Proper use of the ASRS system....

[avbug]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JimNtexas]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[avbug]

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

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

Regulatory litigation is guilty until proven innocent.

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

 

[The_Russian]

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

 

[The_Russian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[A Squared]

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

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

 

[The_Russian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

 

[JimNtexas]

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

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

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

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

In any case they were not fingered by NASA.

 

[JimNtexas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[avbug]

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

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