Proper use of the ASRS system....

[JediNein]

Whooo, that was a fast response. So, ASRS is not a get-out-of-jail free for everything. The standards as set by the guys in the black suits: http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5275.PDF

Enjoy!

 

[avbug]

From that report:

The law judge carefully considered the application of the ASRP to the facts of the instant case, and concluded that, although respondent had filed a timely report with NASA, his operation of the aircraft in the IMC environment was not inadvertent. The law judge stated that, when one places oneself at a significantly increased risk of committing a violation, then the violation is foreseeable and therefore not inadvertent. Tr. 99-100. We find that the relevant case law supports this conclusion. We have long held that the ASRP will not obviate the imposition of a sanction when an operator’s conduct is deliberate or intentional such that it reflects a “wanton disregard of the safety of others” or a “gross disregard for safety.” Administrator v. Fay, 7 NTSB 951, 956 (1991); see also Ferguson v. NTSB, 678 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1982); Administrator v. Understein, 3 NTSB 3552, 3558, order den. recon., 3 NTSB 3564 (1981). We have also stated that, in general, the ASRP was never designed to protect those who exhibit a reckless disregard for safety. den. recon., 3 NTSB 3564 (1981). Administrator v. Halbert, NTSB Order No. EA-3628 at 3 (1992).

Somewhat obviates the concept that the program is used to avoid prosecution only...seeing as it isn't applicable to deliberate actions, and therefore falls upon only safety related issues of various types.

 

[A Squared]

Somewhat obviates the concept that the program is used to avoid prosecution only...seeing as it isn't applicable to deliberate actions, and therefore falls upon only safety related issues of various types.

Exactly. To expand on that a little, if it's inadvertant, it's a human factors issue, ratehre than a disipline problem. The purpose of ASRS is to study human factors, among other things.

 

[JimNtexas]

Whooo, that was a fast response. So, ASRS is not a get-out-of-jail free for everything. The standards as set by the guys in the black suits:

The standards are spelled out clearly in the ASRS advisory circular, not by 'guys in black suits'. The applicable rule is quoted in footnote 12 of the above mentioned report (emphasis added):

Under the ASRP, the imposition of a sanction may be waived, despite the finding of a regulatory violation, as long as certain other requirements are satisfied. Aviation Safety Reporting Program, Advisory Circular 00-46D at ¶ 9c (Feb. 26, 1997). The Program involves filing a report with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the filing of a report with NASA concerning a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations may obviate the imposition of a sanction where (1) the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate; (2) the violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action found at 49 U.S.C. § 44709; (3) the person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a regulatory violation for the past 5 years; and (4) the person completes and mails a written report of the incident to NASA within 10 days of the violation.

According to the Opinion the pilot filed for an IFR departure from Telluride, where the weather was very marginal VMC at best. Told there would be a long departure delay, the pilot elected to depart under visual flight rules. I'm sure one factor in the ultimate decision was the pilot's testimony that "never intended to fly in IFR conditions". The Judge mentions "We note that this claim is at odds with respondent’s decision to file an IFR flight plan." In other words, "We are not amused".

The airline Captain on an ILS approach who saw this VFR airplane pass opposite direction 700 feet away while the respondent pilot flew outbound on the localizer in IMC conditions was even less amused.

A point very relevant to our discussions here is the way in which the actual ASRS report was used in these proceeding. As I pointed out in some our earlier discussions the only part of the ASRS report that can be used by the FAA is the strip that describes the incident, the one NASA mails back to you and that your lawyer will present if the FAA takes certificate action.

In this case the identification strip (and only the strip) was used to establish the time of the incident (footnote 6).

In the end somebody had to make a judgment if the respondent pilot's entry into IMC on a VFR flight was inadvertent. If the incident was inadvertent then the ASRS report would justify waving the 240 day ticket suspension. If not, then the suspension should stand.

In this case we the guy we hire to make these judgments (the Judge) judged that the respondent pilot should reasonability have known that departing VFR into marginal weather at Telluride would probably result into entry into IMC.

The ASRS is not intended to protect deliberate, premeditated actions. I think the Judge made the correct decision in this case. The Judge's decision was in no way arbitrary or capricious.

