Confidential Reporting

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Hey all. One thing that came out of the survey we did was some indication that persons may be reluctant to report aviation safety, security or technical breaches to an employer. This was of course very prominent at Jetstar. In my role I often get members calling me about things they have seen and I always ask - Did you report it? Quite often the answer is no for various reasons. Some of them include -

• I don't want to become a target
• There is too much paperwork involved
• I don't know how to
• They never do anything anyway
• CASA don't care

The Aviation Unions Federation are looking at developing an Industry wide confidential reporting scheme. One simple sheet that you fax or email into us. It is then directed to the appropriate union for reporting within company systems, CASA or the ATSB where appropriate.
The unions could then continually follow up the breaches and demand processes be put in place so the airlines couldn't sweep all their problems under the carpet.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and maybe some input into the key things that should be included in a simple confidential reporting form.

cheers
Steve P

[Greedy]

Steve,
That is a great idea! I have corresponded with you previously concerning the breach of my privacy by CASA following my report to Jonathan Aleck. That matter is still in dispute.
The problem with reporting to CASA is one of their integrity and honesty.The report can still be "deflected" by CASA to protect those it chooses to protect.
It is however an extra layer of protection for the reporter. I hope you can convince the AFAP to get on board.
Greedy

[gobbledock]

Bravo bravo bravo

Steve,

Best suggestion for a while. You will receive a stack of support on this.
Out of curiosity, is it possible to partially de-identify the reports and then also upload them on to a public website? The legal eagles ( perhaps Flyingfiend) could advise if this is doable. The more attention this industry is given then maybe just maybe powers up on high of elsewhere may finally feel motivated to take action?

And perhaps the reports can then be categorised for example by way of Engineering, Flight Operations, Safety, Ramp, ATC, even Management/bullying/harrassment etc. A number of categories enabling trending of the data.
S#it someone has to do it and sadly the operators, regulators and government only want to bury their heads in the sand and hide or dilute the truth.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Brilliant! I have had less than encouraging results through the REPCON system. The REPCON folks are very helpful, but when the organisation in question denies your accusations, there is almost no recourse; it is your word against theirs and to prove anything, you need to escalate the issue, probably to your detriment.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Sounds good, however by submitting a report via your system I face being stung by the company for not reporting the issue via their system, particularly as the report would need details of the event which could then easily be used to identify the reporter.

Very true and it all fits in. There are a number of ways around this or options we could go for.

1. If they could nail it down to one or two pilots, openly state that you are concerned the company would treat us unfairly and therefore elect to have your name witheld and report it through a third party. This creates two problems for them, the original one and the lack of confidence in internal reporting.

2. Leave it vague enough so they didn't know exactly who could have reported it, lots of issues could have been either cabin or flt crew or my mates.

[Keg]

Isn't it a sad and monstrous indictment on both the management of our respective airlines as well as CASA and the REPCON system that it comes to this!

[hiwaytohell]

Steve

For my 2 bobs worth I think whilst the idea has some merit, there are a few hurdles to get over.

Firstly independence. To be truely effective the system needs to be independent and not seen to leverage anyone's vested interest.

May I suggest rather that the unions "leading" this initiative, you take the initiative by "strongly supporting" an independent entity, like Aviation/Aerospace Australia, Australian Association of Aviation and Aerospace Industries, or Flight Safety Foundation... it would also be worth having a yarn to Chris Manning with regards to the The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (anything you want to achieve will be difficult if you don't get the RAAA on side early), and even BASI.

Another person worth a yarn would be Dr Graham Edkins, he did a lot of work in this field some time ago... so could save a whole bunch of wheel reinvention!

From that getting as wide as possible buy in from the stakeholders.

You may also wish to get support from CASA, however they have a big conflict so getting the balance may require legislative changes... which as you know is a long hard road! A chat to John McCormick would be worthwhile, but my suggestion would be to have that dialogue with some other industry partners, because if it was seen as just a union initiative it could be treated with suspicion.

Then some funding to help whoever gets the gig!.

