrats to a bureaucracy creating a program that has performed better and grown larger on it's own merits.

If you can read those words and come away with the impression that the author agrees with you that pilots should not use the ASRS program for immunity, you are desperately in need of some remedial training in reading.


I think that you are going to be very hard pressed to find a pilot who agrees with you that pilots need "education on how to file safety reports properly." (ie: belabored* on not using the program for it's immunity benefits)


*As you appear to have trouble with the written word (perhaps english is a second language) I thought I would provide the definition of belabor, for your convenience.

belabor To go over repeatedly or for an absurd amount of time, harp upon.

 

[The_Russian]

A Squared,

I never stated that Cardinal agreed with me. Nor, did I state that I agreed with him. However, he made a good point which I was able to note. Stop trying to argue something you think that I do not understand when in fact, I do. Also, this is not about who is right or wrong. It is about the discussion concerning the topic. Avbug and yourself continue to remain unable to differenciate between the act of "telling" and teaching. Everything surrounding your posts here is all about you trying to insight a "battle" to see who is smarter. This trait makes you intolerable. Neither one of you are discussing the actual topic, you only seek some path to which you will make others feel less than you. Please, leave this thread. It is sad that you have already ruined the discussion.

Ruskie

 

[A Squared]

Also, this is not about who is right or wrong.

Ummm, yeah, right, that's why you posted your sanctimonious claptrap about the "proper" use of ASRS, and how everybody is doing it wrong .....because it's not about right or wrong.

Everything surrounding your posts here is all about you trying to insight a "battle" to see who is smarter.

Trust me on this, I don't worry about trying to prove I'm smarter than you. While you have your dictionary out, look up insight, you'll find that it doesn't mean what you aparently think it means. Your first clue will be discovering that it's a noun, not a verb.

Neither one of you are discussing the actual topic.

Really? Go back and read my first post and Avbug's post. Both were very much discussions about your chosen topic. Avbugs was direct and explicit, mine was metaphorical, but both did exactly what you requested, expressed an opinion you your assertion that pilots are not using ASRS "properly"

Please, leave this thread.

Ya see, that's the funny thing about public forums, you gon't get to chose who participates in your discussion, and you can't specify that only comments agreeing with you be posted. (you can, I suppose, but generally you get ignored) I would suggest that if your tender little psyche can't handle folks disagreeing with your book report, then perhaps a public forum is not a good place for you.


So far 100% of the respondents disagree with your views on the subject. Did you really expect something different?

It is sad that you have already ruined the discussion.

Ruined? Dunno about that. You posted an exceedingly foolish opinion, and several people have told you, directly, and inderectly, politely and not so politely that you're full of $hit. Seemed like a perfectly good discussion to me.

 

[The_Russian]

You wasted 62 minutes of your life to post that crap. 62 minutes you will never get back. 62 minutes of you still misunderstanding the point of a discussion.

Get a life.

 

[A Squared]

You wasted 62 minutes of your life to post that crap. 62 minutes you will never get back. 62 minutes ..blah blah blah

62 minutes? So what now? you're cyber stalking me and timing my movements? I'm not sure if I should feel flattered or disturbed. Don't know how you concluded that it took 62 minutes, but consider that even if your obsessive spying has revealed somehow that I had that thread open in my browser for 62 minutes, that's not an indication of how long I was writing. In fact, in the last hour and a half I've had a rather long phone conversation with a buddy, and browsed some photos of unusual airplanes on a completely different website. You *do* know that you can open more than one window in a browser, don't you? In the "get a life" category, you might want to find something more rewarding to do with your time than attempting to track my internet use.

 

[avbug]

Please, leave this thread. It is sad that you have already ruined the discussion.

Proklyatiye Sooka,

You never wanted a discussion. If indeed you were genuine in this assertion, you'd be discussing, rather than arguing. However, you haven't responded in a logical, adult manner to address what has been said...it's rather difficult to have an adult conversation when the lynchpin of mother russia won't play adult.

Lest you forget, you started the thread, and do not get to choose who stays or who goes. You posted material and asked for a discussion, that's what you got. Once more, you don't like what you got, so you cry. Your failure to exercise rational thought does not constitute a breach of etiquette on the part of others.

62 minutes of you still misunderstanding the point of a discussion.

Ironically a discussion you're failing to perpetuate because of your propensity to argue. Again.

However, he made a good point which I was able to note.

Actually, your notes bore no relation to the point which was made...you seem to be off in your own little reality, here.

Avbug and yourself continue to remain unable to differenciate between the act of "telling" and teaching.

Still looking for rational thought related to the topic material. Were it possible to have faith in you, I'd say you can do it...but, evidently not.

It is about the discussion concerning the topic.

Can you do that?

Avbug and yourself continue to remain unable to differenciate between the act of "telling" and teaching.