Note also that even though the pilots filing of the ASRS report didn't qualify for a wavier of sanctions he or she did the right thing in filing the report. Even though it didn't stop the wheels of justice the report itself will help others learn from this mistake.

Editorial: Of all the airports in the world to pull this stunt our hero picked Telluride! I'm amazed he or she only got a 240 day suspension out of it.

 

[avbug]

The standards are spelled out clearly in the ASRS advisory circular, not by 'guys in black suits'. The applicable rule is quoted in footnote 12 of the above mentioned report (emphasis added):

I think that's really the point, here. The russian believes that the program lacks merit and is largely used to promote self protection with no other benifit, as we have seen in the founding of this thread. That line of thought is largely without merit, as we have seen in the responses to this thread, including your own. However, to respond to the quote above, while the standards of the program are spelled out in the program as has been detailed throughout this and other related threads, the ALJ has the discretion to determine if the matter was covered or not. If the ALJ determines that the matter is deliberate or not inadvertant, or intentional, then the report submitted by the actor is not covered by the program, and is fair game for use against the pilot.

The cornerstone of the arguement, and one put forth by the Russian in other threads on this same subject, regards violations of the sanctity of the program. Thee has never been a breach of confidence in the program, despite multiple claims to the contrary by babushka herself. However, should a pilot elect to file a report detailing his actions, and then reveal that report, the report is fair game should the FAA and or the NTSB/ALJ determine that the incident was intentional.

For that reason, a pilot who files the report should save discussion of that filing, or revealing that he or she has filed, until the disposition of the matter has been decided, and deemed inadvertant. Tipping one's hand by submiting the ASRS receipt early in the game only provides the FAA with the precise location to go lookng for more evidence, should the matter be deemed intentional.

Conversely, if the pilot doesn't reveal he has filed the report, even if the matter is determined intentional, the FAA won't know about the report or the submitter, unless the pilot stupidly elects to reveal himself as the author, because the report is sanitized upon receipt.

As I pointed out in some our earlier discussions the only part of the ASRS report that can be used by the FAA is the strip that describes the incident, the one NASA mails back to you and that your lawyer will present if the FAA takes certificate action.

Not true, if the matter is determined to be deliberate, as it was in this case. This opens the entire body of the report to use, as it's no longer protected.

In this case the identification strip (and only the strip) was used to establish the time of the incident (footnote 6).

However, the FAA could have used anything in the report body as well as the ID strip, for discovery in the incident, and as evidence against the pilot, based on the fact that the report was excluded from protection based on the determination of deliberate actions on the part of the pilot. It wasn't necessary in this case as the FAA has more than ample evidence against the pilot, including eyewhitness reports from a passenger on the Baron and the Captain in the Great Lakes aircraft, such that the body of the report would have weighed as far lesser evidence, and the pilot himself provided self-incriminating testimony...to say nothing of the fact that his own arguements and case were very, very, weak.

Note also that even though the pilots filing of the ASRS report didn't qualify for a wavier of sanctions he or she did the right thing in filing the report. Even though it didn't stop the wheels of justice the report itself will help others learn from this mistake.

In the larger, humanitarian sense, yes. However, on a personal level, all the pilot did was open the door wider to hang himself.

What this does show, however, is that the concept that the program is all about self-protection is a fallacy; it's not. It's about discovery of safety related issues, which is why it's still a highly useful, valueable program...contrary to the beliefs of babushka and her ten year old studies.

 

[JimNtexas]

" Not true, if the matter is determined to be deliberate, as it was in this case. This opens the entire body of the report to use, as it's no longer protected."

This is a rare case indeed. Avbug is completely wrong on this point. The report itself is both protected by law and 'de-identified' by NASA to ensure that it is not physically possible to link a strip with the body of a report.

