paul salerno

Readers,
My company OmniSMS.aero has developed an integrated SMS/QMS web application that supports ASAP, in preparation for AC 120-66C. We are currently working with two clients to bring their ASAP 'in-house'. This means ASAP reports will be submitted into the company's SMS reporting portal, rather than WBAT. ERC members (both company and FAA) will work the ASAP reports within the company's system. FAA ERC members will be granted a restricted user role that allows them to see only specified ASAP reports.
A risk matrix appropriate to each specific report / event will be selected by ERC agreement, including matrices in dimensions of airworthiness, people, assets and reputation. Event Risk Classification (as developed by the ARMS working group) can also be used. The system is designed to facilitate efficient and accurate processing of ASAP reports, including identification of causal factors and development / implementation of risk controls and corrective actions. It will also solve the problem of redundant data (in the company's SMS and WBAT).
But IMHO, two fundamental problems remain with AC 120-66C:
1. As TheSchwartz made clear with excerpts from the proposed AC, "Reckless conduct" is defined as deviating from company policies or procedures. So in my simple mind, if an ASAP report is submitted and investigation reveals the crew failed to follow ANY related procedure, the report may be denied.
2. Risk assessments are notoriously subjective, and it could often be a real challenge to get any ERC to agree on the likelihood and severity of an unwanted outcome or consequence (in practice, risk assessments are often run for more than one unwanted outcome). Event Risk Classification methodology (by the ARMS Working Group) should greatly reduce this subjectivity, but there will be a learning curve.
Bottom line, it remains unclear whether FAA ERC members will vote to accept or deny an ASAP report where the employee has not followed a company procedure.

JohnBurke

Programs such as the ASRS offer some measure of protection and even some relief for participants, which has lead to the success of the program. ASAP is different, and puts the reporter at jeopardy by providing both the FAA and the operator as voting parties that determine if the event is covered at all, or if it will be excluded. The pilot as the reporting party is always outnumbered and despite representation (where it exists, as not all ASAP-program operators have unions), will always be outnumbered and have the lesser vote.

While I do not in the slightest agree with the kinder, gentler image of the FAA that the FAA would like to promote (it's not true, kids), the ral problem isn't the FAA, but the company. The FAA might actually turn a blind eye and treat the matter with a wave toward safety, but that doesn't stop the company, and many will understand that reporting, even in ASAP (which throws the rest of the crew under the bus in some cases) is a bit like telling the AME that one has a medical issue...instead of handling that elsewhere.

The only tangible benefit of ASAP to the reporting party is protection; participants don't report to it out of altruistic fervor for enhancing the collection of safety-related information. They report to cover their butt. Because the program has some glaring holes in the way it's made up, and because the proposed changes do nothing more than widen those holes, the impending alterations offer little more than to encourage the concealment of events.

Excargodog

Agree. If reporting has no value to the guy you wish to make the report - only risk - all you are going to get from the program is the distant sound of crickets chirping.

Sometimes you need to pay for needed info. Like the prosecuting attorney making a plea bargain, it may leave a bad taste in your mouth but it is often necessary.

partypilot1

"Reckless conduct" is defined as deviating from company policies or procedures.
This is clearly isn’t a logical argument because within the just culture concept, deviation from policies might fail the substitution test.