Any difference is really immaterial, particularly in your own case, as you seem incapable of learning. However, for the sake of your own comment, so long as one contributes materially to the discussion (which you're not doing, incidentally), the particular tactical approach to one's address is largely irrlevant. It's the subject matter that counts.

With that in mind, perhaps you can addres the reason that neither the FAA, nor the NTSB has seen fit to change the program in the ten years since the article you introduced was written. Should the program be in such danger of contamination, surely someone other than our beloved Babushka and Mr. Corrie have seen this and done something about it.

Perhaps you can address the value of Callback and the service is provides as one of many products and benifits from the ASRS program.

Perhaps you can address the value of the database for research purposes, especially with respect to the values of reports regarding safety issues unearthed in conjunction to safety violations vs. regulatory violations.

Perhaps you can address the assertion that as regulations relate to safety, reports inspired by violations of regulations are also relate to safety...logical and reasonable conclusion against which you argue vehemently...explain why.

For now, I have more important discussions...presently w(h)eather or not Rutan is one of the most brilliant minds in aviation since the Wright Brothers. When you're done attempting rational thought here, be sure to chime in.

 

[tomgoodman]

Rutan

For now, I have more important discussions...presently w(h)eather or not Rutan is one of the most brilliant minds in aviation since the Wright Brothers.

I would say he is, beyond any doubt. After each triumph, Rutan starts working on the next one, whereas the Wrights eventually stagnated and let Glenn Curtiss pass them.

 

[AeroBoy]

Rutan

I'll second that Rutan is one of the most brilliant minds in aerospace. Succeed or fail -- he's not afraid to think differently and stretch the boundaries of aircraft design. In short, he brings unconventional aircraft designs to a highly conventional industry.

 

[The_Russian]

You never wanted a discussion. If indeed you were genuine in this assertion, you'd be discussing, rather than arguing.

Yes I did, and have. Please note post 7. Grammatical corrections do not support an "argument" to reach a point on the topic.

However, you haven't responded in a logical, adult manner to address what has been said...it's rather difficult to have an adult conversation when the lynchpin of mother russia won't play adult.

Other way around, buddy.

Lest you forget, you started the thread, and do not get to choose who stays or who goes. You posted material and asked for a discussion, that's what you got. Once more, you don't like what you got, so you cry. Your failure to exercise rational thought does not constitute a breach of etiquette on the part of others.

Now my thoughts are considered irrational because you say so! *Laugh* There is plenty of documentation supporting my theory. Please note that I am the only one that has shown a source. While you have just blown air out of the top of your head, as usual.

Ironically a discussion you're failing to perpetuate because of your propensity to argue. Again.

I am not arguing a thing. Please present a quote where I am arguing the topic. You won't find one.

Actually, your notes bore no relation to the point which was made...you seem to be off in your own little reality, here.

Can you read? I noted that he made a good point from a moderate standpoint. My additional points were separate from that point. Cardinal had a good "discussion" style post. You should learn something from him.

Still looking for rational thought related to the topic material. Were it possible to have faith in you, I'd say you can do it...but, evidently not.

Re-read post #1. Post on the topic, not what you think I don't know about how ASRS works. I am very familiar.

Can you do that?

The only time I have issues with a discussion is with you. To you, it is not about the material. It is a pi$$ing contest.

Any difference is really immaterial, particularly in your own case, as you seem incapable of learning. However, for the sake of your own comment, so long as one contributes materially to the discussion (which you're not doing, incidentally), the particular tactical approach to one's address is largely irrlevant. It's the subject matter that counts.

Please, take your own advice.

With that in mind, perhaps you can addres the reason that neither the FAA, nor the NTSB has seen fit to change the program in the ten years since the article you introduced was written. Should the program be in such danger of contamination, surely someone other than our beloved Babushka and Mr. Corrie have seen this and done something about it.

Refer to Cardinal's post. Or, did you want to make this about you again? Spotlight on avroach at all times, please!

Perhaps you can address the value of Callback and the service is provides as one of many products and benifits from the ASRS program.

This is a benifit of the program. However, it is not the topic.

Perhaps you can address the value of the database for research purposes, especially with respect to the values of reports regarding safety issues unearthed in conjunction to safety violations vs. regulatory violations.

I have, on numerous occasions.

Perhaps you can address the assertion that as regulations relate to safety, reports inspired by violations of regulations are also relate to safety...logical and reasonable conclusion against which you argue vehemently...explain why.

They do, when filed properly.

presently w(h)eather or not Rutan is one of the most brilliant minds in aviation since the Wright Brothers.

Agreed.

 

[nosehair]

Or would you grab the rake and drag yourself out of the $hit?

