violation

[gsrcrsx68]

It's a real defect. Over 10k posts spread accross the internet to show there is something wrong with him.

If he acts that way in person he has zero friends and probably a track record of getting in fights. I've never met a single person who would put up with someone like that.

Plus you can get information that is just as good or better from a lot of people who are way nicer.

 

[lawfly]

Wow. An incredible thread. There have been previous and much more cogent threads about ASRS/NASA. In short, considering that there is a ten day time limit for filing the report, the best advice is generally to file it. The only part of the report that is admissible in the typical case is the ID strip. A pilot can create a problem if he identifies the incident in an incriminating fashion on the ID strip. The best general advice is to file---a report can be used once in five years to actually avoid imposition of a penalty. If there is no finding or stipulation of a violation and hence no actual application of the report, the mere filing of the report does not bar subsequent filings within said five year period. Most pilots do not contact legal counsel during the ten days post-incident, so when the attorney asks :"Did you file a NASA report?", if the answer is "No", it is usually too late to then file one. I have attended seminars on the subject given by attorneys for attorneys and have practiced in this area and, although this is not a comment on any particular case, my impression is that the best general advice is to file, the only real caveat typically being in the manner of description of the incident on the ID strip. I might also add that I have in fact seen a filing applied in a manner that benefitted a professional pilot. End of my comments. Good luck and good flying to all.

 

[The_Russian]

Clarification of my position.....

This post should sum up one of my points concerning proper use of the system. The only reason I am dredging this up is because it is a major topic in one of my classes and I wrote this concerning the topic. I will fill you in on what my classmates respond with. Enjoy.....





The article to be discussed was located in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Publications. It can be found by using the search funtion under the key term "ASRS". It is the first article on the list. I was unable to post the pdf file that contains it. http://www.aiaa.org/

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

This article is a factual article that points out the facts and proper use of the Aviation Safety Reporting System. I use the article as an example to show what the system is to be used for, and what it is currently used for.

The initial intent for the system was to receive reports from aviation professionals and the public concerning: "identifying unsafe operating conditions". Also, the goal of the program is to issue Alert Bulletins (AB) to the civil and military aviation community to improve aviation safety. Once a certain number of reports have been received concerning a safety issue, the AB will be issued.

The article states that currently less that 1% of the 208,609 reports that have been fully analyzed lead to the development of an AB. This is due to an overwhelming amount of filings from persons seeking protection from litigation in the event that they made an inadvertent operational error. This causes serious consequences within the program. Not only does it flood the NASA officials with reports that do not assist in defining safety issues within our aviation system, it contributes to a thought process which does not support the proper use of the system.

For example, a pilot files an ASRS report to protect the pilot from litigation due to an operational error the pilot made. An inadvertent operational error is not a prominent safety issue which can affect others. So, the NASA employees must file this report with all the other reports forcing the reader to sift through reports much like a miner sifting for gold in the 1800’s. Now that the pilot has done this with the intent of protecting himself, he will continue to use this program as a cover for his mistakes. The pilot will also alert his fellow pilots to the use of the system for this purpose, instead of informing them that the ASRS is for reporting unsafe operation conditions.
In this instance, not only is the system flooded, but the statistics that some study groups are seeking can be misconstrued. From the statistic posted above, we can assume that 99% of the reports are concerning operational error only. And, do not actually contribute to finding safety issues within the system. These filings are only there to provide legal protection to those who filed.

The proper use of this system should be thought of as a safety “hotline”. Much like a hotline you would call concerning a safety issue at your workplace. Some of the confusion related to this issue stems from the interpretation of the aviation regulation 14CFR 91.25. The regulation states:

“The Administrator of the FAA will not use reports submitted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program (or information derived therefrom) in any enforcement action except information concerning accidents or criminal offenses which are wholly excluded from the Program.”

What the regulation does not include is the strict intent of the program. This is identifying unsafe operation conditions, not protecting pilots from litigation due to their own mistakes.

The ASRS program at the time of the article had been active for 21 years. In concurrence with the author, I believe the program requires further improvement. Specifically, improvement is required towards attaining the program’s original goals, to lessen the amount of reports which do not meet the standards of the ASRS, and to create a clear understanding of the program for its users.

 

[The_Russian]

An inadvertent operational error is not a prominent safety issue which can affect others.

Correction:

An inadvertent operational error is not a prominent safety issue which can affect others operating in the system continuously.

 

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

.....looks like BAIT to me.......

 

[avbug]

Looks like an opinion, that's for sure. So much for a factual report.

The ASRS program at the time of the article had been active for 21 years. In concurrence with the author, I believe the program requires further improvement. Specifically, improvement is required towards attaining the program’s original goals, to lessen the amount of reports which do not meet the standards of the ASRS, and to create a clear understanding of the program for its users.

