Proper use of the ASRS system....

[JimNtexas]

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

.

The date and time of the incident are on the ID strip.

The only way the FAA can see the ID strip is if the pilot presents it to them.

 

[avbug]

You lack even the nominal level of professionalism required to communicate on an internet forum.

Can't compete there, babushka. "Get bent dude" was already taken. Once again, bravo. Shakespeare would weep in the face of your boundless wit. What would qualify as the nominal level of professionalism to communicate on an internet forum? Not every one wants to get "wasted" to follow in your footsteps each time the wind blows, you know.

You are correct, the FAA would not get the date on the ID-strip.

Actually, YOU are incorrect. But that goes without saying, at all times. Have you ever actually seen an ASRS report?

The US Aviation Safety Reporting System
Stephan J. Corrie (FAA, Washington, DC)
AIAA-1997-5562
AIAA and SAE, 1997 World Aviation Congress, Anaheim, CA, Oct. 13-16, 1997

That is your source? The 10 year old report cited at the start of this thread? The one that's already been shot full of holes and debunked...that one?

Or how about your other source? That would be the ASRS program itself. You cited http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/main.htm

You state:

From the information I have gathered from those directly involved, the FAA recieved the report which was forwarded by NASA due to the incident being thought or as deliberate or negligent.

You gather the wrong information, of course, as NASA doesn't forward reports that it believes were deliberate or negligent. It forwards reports which involve accidents or criminal activity, as we see from the very site you cited...the ASRS program:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The ASRS assurance of confidentiality and the availability of waivers of disciplinary action do NOT extend to reports of accidents or criminal activity (e.g., hijacking, bomb threats, and drug running). Such reports should not be submitted to ASRS. If such reports are received, they are forwarded identified to cognizant agencies.
[/FONT]

You seem to believe that NASA is interested in what may be deliberate or negilgent, and this is not the case. You're confusing the FAA's generosity in waiving certificate action when a pilot shows an attitude of compliance by filing an ASRS report in a timely manner (and refusing to do so when the act is deliberate)...with the provision by NASA that reports will not be accepted involving accidents or criminal activity. You're confusing the FAA with NASA.

We've been over this ground before, and you've been educated before, but don't seem to grasp the fact.

NASA doesn't waive administrative actions or penalties. NASA doesn't offer waivers for pilots based on the reports. The FAA does that.

The FAA is not NASA. NASA is not the FAA.

The FAA does not administer the program. The FAA only generously offers a waiver of certificate action under certain circumstances for pilots who properly file the ASRS report, even though the FAA has nothing to do with the program. The FAA does this as an act of support to the safety reporting system. NASA has no obligation to pursue enforcement action, and does not do so.

As the ASRS program is not a FAA program, the FAA does not administer, police, or use the ASRS program for it's purposes, except where expressely authorized...and you haven't hit on a circumstance yet in which it's authorized (save by the pilot himself when he offers up the data strip and supporting details regarding an incident spelled out as not covered by both the FAA, and the ASRS.

The FAA's role is also spelled out in the same link you provided (you should read it, seeing as your college course isn't doing you much good):

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]FAA policies regarding the ASRS are covered by Advisory Circular 00-46D, FAR 91.25, and paragraph 2-38 in the "Facility Operations and Administration" Handbook (7210.3S). The waiver of penalties is subject to the following limitations: (A) the alleged violation must be inadvertent and not deliberate, (B) it must not reveal an event subject to Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act, (C) the reporter must not have been found guilty of a violation of the FAR's or the Federal Aviation Act during the preceding five years, and (D) the ASRS report must be submitted within 10 days of the event.[/FONT]

You'll note that the issue of what is inadvertant and what is deliberate is a FAA issue, not a NASA issue. You believe that the folks at NASA perused the ASRS report for your friends, determined on their own that it was deliberate, and therefore contacted the FAA, do you (you said so)? NASA doesn't do this. It's not even a NASA issue...it's an FAA issue.

