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.