Proper use of the ASRS system....

[The_Russian]

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.

If you wanted a discussion, you wouldn't have made post #7.

The fact that you think either is grammar suggests that you are still in need of some vocabulary lessons.

Stop posting crap like this. Who cares?

 

[A Squared]

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.

Uhhh, that's the point which is not sinking in here. You don't necessarily know how the conditions have conspires to lead to your mistake, (sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not) you don't know when it is purely your mistake, and when the system has left itself open for you to make a mistake. You don't know whether you are the only person in the history of aviation to blow that turn on the SID and punch the restricted area, or if you're the third pilot that day. To presume that you do in fact know that is, well .... presumptious

.... And please, stop refering to it as a "book report".

I think that "book report" sums it up quite nicely. According to you* you're merely echoing a sentiment expressed in a paper you read. That's more like a book report than unlike one.


* I say "according to you", as I only have your statement on the content of the paper which you claim to be regurgitating. I'm interested to read the article, but not enough to spend $25 on it. For all we know, the paper has a very different conclusion than yours. In fact judging from your well established history of inability to correctly interpret the written word, I'd say that it's quite likely.

 

[The_Russian]

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.

Good points. There is a lot of good that comes from the human factors and statistical data derived from the database. There is also definitely an honesty issue concerning filing within the ASRS. Using the report to seek protection from the regulations is unethical from my standpoint. Personally, I expect a higher level of responsibilty out of any pilot.

Additionally, there are a large amount of persons who do not know how to use the system properly (this is what I am talking about when I say properly). For example, on another thread we discussed a situation with a pilot who had an issue with a controller identifying his position. The controller confused his aircraft with another that violated controlled airspace. The controller stated the he was "unsure" which aircraft was the one that made the deviation. The pilot informed the controller that he did not believe it was him.

At that time the pilot became frightened that certificate action may be sought against him. The pilot then filed the report based on his aircraft possibly deviation into controlled airspace. The pilot should have filed the report under a controller error citing an inability of the controlling agency to indentify aircraft in and around their airspace.

 

[The_Russian]

Uhhh, that's the point which is not sinking in here. You don't necessarily know how the conditions have conspires to lead to your mistake, (sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not) you don't know when it is purely your mistake, and when the system has left itself open for you to make a mistake. You don't know whether you are the only person in the history of aviation to blow that turn on the SID and punch the restricted area, or if you're the third pilot that day. To presume that you do in fact know that is, well .... presumptious

I disagree. I believe that a pilot knows when they have made a mistake, and what has lead up to it. In a full debrief with an FO after a situation like this, I am able to fully cover all the reasons that lead up to every mistake concerning an operational error or unsafe condition. And, as I should. So should all certified pilots. It is a part of personal responsibility and situational awareness as to whats "going on" around them visualizing the reasons for their errors. Without that situational awareness, pilots cannot file a report properly.

Therefore, any competent pilot should be able to identify whether or not it was their error or an error in the system which lead to the mistake. And, the pilot should use that information to file within the ASRS. Otherwise, the pilot will file improperly and the problem will not be solved until someone properly identifies the issue.

I think that "book report" sums it up quite nicely. According to you* you're merely echoing a sentiment expressed in a paper you read. That's more like a book report than unlike one

Don't kid me. You fully understand the intent behind those two words.

* I say "according to you", as I only have your statement on the content of the paper which you claim to be regurgitating. I'm interested to read the article, but not enough to spend $25 on it. For all we know, the paper has a very different conclusion than yours. In fact judging from your well established history of inability to correctly interpret the written word, I'd say that it's quite likely.

I did not realize that it did not let you guys in to view the document.

I would say the same to you. However, I believe that you are blinded from my words by a hatred for me. This leads you to automatically disagree with me no matter what your standpoint. In the past, I have made points which were correct and incorrect. You have chosen to purposely ignore the correct points, only to focus on what is incorrect so as to be the "top dog" on the thread.

 

[avbug]

However, I believe that you are blinded from my words by a hatred for me.

That's a bit strong, and incorrect, and a fairly mindless thing to say, but it would be a good enough reason. When you awaken from your persecution complex long enough to realize that most of the time you come off sounding like an idiot (particularly defending deeply flawed points of view)...you might realize the world isn't out to get you so much as you're out to get yourself. Don't do that.