So who are these people reading these reports and determining what to do with them? How about referring back to the ASRS site...that's right! The same site to which you provided the link...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The ASRS professional staff is composed of retired controllers, as well as both active and retired pilots. To avoid conflicts of interest, ASRS analysts, researchers, and management personnel are not permitted to have ongoing employment relationships with the FAA, air carriers, or similar organizations. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Incident reports are read and analyzed by ASRS's corps of aviation safety analysts. The analyst staff is composed entirely of experienced pilots and air traffic controllers. Their years of experience are uniformly measured in decades, and cover the full spectrum of aviation activity: air carrier, military, and general aviation; Air Traffic Control in Towers, TRACONS, Centers, and Military Facilities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Each report received by the ASRS is read by a minimum of two analysts. Their first mission is to identify any aviation hazards which are discussed in reports and flag that information for immediate action. When such hazards are identified, an alerting message is issued to the appropriate FAA office or aviation authority. Analysts' second mission is to classify reports and diagnose the causes underlying each reported event. Their observations, and the original de-identified report, are then incorporated into the ASRS's database. [/FONT]

Well glory be, would you look at that, missus? You seem to be more and more wrong the longer you wax poetic, don't you? Reporting to the FAA occurs regarding aviation hazards which represent information selected for immediate action...safety related information. Not enforcement action. Not issues regarding deliberate action or negligent action. Instead, safety related issues that require immediate action.

Now, read this part carefully, then read it again, so it can slowly seep into your thickened, wasted, panic-stricken soviet brain. It's self-explainatory. See if you can divine the obvious:

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

Get it?

 

[AC560]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Can we get back to putting nitrogen in tires and its chemical properties instead.

 

[The_Russian]

Can't compete there, babushka. "Get bent dude" was already taken. Once again, bravo. Shakespeare would weep in the face of your boundless wit. What would qualify as the nominal level of professionalism to communicate on an internet forum? Not every one wants to get "wasted" to follow in your footsteps each time the wind blows, you know.

I love how your only consistent point against me is an insult against my intelligence and my personal life. How many times do I have to correct you on the drinking thing? I guess avroach just doesn't understand what it's like to be human and desire "fun".

A nominal level of professionalism would be to not belittle everyone who might have a brain bigger than yours just because you don't agree with them. Also, maybe taking up constructive criticism might increase you chances of getting your point across. Now you are going to try to say that I said "get bent dude" and I am the one doing the unprofessional bs. Well, I am just returning fire. And you can still get bent.

Actually, YOU are incorrect. But that goes without saying, at all times. Have you ever actually seen an ASRS report?

No I'm not! The date is on the strip. The strip gets removed.

That is your source? The 10 year old report cited at the start of this thread? The one that's already been shot full of holes and debunked...that one?

Time doesn't matter. People are still misusing the system the same way they were ten years ago. Somehow you forgot that this was the topic. Do you want to explain how? Oh, thats right. You refuse to answer my questions. I shouldn't expect an answer.

Or how about your other source? That would be the ASRS program itself. You cited http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/main.htm

That was posted for JAFI to find out where to find an ASRS seach feature. Pay attention.

You gather the wrong information, of course, as NASA doesn't forward reports that it believes were deliberate or negligent. It forwards reports which involve accidents or criminal activity, as we see from the very site you cited...the ASRS program:

No, but the experts at Battelle do and they are under the administration of NASA.

You seem to believe that NASA is interested in what may be deliberate or negilgent, and this is not the case.

No I don't. That's you assumption. Most of your arguments are assumptions about what I think and not actually about what I said or what I really think.

You're confusing the FAA's generosity in waiving certificate action when a pilot shows an attitude of compliance by filing an ASRS report in a timely manner (and refusing to do so when the act is deliberate)...with the provision by NASA that reports will not be accepted involving accidents or criminal activity. You're confusing the FAA with NASA.

No, I'm not. You are confusing what you think I am confusing about our discussion (to you it is a lecture and argument).

We've been over this ground before, and you've been educated before, but don't seem to grasp the fact.

I don't need to be educated by someone who is unable to grasp ideas or theories which are not regulatory in nature.

NASA doesn't waive administrative actions or penalties. NASA doesn't offer waivers for pilots based on the reports. The FAA does that.

The FAA is not NASA. NASA is not the FAA.

The FAA does not administer the program. The FAA only generously offers a waiver of certificate action under certain circumstances for pilots who properly file the ASRS report, even though the FAA has nothing to do with the program. The FAA does this as an act of support to the safety reporting system. NASA has no obligation to pursue enforcement action, and does not do so.

Duh!

As the ASRS program is not a FAA program, the FAA does not administer, police, or use the ASRS program for it's purposes, except where expressely authorized...and you haven't hit on a circumstance yet in which it's authorized (save by the pilot himself when he offers up the data strip and supporting details regarding an incident spelled out as not covered by both the FAA, and the ASRS.

Actually, the FAA created the program in 1976 and continues to fund it entirely. It is an FAA program. It does police and gather information from the reports along with 3rd party human factors organizations including international organizations.

I am not trying to hit on any circumstance. I do have one, though. If you do not believe me, I don't care. What I know is true and I have no reason to lie to you. However, you have some reason to tell me I am lying to you.