Funny. This article of opinion is dated October 1997. It's not February 2007...nearly ten years later. Either this is a terrible mistake that Mr. Corrie managed to uncover as the lone voice in the wilderness, or hundreds and thousands of eyes overseing the program and using it's products over the past ten years haven't agreed with him.

Russian's agreeent with a ten year old opinion lacking authority, or ten years additional experience by program administrators who didn't see fit to change the program...which carries more weight, do you suppose?

What's the malfunction today, our beloved communist sympathiser? Too much time between classes, not enough alcohol, or just looking for somewhere to beat your head against the wall while waiting for recess to end?

From the statistic posted above, we can assume

You do this a lot, and it seems to hurt you a lot. Statistically, can we assume you like it?

What the regulation does not include is the strict intent of the program. This is identifying unsafe operation conditions, not protecting pilots from litigation due to their own mistakes.

Page after page of people trying to beat it into you, and you still don't get it, do you?

The regulation is FAA policy, and the FAA does NOT administer the program. The FAA has offered pilots an incentive to participate and to alleviate fears of reprisal (which you have valiently, but vainly and falsely hawked here throughout the thread, over and over). The FAA has offered a gift. The FAA is not charged by congressional mandate to promote the program, as administered by NASA...but has extended a kindness to tell pilots (and others) that they need not fear the FAA when deciding whether or not to participate.

Further, the FAA policy does not grant protections to pilots so much as it refrains from using submitted information against the pilot.

The original poster was well advised to file an ASRS report, and rightfully so. Wisely, the original poster did just that. Our Mistress of Redness has repeatedly counselled the poster, and all others in no uncertain terms not to make that report. She continues to beat her chest (an act which would likely be banned in most public places, by the way) and proudly proclaiming a falsehood and a rather suspect platform.

Rusky, you're a lot like Rodney King...both of you would be just fine if you'd lay down, shut up, and put your hands over your head (preferably without a shotglass in hand, in your case) instead of pointlesly coming back again and again for more. Aren't you late for class?

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

I can't believe you people have kept this thread going on all this time. Didn't the original guy say that he filed the Report? Let's start something new, forgoodnesssakes!

 

[The_Russian]

Avroach,

Your last post proves your ignorance. I have provided the factual information to support a misuse of the ASRS program. To me, it seems as though you cannot read. Not one thing in your last post touched on any of the main points I presented. You mistake my posting here as though it is a "battle" with you. When in fact, it is not. Some of us here are trying to get to the point. Somewhere in your make believe world of self-gratification you have missed that. You are nothing but a big sack of air with a following. We are all a bit dumber now since reading your response. And, we would like to thank you for your contribution to slow the progress of mankind.

 

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

Looks like an opinion, that's for sure. So much for a factual report.



Funny. This article of opinion is dated October 1997. It's not February 2007...nearly ten years later. Either this is a terrible mistake that Mr. Corrie managed to uncover as the lone voice in the wilderness, or hundreds and thousands of eyes overseing the program and using it's products over the past ten years haven't agreed with him.

Russian's agreeent with a ten year old opinion lacking authority, or ten years additional experience by program administrators who didn't see fit to change the program...which carries more weight, do you suppose?

What's the malfunction today, our beloved communist sympathiser? Too much time between classes, not enough alcohol, or just looking for somewhere to beat your head against the wall while waiting for recess to end?



You do this a lot, and it seems to hurt you a lot. Statistically, can we assume you like it?



Page after page of people trying to beat it into you, and you still don't get it, do you?

The regulation is FAA policy, and the FAA does NOT administer the program. The FAA has offered pilots an incentive to participate and to alleviate fears of reprisal (which you have valiently, but vainly and falsely hawked here throughout the thread, over and over). The FAA has offered a gift. The FAA is not charged by congressional mandate to promote the program, as administered by NASA...but has extended a kindness to tell pilots (and others) that they need not fear the FAA when deciding whether or not to participate.

Further, the FAA policy does not grant protections to pilots so much as it refrains from using submitted information against the pilot.

The original poster was well advised to file an ASRS report, and rightfully so. Wisely, the original poster did just that. Our Mistress of Redness has repeatedly counselled the poster, and all others in no uncertain terms not to make that report. She continues to beat her chest (an act which would likely be banned in most public places, by the way) and proudly proclaiming a falsehood and a rather suspect platform.

Rusky, you're a lot like Rodney King...both of you would be just fine if you'd lay down, shut up, and put your hands over your head (preferably without a shotglass in hand, in your case) instead of pointlesly coming back again and again for more. Aren't you late for class?

hhmmmmmm................. I think the Rusky likes the Abuse-ky!!

 

[The_Russian]

Do you realize that almost half of your 42 posts are in support of the avroach? You consistently post with a similar demeanor to kids that say "owned" and jerk off to JC Penny.