Proper use of the ASRS system....

[A Squared]

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

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

 

[avbug]

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

Proklyatiye Sooka,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is about the discussion concerning the topic.

Can you do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tomgoodman]

Rutan

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

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

 

[AeroBoy]

Rutan

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

 

[The_Russian]

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

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

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

Other way around, buddy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you do that?

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

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

Please, take your own advice.

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

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

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

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

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

I have, on numerous occasions.

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

They do, when filed properly.

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

Agreed.

 

[nosehair]

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

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

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

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

 

[avbug]

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

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

 

[A Squared]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[A Squared]

Russian,

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


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

 

[The_Russian]

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

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

Anywho.....

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

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