I like the analogy, but just to get into the 'discussion', let's continue with this analogy: Let's say that it becomes common place to get lazy around the $hit pond because you know that you can 'grab a rake', even though the rake is not intended for that purpose, and eventually, the rake handle will become unusable as a rake.

I tend to side with not using the report solely for the purpose of self-protection from violating FAR's. However, I also don't really know the method of using the information. I think if they study human behavior, such as belly-button lint-picking while on take-off and can see a trend, and make procedural changes based on this information, maybe there is some good to come of it, but my feeling is that is not what happens.

I think the larger picture I get is that intentional/unintentional violations occur, and we get lazy because of the false sense of security derived from an ASRS report.

 

[avbug]

We see Babushka has failed to address the topic, so we shall move on. I have great admiration for the Rutan brothers, and their entire team. The ability to take a Cessna 150 motor and double the aircraft speed and fuel efficiency in an airframe anyone can build, to fly the same engine around the world nonstop, and use the technology to tickle the boundaries of space, is no small accomplishment...all the while putting the technology and the plans in the hands of the common man.

Years ago I visited the Rutan offices at Mojave, and outside their front door they had a test sample of one of their early composite layups. It was mounted out in the desert sun and the elements, and visitors were still invited to stand on it to try to break it. No pretense, no bull, no image...here's the dirty laundry for what it is, see for yourself. What they've done to me represents everything that's right with aviation.

 

[A Squared]

I like the analogy, but just to get into the 'discussion', let's continue with this analogy: Let's say that it becomes common place to get lazy around the $hit pond because you know that you can 'grab a rake', even though the rake is not intended for that purpose, and eventually, the rake handle will become unusable as a rake.............I think the larger picture I get is that intentional/unintentional violations occur, and we get lazy because of the false sense of security derived from an ASRS report.

Nosehair, first, thank you for showing that a metaphor *can* be understood, and responding in kind. I know that it wasn't much of a stretch, but obviously it was well beyond the Russian's grasp.

You know someone who has consciously become lazy about following the regs merely because the ASRS offers immunity from sanction? If so, I bet that they are in the overwhelming minority. Make no mistake, a violation and a settling pond are still ugly, nasty experiences. Even if the rake keeps you from drowning, you still have $hit in your clothes and in every orfice. The rake only kept you from drowning, you may still contract Hepatitis-C. Likewise, even if an ASRS report ultimately stops the sanction from being applied, you still go through the whole investigation/enforcement/appeal process, which I'm told isn't terribly pleasant. Remember, the ASRS only prevents the sanction from being applied. It doesn't stop the enforcement process, you are still violated and you still have that violation on your record. It only keeps you from getting the suspension.

I think if they study human behavior, such as belly-button lint-picking while on take-off and can see a trend, and make procedural changes based on this information, maybe there is some good to come of it, but my feeling is that is not what happens.

Perhaps not, but we don't know. Lets say there's a SID which goes very close to restricted airspace, and because of a local LOA (Letter of Agreement) the approach facility typically gives a frequency change to center just at the point that the pilot should be turning onto a new course that takes him away from the Restricted airspace. And let's say that particular area has bad VHF radio reception, because of a small hill in line with approach's transmitter antenna. So a plane is nearing that critical point, approach gives them the new frequency, which is garbled, the crew is distracted by asking each other what frequency they were given, then they query approach on the frequency, dial it in, contact center and by that time they have sailed past the turn into the restricted airspace. Now, all the crew knows is that they punched into restricted airspace because they didn't turn when the SID said turn. According to the Russians inane little book report, they shouldn't file an ASRS, because they were supposed to turn on the next leg of the SID, and they didn't. "Inadvertent operational error", not worthy of a *PROPER* ASRS report. They should just take the fall, according to the Russian. Yet what they do not see is that there's a systemic flaw which conspired against them, and contributed to their "inadvertent operational error". Yet, if they don't file an ASRS report about their "inadvertent operational error" we miss the chance to investigate what's going on. Probably a single ASRS won't get the problem much attention. However, if NASA receives 10 ASRS reports a month, with this identical scenario at the same location, then presumably, it will be noticed and investigated. The thing is, you do not know, as an individual pilot which "inadvertent operational errors" are abetted by systemic flaws, and which are merely "lint picking" furthermore, you do not know what level of interest NASA has in lint picking. It may be that in the larger picture, busting altitudes due to lint picking is a greater threat to safety, than pilots busting a remote corner of restricted airspace at some low-volume airport, and NASA may actually have a program which is studying lint picking and altitude busts, and that by adding your lint picking incident to the database, you add weight to a body of statistics which grows large enough to drive research into the way altitudes are assigned, and received in the ATC arena. and that research yields a different method (technological, procedural, who knows) of assigning altitudes which completely eliminates the occurrence of lint picking altitude busts. Yet, if we adopt the outlook of the Russian's book report, we just punish the lint picking pilots and we completely miss the opportunity to adjust the system so that the *system* as a whole is more reliable, and we go on having lint picking altitude busts, because pilots, being human, will pick lint.