I did not realize that ...

Far from the first time, won't be the last. The first step is admitting it. For example...

...on another thread we discussed a situation with a pilot who had an issue with a controller identifying his position. The controller confused his aircraft with another that violated controlled airspace. The controller stated the he was "unsure" which aircraft was the one that made the deviation. The pilot informed the controller that he did not believe it was him.

At that time the pilot became frightened that certificate action may be sought against him. The pilot then filed the report based on his aircraft possibly deviation into controlled airspace. The pilot should have filed the report under a controller error citing an inability of the controlling agency to indentify aircraft in and around their airspace.

You never did get that one right. In fact, the pilot who initiated that thread never made any statement about wrong doing, nor would it have made any difference. The only issue was an accusation regarding a potential violation. The poster was well advised by all, except you, to file the ASRS report...and the poster did so. You advised him not to do so, and continued beating that bloody pulp for days...bad advice, dangerous to his career, and you've perpetuated it in this thread...in the thread to which you refer, you stated that you've started this thread to carry on the discussion...and here we are. It's worth noting that your tune then was a bit different. You incorrectly advised the poster not to file because you suggested the report could be used agaisnt him, and went on to bring up imaginary cases in which the FAA got pilots fired, and violated pilots based on what they'd said in their ASRS report. In fact, you had no concerns about the sanctity or purity of the database...your position was that the poster shouldn't be file because you stipulated it would be used against him.

Why don't we see what the original poster really said, then?

So I was cruising around under the PHX class B hopping from airport to airport and when I return to my airport ground tells me to call this number for a possible pilot deviation. Im dumbfounded and dont have a clue as to what I did....so I call. They asked if I was aware that I had busted the class B north of PHX, I said no I was not aware and was not sure how I had done it since I stayed far east in a VFR transition route and kept my altitude low. Anyways we came to the conclusion that he was not sure if it was me or not and said he was not going to pursue this any further and that it happens all the time. Should I fill out a NASA report? It was impossible that it was me but they somehow got my tail number out of the ordeal....suggestions advice?

...I was following the Canal transition, well east of bravo airspace...they said they had me painted on radar north of phx. I was at 2500 MSL so I had to of been extremely close to sky harbor to even violate the bravo. I already sent in a NASA report and explained that I was only questioned as being an airspace violator and that it could have POSSIBLY been me but I did not believe it was.

Now Babushka, you've just told us "The pilot then filed the report based on his aircraft possibly deviation into controlled airspace," but we've just read his own follow-up stating that he said no such thing...which somewhat destroys your credibility on the topic.

You're making two arguements. On the one hand in the other thread, which you've just resurrected, you argued regarding the pilot protecting himself, but here you argue for the purity of the program. Perhaps you just don't like the program, but your agenda is disjointed and nonsensical. In this thread you tell us that the ASRS program is deeply contaminated by reports motivated by pilots seeking legal protections, and tell us that this simply should not be.

Once more, of course, you argue your point based on a report we cannot read, by a man who addressed a group ten years ago on the topic, yet we see the program has not been changed in ten years. Perhaps the expert oversight of the program sees benifit that you do not. Perhaps you need to take over the program and administer it as you see fit, though I strongly suggest you learn what the program is, before you try.

Once again, pilots participate in the program because of the protections it offers. Their reasoning isn't nearly as important as the fact that contributions would not be forthcoming if the protections were not in place. Therefore, the fact that most of the contributions are made is largely owing to the legal protections offered by the use of the program...those very protections are what keeps it alive. You now contend that pilots shouldn't submit for this reason...but if indeed it's the primary reason for the program, then suggesting that pilots no longer do this would be a very stupid thing. You understand this, right?

The motivation for submitting a report is irrelevant. The submitter isn't Mother Theresa blessing the poor. The submitter may be a pilot who has made a mistake, seen a mistake, dreamed of a mistake, written a novel about a mistake, or painted a picture on a McDonalds napkin about a mistake, and has elected to make a contribution. Why he or she elects to do so isn't nearly as relevant as the contribution itself. Perhaps it may be used, perhaps not. The fact is, if the pilot has made a mistake and the pilot has violated a regulation, then the pilot has also a safety issue to report. Regulatory issues are tied to safety; it's the reason we have regulation. This much may not be clear to you...but it's the reason we have regulation.

