Proper use of the ASRS system....

[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.

 

[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.