The fact is, that humans are fallible, and that almost any aviation mishap can be blamed on human failings, if you stretch hard enough. ( I think Avbug wrote an entertaining narrative on the subject involving a separated wing on a thread not long ago). Fortunately, there has been an attempt to shift focus away from just blaming the individual who screwed up, to examining the system as a whole and how it might be changed so that catastrophe doesn't occur when humans, inevitably, screw up. If the way to perfect aviation safety was jut to mete out more and more drastic punishment to individuals who make mistakes, it would be a step backward to offer immunity to humans who make mistakes. Fortunately, not everyone is as simple minded as the Russian, and NASA (and amazingly, the FAA) has recognized that it is worthwhile to study the system, instead of punishing individuals. The ASRS program is one result of that. The Russian would reverse that progress in thinking, and take a big step backward to the "punish the individual" dark ages.

The bottom line is that pilots flocking to the system to avoid sanctions is and was a very obvious and foreseeable consequence of the program. Now, a low as your opinion is of bureaucrats may be, it is impossible to imagine that even the dullest bureaucrat could have failed to see this happening. Of course they did, and doubtless it was a matter that was discussed at length in the planning stages of the ASRS. Yet, despite this obvious result, they went ahead with the program. Obviously, they felt that it was worth it, in spite of pilots or other aviation participants using it for the immunity benefits. So they accepted the inevitable result, consciously.

 

[A Squared]

Russian,

If you were at all interested in a discussion, you wouldn't have started out with a post repeatedly lectureing the great unwashed on the "proper" use of ASRS. You repeated use of the term "proper", including the title of your post leaves no doubt that you mind is already closed to opinions differngthat your, because, you, and you aalone understand the a'prpper" use. In fact, your concept of the "proper use" comes from a simplistic and one dimensional understanding of the program, and ignores completely the undelying philosophy of the program, which is that examining the system as a whole has far greater potential for reaping safety improvements than focusing on punishing people who make mistakes. Your failure to grasp this, and your approach which leaves no question that you believe that you alone are privvy to some higher truth (when in fact you are missing the big picture), leads naturally to a response that isn't quite the fawning and admiration you had hoped for.


Oh, and post #7 wasn't a grammar lesson, that was a reading comprehension lesson. Nor was post #9 a grammar lesson, that was remedial vocabulary training. The fact that you think either is grammar suggests that you are still in need of some vocabulary lessons.

 

[The_Russian]

Nosehair, first, thank you for showing that a metaphor *can* be understood, and responding in kind. I know that it wasn't much of a stretch, but obviously it was well beyond the Russian's grasp.

No, I understood exactly what you meant. The truth of the matter is that I avoided responding to that post because you say sh!t like this. Not only do you say things like this, you actually seek the entire type of conversation. You desired the confrontation with me so bad that you commented on my grammer from a conversation with another poster. And please, stop refering to it as a "book report". You went to school too and should not be laughing at me because I am continuing my education. If you are going to discredit me, do it on my points. It doesn't take much of a man to post your type of responses.

Anywho.....

Perhaps not, but we don't know. Lets say there's a SID which goes very close to restricted airspace, and because of a local LOA (Letter of Agreement) the approach facility typically gives a frequency change to center just at the point that the pilot should be turning onto a new course that takes him away from the Restricted airspace. And let's say that particular area has bad VHF radio reception, because of a small hill in line with approach's transmitter antenna. So a plane is nearing that critical point, approach gives them the new frequency, which is garbled, the crew is distracted by asking each other what frequency they were given, then they query approach on the frequency, dial it in, contact center and by that time they have sailed past the turn into the restricted airspace. Now, all the crew knows is that they punched into restricted airspace because they didn't turn when the SID said turn. According to the Russians inane little book report, they shouldn't file an ASRS, because they were supposed to turn on the next leg of the SID, and they didn't. "Inadvertent operational error", not worthy of a *PROPER* ASRS report. They should just take the fall, according to the Russian. Yet what they do not see is that there's a systemic flaw which conspired against them, and contributed to their "inadvertent operational error". Yet, if they don't file an ASRS report about their "inadvertent operational error" we miss the chance to investigate what's going on. Probably a single ASRS won't get the problem much attention. However, if NASA receives 10 ASRS reports a month, with this identical scenario at the same location, then presumably, it will be noticed and investigated.

You are describing an unsafe operation condition. This is what the program was designed for. I would completely agree with filing an ASRS report in this situation. Why? Because it is clear that there are other factors attributed to the pilot's error. What I am talking about is a deliberate use of the ASRS to prevent certificate action for an operational error attributed only to the pilot's mistake.