As regulation exists for safety, violation of regulation is also an issue of safety, and therefore merits reporting in a safety program. Evidently the FAA feels this to be the case also, and has honored this fact by protecting the pilot and recognizing that submission as an act of a compliant attitude toward safety by refusing to prosecute based on the ASRS report, and in waiving the penalty for any enforcement action if the pilot has demonstrated such compliance. Perhaps you're just a little smarter than everybody else, and the world has yet to figure it out.

Keep beating your chest (with your good hand), and sooner or later everyone will come flocking to your aid. You should probably run for FAA Administrator. You're a shoe-in for an appointment, don't you think?

 

[The_Russian]

That's a bit strong, and incorrect, and a fairly mindless thing to say, but it would be a good enough reason. When you awaken from your persecution complex long enough to realize that most of the time you come off sounding like an idiot (particularly defending deeply flawed points of view)...you might realize the world isn't out to get you so much as you're out to get yourself. Don't do that.

And who are you to judge whether or not it is a flawed viewpoint? Maybe if you had the brain power to see another perspective on the program, you could see that my view is not flawed. And who are you to defend A Squared? He's a big boy. Let him defend himelf. The truth is that you seek me out. You can't deny that. You tend to stop looking at your behavior when you are getting off on FI.

Far from the first time, won't be the last. The first step is admitting it. For example...

Out of context.

You never did get that one right. In fact, the pilot who initiated that thread never made any statement about wrong doing, nor would it have made any difference. The only issue was an accusation regarding a potential violation. The poster was well advised by all, except you, to file the ASRS report...and the poster did so. You advised him not to do so, and continued beating that bloody pulp for days...bad advice, dangerous to his career, and you've perpetuated it in this thread...in the thread to which you refer, you stated that you've started this thread to carry on the discussion...and here we are. It's worth noting that your tune then was a bit different.

Absolutely not. I advised him to file differently than all the others suggested. Stating that he could possibly have violated the airspace in his report was not the real issue at hand. The issue was the controller's inability to identify aircraft within his designated airspace.Therefore, he should have file his report under that pretense.

You incorrectly advised the poster not to file because you suggested the report could be used agaisnt him, and went on to bring up imaginary cases in which the FAA got pilots fired, and violated pilots based on what they'd said in their ASRS report. In fact, you had no concerns about the sanctity or purity of the database...your position was that the poster shouldn't be file because you stipulated it would be used against him.

And it could. Even A Squared stated that a report can be used against you.

I never said the pilots were violated. I said they were terminated by the company. The FAA wanted to pull their certificates. You may not think so, but the FAA has a lot more to do with the program than you say. One of the guys is a friend of mine and told me what happened to him first hand.

Why don't we see what the original poster really said, then?

Ummm.....he said it could have possibly been him. He knew and had stated it wasn't him, and should not have filed as such.

Now Babushka, you've just told us "The pilot then filed the report based on his aircraft possibly deviation into controlled airspace," but we've just read his own follow-up stating that he said no such thing...which somewhat destroys your credibility on the topic.

He said that numerous times. You even quoted him using the word possibly.

You're making two arguements. On the one hand in the other thread, which you've just resurrected, you argued regarding the pilot protecting himself, but here you argue for the purity of the program. Perhaps you just don't like the program, but your agenda is disjointed and nonsensical. In this thread you tell us that the ASRS program is deeply contaminated by reports motivated by pilots seeking legal protections, and tell us that this simply should not be.

I absolutely am not. The program is great. In fact it's almost perfect. What is required is better training for use of the program, and a clarification of its intended purpose.

Once more, of course, you argue your point based on a report we cannot read, by a man who addressed a group ten years ago on the topic, yet we see the program has not been changed in ten years. Perhaps the expert oversight of the program sees benifit that you do not. Perhaps you need to take over the program and administer it as you see fit, though I strongly suggest you learn what the program is, before you try.

Ha! I am the only one who even brought a source to the table. Are you going to fault me for that? Everytime I click the link it works and I do not have a membership to AIAA. When you bring a source, then we can compare them. By the way...I have quoted the ASRS website itself in previous discussion with you concerning the certificate action subject.