And most importantly establishing an industry wide "just culture"!

[Roger Greendeck]

Agree that a deidentifyable same would be good. REPCON has severe limitations and an alternate would be good.

[Kharon]

Keg - Isn't it a sad and monstrous indictment on both the management of our respective airlines as well as CASA and the REPCON system that it comes to this!

Spot on!

But sadly it has and it's getting worse. The MOU between ATSB and CASA needs to destroyed, it's evil. The Miller report is probably the most cynical, self serving document ever inflicted on industry. I note now that CASA are 'instructing' operators to directly CC any report made to the ATSB to them – yes, through the operations manual.

Get it done Steve, seek forgiveness not permission.

[Armchairflyer]

Hi Steve,

again, can only offer boffin support, but James Reason has compiled some hints concerning such reporting schemes and forms in his book "Managing the risk of organizational accidents" on pp. 196-205. Just contact me if you are interested and think this can help you.

All the best
Mike

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Firstly independence. To be truely effective the system needs to be independent and not seen to leverage anyone's vested interest.

May I suggest rather that the unions "leading" this initiative, you take the initiative by "strongly supporting" an independent entity, like Aviation/Aerospace Australia, Australian Association of Aviation and Aerospace Industries, or Flight Safety Foundation... it would also be worth having a yarn to Chris Manning with regards to the The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (anything you want to achieve will be difficult if you don't get the RAAA on side early), and even BASI.

Apologies but I have to disagree here. We have independent bodies already. CASA and the ATSB. I think they are both pretty useless and I suspect one airline in this country would do all things possible to pamper any new independent body created. I would not waste my time, efforts and ideas by placing them in the hands of another useless group.

Please also remember this is not a reporting body that also does the investigation. We just report to those people who do the investigation to keep workers names free from their eyes. We would also be able to pressure them subtely and then openly for major problems they don't address. I think the strength of this idea is that it isn't independent.

[Worrals in the wilds]

The Aviation Unions Federation are looking at developing an Industry wide confidential reporting scheme. One simple sheet that you fax or email into us. It is then directed to the appropriate union for reporting within company systems, CASA or the ATSB where appropriate.

Great idea. However the problem I see is that the relevant managements will just dismiss it as IR agitating by Those Nasty Unions, because they (the managements) are so awesome that their employees would tell them about these things, and they'd quash the problems right away. Sunshine, Lollipops and so on.

Of course that's about as real world as Star Trek, but that's how many of these management genii think. They really believe they're doing a great job and any contradictory evidence is either a misunderstanding or a subversive attempt by the loafers to scam an extra ten minute tea break. Maybe sometimes it is , but on other occasions legitimate concerns from staff are swept aside by management because, like, what would the workers know? They don't have basket weaving diplomas and stuff, they've just been doing the job for years. If they'd been really smart they would have gone into management, yeah?

I like your idea but I think many managers would just put anything you say into the 'what would they know' category and dismiss it forthwith.

I'm not referring to companies like Qantas that are actively manevolent towards their staff; more the companies in the middle, that are run by basically decent people who like to think they're getting it right but actually aren't.

The other question is whether CASA would do anything about anything you sent them. Refer the Barry Hempel thread in the DG Bugsmasher subforum.

[gobbledock]

Buyer beware!!

I note now that CASA are 'instructing' operators to directly CC any report made to the ATSB to them

That is because the ASTB are sick of CASA either doing nothing or simply 'baying for operator blood' and wanting to be strictly punitive (just ask Dr Alleck about his stupid theories). So when you have a Regulator wanting to roger you every time you try to do the correct thing and report your mistake you end up with a non-reporting culture. However there is no obligation to CC CASA on some specific ATSB matters, so for your own protection tell em to get f*cked as they are not interested in increasing safety, well not ina fair and just fashion anyway.
The ATSB are also 'sectioning' Operators almost daily now so that the operator is obligated under law to report all details of the incident without having to pass it directly on to CASA and get rogered by CASA. Smart move by the ATSB but a sad indictment of how disconnected and retarded CASA has become.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Interesting .
So, as a serf your first option is to get involved in a inter-agency punch up? That's without considering any internal company fallout directed at people who speak up against the prevailing corporate awesomeness?