From the NASA ASRS website (emphasis added):

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. NASA RESPONSIBILITIES[/FONT]

1. NASA ASRS provides for the receipt, analysis, and de-identification of aviation safety reports; in addition, periodic reports of findings obtained through the reporting program are published and distributed to the public, the aviation community, and the FAA.
2. A NASA ASRS Advisory Subcommittee, composed of representatives from the aviation community, including the Department of Defense, NASA, and FAA, advises NASA on the conduct of the ASRS. The subcommittee conducts periodic meetings to evaluate and ensure the effectiveness of the reporting system.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE USE OF REPORTS FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES[/FONT]

1. Section 91.25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR 91.25) prohibits the use of any reports submitted to NASA under the ASRS (or information derived therefrom) in any disciplinary action, except information concerning criminal offenses or accidents which are covered under paragraphs 7a(l) and 7a(2).
2. When violation of the FAR comes to the attention of the FAA from a source other than a report filed with NASA under the ASRS, appropriate action will be taken. See paragraph 9.
3. The NASA ASRS security system is designed and operated by NASA to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of the reporter and all other parties involved in a reported occurrence or incident The FAA will not seek, and NASA will not release or make available to the FAA, any report filed with NASA under the ASRS or any other information that might reveal the identity of any party involved in an occurrence or incident reported under the ASRS. There has been no breach of confidentiality in more than 20 years of the ASRS under NASA management.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm

On the larger point AvBug is 1000% correct:

What this does show, however, is that the concept that the program is all about self-protection is a fallacy; it's not. It's about discovery of safety related issues, which is why it's still a highly useful, valueable program...contrary to the beliefs of babushka and her ten year old studies.

 

[The_Russian]

I think that's really the point, here. The russian believes that the program lacks merit and is largely used to promote self protection with no other benifit, as we have seen in the founding of this thread.

No I don't. Stop putting words in my mouth. I know the full function and benefits of the program. Along with members of the FAA, I believe that the program is used by some pilots who wrongly protect themselves after deliberate acts of negligence.

The cornerstone of the arguement, and one put forth by the Russian in other threads on this same subject, regards violations of the sanctity of the program. Thee has never been a breach of confidence in the program, despite multiple claims to the contrary by babushka herself. However, should a pilot elect to file a report detailing his actions, and then reveal that report, the report is fair game should the FAA and or the NTSB/ALJ determine that the incident was intentional.

There was a single claim, and it is true. I don't think my buddy was making it up when he and his Captain got fired. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it never happened. I guess we are all supposed to consider that the aviation world revolves around you.

Roach,

I have grown quite fond of your method of choosing which quotes to challenge for the "debate" that exists in your tiny little head. And, how you consistantly ignore my points that you know you completely agree on. You are great at twisting words to make me look like a fool because you are too ignorant to see the truth of the matter. You and I both know that the ASRS is a GREAT program. And, that people use the system to their benefit (improperly) after deliberate acts seeking protection from litigation.

Everything I have stated is true concerning this subject. Please stop acting like a child and go back to being a roach under the sink.

What this does show, however, is that the concept that the program is all about self-protection is a fallacy; it's not. It's about discovery of safety related issues, which is why it's still a highly useful, valueable program...contrary to the beliefs of babushka and her ten year old studies.

There you go twisting again! I completely agree and have never stated otherwise. What the program is for, and how it is used by some aviation professionals is another story. Go fu@k your "ten year old studies". At least I have the competence to continue my education. Unlike yourself, who already knows everything and doesn't need to improve. You might think about that right before you lawn dart yourself into the ground. Everyone knows you are a scumbag. Keep it up, you'll get somewhere!

 

[The_Russian]

JimNexas,

Good posts, just don't believe everything avroach says. He'll only tell you what he wants you to hear.

 

[JimNtexas]

"There was a single claim, and it is true. I don't think my buddy was making it up when he and his Captain got fired. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it never happened."

So based on this rumor you heard I'm supposed to think NASA is lying when they claim that they dis-identify the reports?

 

[The_Russian]

So based on this rumor you heard I'm supposed to think NASA is lying when they claim that they dis-identify the reports?

Well, it's not a rumor. It really happened. I do not believe that NASA is lying when they tell you the reports are de-identified. Nor do I expect you to think that. However, in this instance, the FAA sought certificate action. Luckily, the company made a bargain to only fire the two pilots, instead of having the FAA revoke their certificates. What I am trying to say is that it CAN happen. Especially if the FAA has the desire to make an example out of someone. Which happened in this case.