You'll note that the issue of what is inadvertant and what is deliberate is a FAA issue, not a NASA issue. You believe that the folks at NASA perused the ASRS report for your friends, determined on their own that it was deliberate, and therefore contacted the FAA, do you (you said so)? NASA doesn't do this. It's not even a NASA issue...it's an FAA issue.

NASA, Battelle, and the FAA have an obligation to the program to identify deliberate and criminal acts. If the administrator finds a criminal or deliberate act, it will identify it, or relay the information to the FAA. Battelle pre-screens the reports prior to entering them into the database stopping them if they are criminal or negligent. Thus, NASA has the initial reporting responsibility.

Well glory be, would you look at that, missus? You seem to be more and more wrong the longer you wax poetic, don't you? Reporting to the FAA occurs regarding aviation hazards which represent information selected for immediate action...safety related information. Not enforcement action. Not issues regarding deliberate action or negligent action. Instead, safety related issues that require immediate action.

The reference you posted pertains to non-criminal and inadvertant action reports only. The ASRS program is built to filter prior to the step where immediate safety items are identified.

Get it?

Of course I do. And, I don't doubt that you get most of it too. However, aviation professionals and amateurs continue to misuse the system in an attempt to circumnavigate litigation. Which was the original topic. Somehow along the line you twisted it into the fact that I "hate the ASRS and want it to go away" and that I am "the enemy" of aviation safety. Along the way you have refused to answer my questions and belittled me as you have belittled others on this board in the past because you didn't agree with them.

After a lot of conversation with you, I have realized that you are unable to accept events which do not fit into your little world of rules. Such as drinking, people standing up to you, and the FAA doing things that you may not agree with. Well buddy, you better get over that. People are going to drink, refuse to take your crap, and have the administrator come down on them or help them out when you don't want that to happen.

You are working on one mouth. Try to add two ears in there and you will get farther with people.

 

[The_Russian]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Can we get back to putting nitrogen in tires and its chemical properties instead.

I'm hungry, can we talk about dinner?

 

[The_Russian]

The date and time of the incident are on the ID strip.

The only way the FAA can see the ID strip is if the pilot presents it to them.

You are correct. Unless of course the report is found to contain deliberate or criminal actions or the date/time/location is included in the description section by the reporter.

 

[Axel]

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

[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.

7.a

NASA procedures for processing Aviation Safety Reports ensure that the reports are initially screened for:

1. Information concerning criminal offenses, which will be referred promptly to the Department of Justice and the FAA;
2. information concerning accidents, which will be referred promptly to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FAA; and
   Note: Reports discussing criminal activities or accidents are not de-identified prior to their referral to the agencies outlined above.

 

[avbug]

Duh!

Someone grant this woman an honorary doctorate and put her out of her misery. This level of earth shattering thinking transcends mere mortality, and should be tapped forthwith to better mankind. Or at least serve as a tagline to a cheap cartoon somewhere.

And you can still get bent.

Aristotle. Galileo. Thoreau. Emerson. The Russian.

Just when we thought brilliance had no end. At least now we know.

Still waffling in the understanding, though. Perhaps you can clarify, as you can't have it both ways...you firmly assert that the time and date isn't on the identification strip, but at the same time assert that it is. When you're done changing your story, pick one and stick to it.

Is it...

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

Or is it...

No I'm not! The date is on the strip. The strip gets removed.

Time doesn't matter. People are still misusing the system the same way they were ten years ago.

Amazing that it hasn't changed then, isn't it? You see a great problem. The FAA doesn't see this problem (save for Mr. Corrie, who seems to be a lone voice in the wilderness). NASA doesn't see this problem. It hasn't hindered the ASRS program. The problem doesn't exist, except perhaps in your own feeble mind. Further, adhering to the tenets of the program and taking full advantage of any protections it may offer is not misusing the system; it's using the system precisely within the guidelines that prescribe and potect the system. Without those protections, the system would not be...therefore those who submit to the system under any approved circumstance are not misusing it as you assert, but giving their full support.

That a pilot receives the benifit of not being prosecuted for his decision to support the system by providing a timely report, is of no concern to you or anyone else. It's for this reason that the pilot provides the report in the first place, and it's to receive this report that the system exists. The FAA provides a valueable service to the system itself by agreeing to waive certain penalties in honor of the attitude of compliance shown by those who submit a timely and lawful report.

The system is not broken, as the system doesn't involve the waiving of penalties. The system exists to take reports.

The FAA isn't broken or at fault in any way, as the FAA desires to see submitters provide information without fear of recrimination. The FAA's effort at honoring the system by waiving penalties is worthy of applause.