Trust me, I know an extreme amount about the program. For some reason you can handle it when people who are not avroach "think outside the box".

Once again, pilots participate in the program because of the protections it offers. Their reasoning isn't nearly as important as the fact that contributions would not be forthcoming if the protections were not in place. Therefore, the fact that most of the contributions are made is largely owing to the legal protections offered by the use of the program...those very protections are what keeps it alive. You now contend that pilots shouldn't submit for this reason...but if indeed it's the primary reason for the program, then suggesting that pilots no longer do this would be a very stupid thing. You understand this, right?

But that isn't why you should participate in the program. You should participate in the program to identify unsafe operating conditions. Filing a report solely seeking protection from litigation is not what the program is for.

Example:

A pilot lands at a controlled airport without a clearance. The pilot lands and is asked to call the tower concerning his actions. It is the pilot's responsibility to obtain a clearance to land prior to touchdown. If the pilot were to fill out a report to ASRS in order to recieve "protection" from litigation, the pilot is misusing the program. The issue at hand was not a result of an unsafe operating condition. It was a result of the pilot's inability to operate the aircraft safely. Thus, the pilot caused the unsafe operating condition, not the other way around. You understand this, right?

The motivation for submitting a report is irrelevant. The submitter isn't Mother Theresa blessing the poor. The submitter may be a pilot who has made a mistake, seen a mistake, dreamed of a mistake, written a novel about a mistake, or painted a picture on a McDonalds napkin about a mistake, and has elected to make a contribution. Why he or she elects to do so isn't nearly as relevant as the contribution itself. Perhaps it may be used, perhaps not. The fact is, if the pilot has made a mistake and the pilot has violated a regulation, then the pilot has also a safety issue to report. Regulatory issues are tied to safety; it's the reason we have regulation. This much may not be clear to you...but it's the reason we have regulation.

As regulation exists for safety, violation of regulation is also an issue of safety, and therefore merits reporting in a safety program. Evidently the FAA feels this to be the case also, and has honored this fact by protecting the pilot and recognizing that submission as an act of a compliant attitude toward safety by refusing to prosecute based on the ASRS report, and in waiving the penalty for any enforcement action if the pilot has demonstrated such compliance.

Whats the point of having regulations if I can find a way to skate right out of trouble after I blunder them up? If a person files improperly, they are then NOT in compliance.

Perhaps you're just a little smarter than everybody else, and the world has yet to figure it out.

Maybe so.

Keep beating your chest (with your good hand), and sooner or later everyone will come flocking to your aid. You should probably run for FAA Administrator. You're a shoe-in for an appointment, don't you think?

Take a look at yourself roachy.

 

[avbug]

You're funny.

Whats the point of having regulations if I can find a way to skate right out of trouble after I blunder them up?

What's the point of having a safety program if those who should be reporting are afraid of legal prosecution?

What's the point of having regulations? Order. However, people do make mistakes. Having a way to report those mistakes for the benifit of others only makes sense. Offering a sytem by which the fear of reporting is taken away only makes sense when promoting contribution to a safety program.

If you make a mistake and violate a regulation, the regulation is not negated if lessons are learned. If you violate an altitude restriction, something has caused you to do it. A cockpit conversation, inattentiveness, distraction with a checklist, picking your nose...something. Being able to track not only the deviations but the causes enables those who give a stuff about the safety program to identify not only trends but trouble areas. If a pilot submits the report for no other reason than to protect himself from the penalty phase of enforcement action, it doesn't change the value of the submission one whit.

And who are you to defend A Squared?

A Squared doesn't need defending; he's right. However, when he so chooses, he does so quite capably all by himself. I just happen to agree with him, because he is right.

You may not think so, but the FAA has a lot more to do with the program than you say.

You seem to feel you know more about the program than anyone else. That's fine...why let the facts (what we like to call the "truth") stand in the way of a good story, right? Doubtless you're aware that in the history of the program there has never been a breach of confidence. Not one. The ASRS does no report to the FAA. ASRS sanitizes the reports. The only way in whch the FAA could possibly learn of an airman's involvement in the program is if either the airman tells the FAA, or the report is not covered because it is an accident or a criminal act.