Also, if the FAA or NASA feels at any time that the action was deliberate, they can seek certificate action. Even if the action was not. Regulatory litigation is guilty until proven innocent. I am not trying to tell you, I know that you already know. I am just letting you know where I am coming from.

 

[avbug]

This is a rare case indeed. Avbug is completely wrong on this point. The report itself is both protected by law and 'de-identified' by NASA to ensure that it is not physically possible to link a strip with the body of a report.

Wrong. The report is protected only when it hasn't been deliberate or involved an illegal act, and it's protected only insofar as when it's executed under the proper circumstances. The submitter is not offered such protection when the nature and circumstances in the report fall outside the guidelines of the program. Neither is a pilot's identity hidden when he elects to reveal it.

I believe Babushka was all a quiver recently in excitement at the idea that the confidentiality of the program had been breached when the full ASRS report appeared in print in USA today...except that the submitter had provided the report...Babushka was going to fill us in, but didn't...perhaps she can finish the story now.

If one has committed a deliberate act and files the report, it isn't protected. While the report itself is sanitized by NASA before being entered into the database, the report can certainly be located if necessary. If the act is deliberate, the protections of the program do not apply, and it's fair game. In all cases the identification strip is fair game, regardless of the circumstances in the body of the report. A pilot who files a report will do well to determine in advance if he is protected, before revealing that he has filed the report.

The FAA covenants not to pursue action based on acts discovered from the report. If the FAA discovers the nature of the offense from another source, the FAA may proceed with that information. If the act in the report isn't protected by the program, and the FAA learns of the act via the report (such as the pilot foolishly tells the FAA about it, provides the information, and helps them locate the report), then the information in the body of the report may be used against the pilot.

Committing a deliberate act or a criminal act, filing an ASRS report, then revealing the fact is an unwise thing to do, because one has no covenant.

 

[JimNtexas]

Well, it's not a rumor. It really happened. I do not believe that NASA is lying when they tell you the reports are de-identified. Nor do I expect you to think that. However, in this instance, the FAA sought certificate action.

You're not making sense. Of course the FAA can seek certification anytime they decide it's appropriate. Nobody (except maybe you) ever thought that filing a NASA report precluded certificate action. And its clear you didn't understand that the strip (and only the strip) CAN be used in a certificate action if the FAA believes the deviation was intentional.

What the regs and the law says is that the actual report may not ever be used in a certificate action unless an actual crime is involved. Note in the NASA page I link to above that NASA will not de-identify reports that describe a crime. This is the clause that AvBug is confused about. I suspect that the number of reports not de-identified for involving crime can be counted on the fingers of one hand over the decades the program has been in operation.

Avbug, note that if a pilot receives the ID strip back from NASA then that shows that the report has been de-identified. In that case it isn't possible to latter match that strip with the body of a report.

Russian, since the pilots in your example escaped certificate action it sounds to me like the FAA waived certificate action, and I suspect that their ASRS report was a factor in this decision. Their being fired is orthogonal to this discussion.

 

[avbug]

Luckily, the company made a bargain to only fire the two pilots, instead of having the FAA revoke their certificates.

Previously you told us that the FAA forced the company to fire the pilots. The FAA did no such thing. Nor does the FAA make deals to get pilots to quit jobs, or with companies to fire pilots, in exchange for not pursuing administrative action. You're off in la-la land on that one. Again

Regulatory litigation is guilty until proven innocent.

Regulatory litigation? Is that a term you learned in your college class? If so, perhaps you should either pay more attention, or get your money back.

 

[The_Russian]

Your posts now are exactly why I stopped responding to you before. You are in no way capable of having a conversation with a human other than yourself. So, keep talking to yourself and you'll be right all the time. In no way do the points you make relate to the conversation at hand. Your method of "did not! did too!" lacks the maturity to mount a substantial discussion for this little pissing contest in your head. I can't wait to read about you in the paper.

 

[The_Russian]

You're not making sense. Of course the FAA can seek certification anytime they decide it's appropriate. Nobody (except maybe you) ever thought that filing a NASA report precluded certificate action. And its clear you didn't understand that the strip (and only the strip) CAN be used in a certificate action if the FAA believes the deviation was intentional.