You're determined to prove otherwise, and your determination makes no impact on the program. It certainly does leave you coming off looking and sounding like a babbling idiot, however.

The most appro statement made on the subject on this thread thus far was A Squared's analogy to the rake and the lake of fecal material. He is, of course right. No pilot is at fault for taking advantage of the protections offered, and the system doesn't suffer one iota for those who do. It never has.

That was posted for JAFI to find out where to find an ASRS seach feature. Pay attention.

This is a good time for you to pay attention. JAFI is FAA. JAFI knows where to find this information. JAFI called you out; he told you he finds your story hard to swallow. You apparently missed the subtlety; JAFI, FAA employee, asked about the FAA getting these NTSB reports, as he, the FAA employee, has never seen one come across his desk, save for one sent in by a pilot...whereas YOU suggested that the FAA obtained reports from NASA. He then asked you for specifics and references, and you stupidly provided a link to the ASRS program itself. JAFI, FAA employee, went so far as to tell you that this isn't how the system works. Perhaps you just need to pay more attention.

Further, JAFI asked you, as did I, how getting fired negates or mitigates certificate action. Again, he asked you for specifics, and references, and you provided the link to the ASRS program...which as we've already proven in quotes, does just the opposite, in fact, EXACTLY the opposite, of what you state it does. Which of course is standard, as you are nearly always exactly wrong...perpetually 180 degrees from the truth, save for those times when you change your story in mid stride, as we've also addressed above.

Keep plugging away, our little one handed student moving wasted babushka. Though you'll never redeem yourself from buying your way into your career, you might salvage some semblence of this mess of a reputation. If you had any sense at all, you'd let it die and slink away, but so long as you're intending to provide cheap entertainment...we'll be here for you.

Think carefully before you reply. It's really hard to top "get bent," or "duh," but you can do it if you supercharge that little vodka soaked grey cell of yours. Break a leg.

 

[JAFI]

I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but I wonder if the Russian is mixing up some ASAP with ASRS. In ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program), if a occurance is delerabate or criminal then the event cannot go into an ASAP program. I don't remember this verbage in the ASRS system.

The Russian said: "Unless of course the report is found to contain deliberate or criminal actions or the date/time/location is included in the description section by the reporter."

In ASAP the ERC commitee desides if the pilots can go into the ASAP program but this is only an approved Air Carrier program, not for the General Aviation pilot.

As an FAA Inspector, sometimes I am able to leap tall buildings with a single bound but I still forget where I parked my car......I do think I have a good handle on the ASRS system.

But as far as ASRS, I know of no report use by the FAA.

However, in the ASAP program the FAA office is very much involved. But that is part of the program. IMHO both are great programs but seprate and unique from each other.

Just some ideas for the discussion.

JAFI

 

[Axel]

This thread is certainly about differences. However I do not believe it is about the differences between ASRS & ASAP.

At least not anymore.

 

[The_Russian]

This thread is certainly about differences. However I do not believe it is about the differences between ASRS & ASAP.

At least not anymore.

You are correct. It has become a part of avroach's anti-Russian agenda. The facts and original statements have been twisted by his hatred and demeanor. This has lead all the posters to become confused on each others positions concerning the topic at hand. I hope to continue other, more positive discussions with the rest of you.

 

[avbug]

Now that you've relieved yourself of that bit of paranoia, oh soviet starter of this thread, why don't you address the topic at hand? Questions have been asked. Can you answer them?

 

[The_Russian]

You are like a revolving door of hypocrisy. You have never answered one of the many questions that I have directed at you. In previous threads, you asked me to post all of those questions and I did. Still, you never answered. Thus, making you look more like the hot air blowing wind bag you are.

Stop pointing fingers and asking for answers and explanations when you cannot do the same. It is quite sad that I am the only one on this site that can see right though you. Everyone has this unbroken respect for you while at the same time, you give them zero respect in return. To you, everyone else is an idiot who has achieved far less in their careers. Get over yourself and start talking on a level less fit for Kings, for you are not by any means royalty.

 

[avbug]

Rusky,

I'd love an opportunity to address you on your level. Unfortunately there is no font provided in crayon.

 

[The_Russian]

And I can't speak as$hole. So, I guess we are at a draw.

 

[avbug]

Not at all, ruskette. You're still every bit the proper lady, and oh, so professional. Keep up the good work.

And I can't speak as$hole.

What would you say if you weren't a college kid?

 

[JimNtexas]

Well, that about covers the flyby.

Now, where's my blank NASA form?