The FAA's only involvement is to certify in writing that the FAA will not use the report, if covered under the program, against an airman, nor will the FAA base enforcement action on a report, if the FAA learns of the action from the report. The program is protected, and there has never been a beach of confidence. You cannot cite a single one, because it has never happened. Not once.

The title strip of the form, which is date and time stamped and returned to the submitter as proof of submission, is not protected, and may be used against an airman...if an airman is stupid enough to admit a violation in the title line of the strip, then that line may be used as evidence against the airman, or as a lead toward discovery for the Administrator. Otherwise, it's hands-off.

One of he prime criteria for the Administrator in deciding how to address a regulatory violation is the attitude of the airman in question. The FAA looks for an "attitude of compliance," in considering what penalties to apply or what action to take. A compliant airman is generally much better off. The Administrator has formally stated that sumission of an ASRS report, so long s it is not regarding an aircraft accident or a criminal act, will be viewed as a complaint attitude, and will rest in the benifit of the airman. Accordingly, many who might be fearful to submit a report now do so, greatly enhancing the system.

Once more, you've seen this material before; regulations are based on safety related issues. An airman who has violated a regulation has a safety issue to report, and that report is not wasted. The airman's motives in submitting the report are irrelevant.

You have been unable, despite being asked multiple times now, to explain why in the ten years that have elapsed since your report was submited for review, why the program has not been changed if indeed it is as flawed as you describe. Perhaps you will choose to remain on topic rather than devoting all your attention to arguing. Perhaps it's just the vodka talking, Babushka.

 

[A Squared]

Even A Squared stated that a report can be used against you.

I don't think that I did, although I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. A link to the specific statement would help to respond more relevantly. Just guessing, I think you are confused by the identification strip issue that Avbug mentioned. I know that I've commented on it in the past. If that is the case, it is yet another example of you failing to grasp what was written. THe NTSB has ruled that anything you write on the identification strip (which is returned to you) may then be used against you in an enforcement, if you then give the ID strip to the FAA before the completion of the enforcement proceedings. The specific case in which this arose, the pilot wrote something unwise on his ID strip, like "airspace violation" or "failure to maintain assigned altitude" When he handed it to the FAA, then then used his words on the ID strip as evidence against him in hte proceedings. This is *not* using the report against you. I don't agree with or defend the practice, but as an established point of law, the ID strip is not a part of the reoprt. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it is not. That, in fact, is the crux of the issue; the FAA is allowed to use info on the ID strip against you, because the NTSB has ruled that the ID strip is *not* a part of the report.

If this is what you are referring to when you claim I said the report can be used against you, once again, your reading comprehension has let you down, and you have failed to grasp what has actually been written. This is a common (incessant, even) theme with you.




For those others who may be reading, Yes the FAA can and will use the ID strip to support a violation against you. Two pieces of advice:

1) Do not put anything on the ID strip that can be remotely construed as incriminating. The FAA can use whatever you write against you.


2) If you find yourself in an enforcement, consider not presenting the FAA with the ASRS strip until avter you have been found in violation and assigned a penalty. That way, your ID strip cannot possibly be used against you in the investigation as they didn't know of it until it was over. At that point you're using it to prevent the penalty. I say "consider" as there may be some value in giving it to them earlier. theoretically, it is one piece of evidence that demonstrates a "compliance attitide". Whether that is appropriate or not depends on the situation and your approach to the investigation. If your approach is to cooperate a fully as possible and show that you are very compliance oriented in hopes that the outcome will be a warning letter, rather than a penalty, showing evidence os an ASRS report, might help that strategy. If your approach is a vigorous, no holds barred all out defense, then showing the ID strip won't do anything for you, and should be kept in reserve until you are given a penalty, then used to prevent the penalty.

Now I'm not advocating either approach to defense, that would depend entirely on the individual and the situation, I'm merely commenting on the considerations for when you might bring out the ID strip.

 

[avbug]

I will fill you in on what my classmates respond with. Enjoy.....

Babushka,

It's been so long. You don't call, you don't write. Your mother and I are worried sick. Where have you been?

 

[The_Russian]

Busy moving. I will get back to you asap. Just don't have the time right now.

 

[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.