What the regs and the law says is that the actual report may not ever be used in a certificate action unless an actual crime is involved. Note in the NASA page I link to above that NASA will not de-identify reports that describe a crime. This is the clause that AvBug is confused about. I suspect that the number of reports not de-identified for involving crime can be counted on the fingers of one hand over the decades the program has been in operation.

Avbug, note that if a pilot receives the ID strip back from NASA then that shows that the report has been de-identified. In that case it isn't possible to latter match that strip with the body of a report.

Actually, I completely agree with you. I think we just misunderstood one another. You are correct about the id-strip too.

Russian, since the pilots in your example escaped certificate action it sounds to me like the FAA waived certificate action, and I suspect that their ASRS report was a factor in this decision. Their being fired is orthogonal to this discussion.

The report was the reason why the company and the FAA found out about the incident. Even though the event was unintentional, the FAA believed that the pilots should be reprimanded. The company was able to bargain down to termination. However, the FAA wanted their certs.

 

[A Squared]

The report was the reason why the company and the FAA found out about the incident. Even though the event was unintentional, the FAA believed that the pilots should be reprimanded. The company was able to bargain down to termination. However, the FAA wanted their certs.

OK. my question to you would be how do you know this? Yes I understand that whatever happened, happened to a personal acquaintance of yours, but what I mean is that even though you know about the indident, how is it that you think you know that the only way the FAA and the company knew about the incident was through the ASRS report? What was the incident anyway? In a previous thread you said somethign about taking off on the "wrong runway" at an uncontrolled airport in the early morning. What made it the "wrong runway" ? A seperate piece of concrete that that was not long enough for a legal takeoff?

 

[The_Russian]

OK. my question to you would be how do you know this?

My friend was the FO on the flight. He was also a student of my co-worker. Four people that are hanging out at my house as we speak know both the pilots, and the full true story of the situation. They also all work at the same company that the terminated crew worked at, and they are still employed there. We just had a discussion about it, and our stories concur.

Yes I understand that whatever happened, happened to a personal acquaintance of yours, but what I mean is that even though you know about the indident, how is it that you think you know that the only way the FAA and the company knew about the incident was through the ASRS report?

Because that was what was presented to the pilots in question. The incident took place at an uncontrolled field at approx 5am. Therefore, it is safe to say that there were most likely zero credible witnesses.

What was the incident anyway? In a previous thread you said somethign about taking off on the "wrong runway" at an uncontrolled airport in the early morning. What made it the "wrong runway" ? A seperate piece of concrete that that was not long enough for a legal takeoff?

While I am not at liberty to share specifics, I will say it was an incident very similar to the Comair 5191 accident.

Hope that helps.

 

[JimNtexas]

"The report was the reason why the company and the FAA found out about the incident."

That didn't happen. The FAA didn't get a copy of the report. They didn't even get the strip unless the pilots in question showed it to them.

I don't know what happened, but I'm sure this rumor you're spreading is serioiusly incorrect in all respects.

Since everyone in your company was talking about it, I suspect somebody talked and the CP and/or FAA heard about it and investigated.

In any case they were not fingered by NASA.

 

[JimNtexas]

Here is what NASA says about ASRS reports (emphasis added):

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, mechanics, ground personnel, and others involved in aviation operations submit reports to the ASRS when they are involved in, or observe, an incident or situation in which aviation safety was compromised.

All submissions are voluntary.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Reports sent to the ASRS are held in strict confidence. More than 600,000 reports have been submitted to date and no reporter's identity has ever been breached by the ASRS. ASRS de-identifies reports before entering them into the incident database. All personal and organizational names are removed. Dates, times, and related information, which could be used to infer an identity, are either generalized or eliminated.

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The FAA offers ASRS reporters further guarantees and incentives to report. It has committed itself not to use ASRS information against reporters in enforcement actions.

It has also chosen to waive fines and penalties, subject to certain limitations, for unintentional violations of federal aviation statutes and regulations which are reported to ASRS. The FAA's initiation, and continued support of the ASRS program and its willingness to waive penalties in qualifying cases is a measure of the value it places on the safety information gathered, and the products made possible, through incident reporting to the ASRS.[/FONT]

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview_nf.htm

If you are involved in some potentially unsafe aviation situation (and are not in the process of commiting a crime) at 5am at a lonely airport, and you wish to let other aviation persons learn from your experience without risk to your carrer then you ought to file an ASRS.

Aviation is a small world, and even at 5am the FAA may hear about your incident from a FA, passenger, or person on the ground. The one place they won't hear about it is from NASA.

A NASA report can't hurt you, and it may well help you. In the worst case the FAA will go through the entire process of determining that a violation occured and that you need certificate action, but they will waive the acutual punishment as long as your violation wasn't deliberate. The violation will be on your record, you'll have some 'splaining to do in any future interviews, but you'll still have your ticket.

File the report, go forth, and sin no more.

 

[avbug]

That's not the only error our beloved babushka has spread which is incorrect, but I'm still waiting to find out how the FAA got these pilots fired, and exactly what convinced the FAA to be satisfied with the pilots being fired in exchange for refusing to press forward with administrative action against their certificates. And what about that "regulatory litigation??"

The truth won't deter babushka. We've found out many times now that explaining the facts does little to educate her. What can be expected from a girl who had to buy her way to employment in the industry, or who must get drunk to handle non-events??

 

[The_Russian]

That didn't happen. The FAA didn't get a copy of the report. They didn't even get the strip unless the pilots in question showed it to them.

I don't know what happened, but I'm sure this rumor you're spreading is serioiusly incorrect in all respects.

Since everyone in your company was talking about it, I suspect somebody talked and the CP and/or FAA heard about it and investigated.

In any case they were not fingered by NASA.

I'm not going to argue with you over this. What I said was what happened to my friend and his Captain. The incident did not happen at my employer, it happened at their employer. They may or may not have been fingered by NASA themselves. However, NASA does have the right to throw the red flag. If they did, the FAA can get the full report minus the ID strip. All the FAA has to do is go to the company and find out who flew the flight in question. The company can and will release this information to the FAA. My entire point of ever mentioning this incident was not to prove that NASA can violate the trust of the program, but that the report can still be used against you if the act is thought to be deliberate, negligent, or criminal. Even though these guys made a mistake, they were negligent and put a lot of people at risk.

 

[The_Russian]

That's not the only error our beloved babushka has spread which is incorrect, but I'm still waiting to find out how the FAA got these pilots fired, and exactly what convinced the FAA to be satisfied with the pilots being fired in exchange for refusing to press forward with administrative action against their certificates. And what about that "regulatory litigation??"

The truth won't deter babushka. We've found out many times now that explaining the facts does little to educate her. What can be expected from a girl who had to buy her way to employment in the industry, or who must get drunk to handle non-events??

Wow! You just love to run that mouth don't you? Don't try to sit here and tell me who and what I am. I don't represent anything untrue. And, I am very willing to learn. It should be a little more shocking to people that you are not at all willing to be corrected, but it doesn't. Playing aviation God won't get you anywhere with anyone or anything, avroach. Keep on your destructive path to isolated bliss. I am sure there is no one out there who goes up with you more than once.

BTW, I thought you knew everything? Do a search on regulatory litigation. Once again, because you don't know about it that makes it untrue.

 

[avbug]

We're talking administrative law here. Tell me all about the litigation babushka. Tell me all about how the FAA forced the company to fire the pilots, and how the FAA was convinced to ignore certificate action and was placated by their loss of employment, instead. Better yet, tell me where in the Air Transportation Inspectors Handbook you can find a reference that shows unemployment as being an "attitude of compliance" which might convince an inspector to forgo certificate action.

You can't do it, as you admitted in a prior thread that you didn't know the facts, and that you were wrong. Truth is, you've been ranting about this for some time, without a clue of whence you speak.

This is a gem:

They may or may not have been fingered by NASA themselves.

NASA fingered them? Would that be literal molestation, or the breach of confidence in the ASRS program to which you frequently incorrecly infer? Or do you suppose that NASA decided their act was such an evil offense that they decided to ensure that the two were fired, their lives ruined, and the confidence of the program breached (thus ending a perfect record throughout the history of the program)? You're bent on proving the worthlessness of the program, as evidenced by this and other threads, this time under the auspices of a college program which has clearly taught you nothing...give it up already.

You've been challenged to present the facts, but you cannot do it, can you? You've made the accusations, you've levelled the charges. Make them stick. Show us the truth, mother russia.

 

[The_Russian]

We're talking administrative law here. Tell me all about the litigation babushka. Tell me all about how the FAA forced the company to fire the pilots, and how the FAA was convinced to ignore certificate action and was placated by their loss of employment, instead. Better yet, tell me where in the Air Transportation Inspectors Handbook you can find a reference that shows unemployment as being an "attitude of compliance" which might convince an inspector to forgo certificate action.

The FAA did not force the company to fire the pilots, per say. It was a bargain made by the company to prevent certificate action against the pilots. In the world of 121 flying, this happens often between the comapny, FAA, and unions when something goes wrong. This allows the pilot to recognize his mistake, and continue his career afterward. This proceedure is not uncommon after filing an ASRS or ASAP report.

Look avroach, this is what happened. Numerous people know about this particular incident and the two people involved. I do not have the right to come on here and post specifics so if that's what you want, you aren't going to get it. If you don't believe me, fine. Just shut up about it. Don't sit here and tell me I am lying, when I am not. How do you live with yourself talking to people like this? Really, man! How? You sound like a jealous five year old having a tantrum.

You can't do it, as you admitted in a prior thread that you didn't know the facts, and that you were wrong. Truth is, you've been ranting about this for some time, without a clue of whence you speak.

There is no "rant". I never admitted to not knowing "the facts". Nor did I admit that I was wrong. Get bent dude. Stop making stuff up to get your point across. No wonder people hate you.

NASA fingered them? Would that be literal molestation, or the breach of confidence in the ASRS program to which you frequently incorrecly infer? Or do you suppose that NASA decided their act was such an evil offense that they decided to ensure that the two were fired, their lives ruined, and the confidence of the program breached (thus ending a perfect record throughout the history of the program)? You're bent on proving the worthlessness of the program, as evidenced by this and other threads, this time under the auspices of a college program which has clearly taught you nothing...give it up already.

The confidence of the program can be breached anytime the parties believe that the action was deliberate or criminal. Please don't forget that. What we are talking about here is a misuse of the system by pilots. I am absolutely not "bent on proving the worthlessness of the program". Nothing was ever said that makes the program appear to be less than what it says it is. Nothing negative about the program was ever stated by me. Ever. Stop putting words in my mouth. Personally, I love the program and what it does. However, you need to stop putting what you believe in front of what the program is really about.

You've been challenged to present the facts, but you cannot do it, can you? You've made the accusations, you've levelled the charges. Make them stick. Show us the truth, mother russia.

As have you! Where are the answers to the questions from the numerous threads on this subject? As you pick and choose dodging questions and throwing fits, you make yourself less and less believable. Where are your facts? Where are your statistics? You consistantly make references to other posters' character, yet have you checked yours lately? Well Sir, it stinks.

 

[JAFI]

Not that I really want to get in this "love fest" but if what the Russian says is true - someone please answer these questions:

1. How can an FAA office get a copy of an ASRS report? I have never seen one from the NTSB (a pilot mailed me one once), seen a process to get one (to my knowledge, the NTSB has never offered to give away one), or have a contact in the NTSB to give me one. Nor would I ever ask for one. That is not how the process works.

2. How does getting fired negate certificate action? The only time I ever saw a stop of certification for a deliberate act (other than not enough evidence to continue) of a pilot was their untimely death.

Sometimes stuff happens that should not, however this story is a bit much.
I was not there, and have no personal knowledge of the events. For me this story is real hard to buy.

JAFI

 

[avbug]

No wonder people hate you.

Come now, my drunk and wasted little soviet panic button. Name them. Specifics.

I do not have the right to come on here and post specifics

Then don't press the trigger if you can't handle the gun.

The FAA did not force the company to fire the pilots, per say. It was a bargain made by the company to prevent certificate action against the pilots. In the world of 121 flying, this happens often between the comapny, FAA, and unions when something goes wrong.

This happens often, does it? Many other posters here know of such situations? A common act by the FAA? The FAA has something to gain by doing this? The company gains something by doing this? The pilots gain something by doing this? The pilots get fired from a job for cause, and this benifits their career? The company makes a secret pact with the FAA and the FAA elects to forgo certificate action...for what possible purpose? The union has helped the pilots by getting them fired from the jobs the union exists to protect? The FAA bargains with labor unions? Perhaps it's that "regulatory litigation," again.

As it happens so often, why don't you tell us about the many other cases where the FAA has agreed to get pilots fired in order to protect their certificates. It must happen all the time, as it happens "often." Tells about many of these cases, oh madam of expertise.

How do you live with yourself talking to people like this?

Addressing topics in the thread you started, addressing the facts, how do I live with myself? Very well. So might you if you could stay on topic. Give it a shot. Someone out there has faith in you. Not me. But someone.

Get bent dude.

At least you're able to remain professional. And an intellectual at the same time. Articulate. And surprisingly feminine. I must say, however, that while you're at your peak here, regailing us with the pinnacle of poetic prose, I'm not often easily impressed. This is why.

The confidence of the program can be breached anytime the parties believe that the action was deliberate or criminal. Please don't forget that.

Show us how. And when. Try to be a little bit specific, will you? Try. You can do it. Just give it a try.

Personally, I love the program and what it does.

Yes, you do, don't you? And it shows. (Makes you appear really silly, but it shows. I suggest you try to cover it up. Or just stop posting. Your choice, really).

This allows the pilot to recognize his mistake, and continue his career afterward.

Getting back on topic, if you will, why don't you address the process by which a pilot's career is enhanced by getting fired. Or perhaps how being fired allows a pilot to recognize his mistake better than say, filing an ASRS report, or experiencing certificate action.

This proceedure is not uncommon after filing an ASRS or ASAP report.

Pilots frequently get fired after filing ASRS reports? Do tell us all about it. You assert this to be the case, so tell us all about it.

 

[The_Russian]

Avbug. Please do not lecture me on a "professional" post. You lack even the nominal level of professionalism required to communicate on an internet forum.

 

[The_Russian]

Not that I really want to get in this "love fest" but if what the Russian says is true - someone please answer these questions:

1. How can an FAA office get a copy of an ASRS report? I have never seen one from the NTSB (a pilot mailed me one once), seen a process to get one (to my knowledge, the NTSB has never offered to give away one), or have a contact in the NTSB to give me one. Nor would I ever ask for one. That is not how the process works.

2. How does getting fired negate certificate action? The only time I ever saw a stop of certification for a deliberate act (other than not enough evidence to continue) of a pilot was their untimely death.

Sometimes stuff happens that should not, however this story is a bit much.
I was not there, and have no personal knowledge of the events. For me this story is real hard to buy.

JAFI

The FAA can request any ASRS report it wishes. However, the available reports are de-identified prior to being put in the database. Even the public can request reports based on a search provided by the ASRS. From the information I have gathered from those directly involved, the FAA recieved the report which was forwarded by NASA due to the incident being thought or as deliberate or negligent. Then the FAA got the crew names from the company and sought action against them. From my perspective, it is not at all difficult to figure out the flight that the report concerned was filed. With one CRJ flight going into that airport within 24hrs, and a date on the report, it's likefinding Waldo in a studio apartment.

How does firing negate certificate action? It doesn't. However, it happens all the time in the 121 world. People have meeting and make deals. The FAA is fair, and they will only seek the required level of discipline that makes them happy.

 

[JAFI]

The FAA can request any ASRS report it wishes.


--Under what process can the FAA ask for this? What form number, who to call?


"However, the available reports are de-identified prior to being put in the database. "

--- If a report is de-identified, in the thousands of reports how would you know what report to ask for? De-identified would include the date.


Even the public can request reports based on a search provided by the ASRS.

--Really, what web site or phone number can one use to obtain a report?



py.

Please provide references.

 

[The_Russian]

Please provide references.

You are correct, the FAA would not get the date on the ID-strip. The only way the FAA would get the date is if the date was in the written in the desciption. Or, they could obtain it through investigative methods.

References:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/main.htm

and,

Commercial Avistion Safety 4th ed. (text)

Wells, Clarence, Rodrigues 2004, 2001

and,

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

And many others.