Your second option:

I still get paid, right? And most of the time no-one dies?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

You may also wish to get support from CASA, however they have a big conflict so getting the balance may require legislative changes

I will certainly talk to John Mc about it. I think they will be supportive of the idea and no legislation changes are required. It all already fits in with current rules.

Take standard company policy or CASA Reg. They nomally are already prefaced with "if you become aware of ......". So as a LAME if I am told that a person certified for work they are not licenced for and was supplied a copy of paperwork, I am actually obligated already to report it. Even if I am Federal Sec ofthe ALAEA.

So back to the CASA talk. I think the "talk" would be friendly, the idea welcomed as a fantastic idea. When we left, I suspect they would immediately call their favourite customer to try and shut us down. With the support of the employees in the industry, that would be impossible.

Again another reason for us not to be independent. We declare our vested interest and make it clear. Our fate as airworthiness inspectors (LAMEs) and emergency crisis directors (Pilots) will not be compromised because we are also employees.

[Worrals in the wilds]

LAMEs have clear boundaries about what to report, what's serviceable and so on. Many aviation workers are not certified (maybe certifiable ) and don't have such clear guidelines to work with.

LAMEs are ranked high on the aviation pecking order. Same with pilots. Maybe CASA likes you guys. Maybe they have to like you because you have legislative standing . If a pilot or a LAME says an aircraft doesn't fly then my understanding is that it doesn't fly. Right?

For the rest of us shmos who lurk in the shadows it's not so simple. We see stuff that's dodgy; we report it and nothing happens. Then what?

What are you trying to achieve here? Are companies ignoring LAME directives? Is that the problem you're trying to address? IMO this is not an issue that affects the upper echelons of aviation, ie the pilots and LAMEs. It affects the serfs who don't have the clout to speak up. I have a hunch that the survey reports you got were from people who aren't LAMEs or pilots and are continually ignored because they don't have that clout. After all, who cares what they think?
Do you?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Great idea. However the problem I see is that the relevant managements will just dismiss it as IR agitating by Those Nasty Unions,

Do you not think that they just dismiss things anyway? They have entire departments there to stop your concerns getting to CASA. As much as I think CASA have people inside working for Qantas, I do know that there are plenty of good people there waiting for enough ammunition to make them accountable.

If breaches are channelled through a union it would work like this. We get a form saying for example a bloke certified for an aircraft without a licence. It would go to an ALAEA Rep who works for that airline. He would submit it internally and at the same time, we would submit it to CASA. Then it is harder to hide it. We would constantly demand feedback and could even create a public website with appropriate reports listed and black marks against airlines that didn't fix problems.

[flying-spike]

A few suggestions

May I suggest that when a report is made through both the "official" system and the suggested system that a comparison be made of the respective timelines.
That should give an indication of how effective the official system is and if any reports that "slip through the cracks".
I would also suggest that whoever runs the system to resist the temptation to use the information for the political gain of any particular party. Avoid emotive or sensationalist reporting and stick to the facts.
Cold hard facts will be more effective and beg the questions that need to be asked and negate any suggestion of bias or prejudice (the literal interpretation) and help to maintain objectiveness and credibility. I don't mean to tell anybody here how to suck eggs but also remember, knowledge is responsibility. That is applicable to all three parties.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

What are you trying to achieve here? Are companies ignoring LAME directives? Is that the problem you're trying to address?

You bet there is a problem we are trying to address. At one airline and their subsiduries its like this in Engineering. If you do aircraft transit checks at a terminal say on average 8 per day and in the time you find on average 8 things wrong and delay one aircraft. You are compared to another who does 8 per day, never finds anything wrong and never causes a delay.

In days gone by the bloke who found things wrong was deemed a good LAME and eventually promoted. Now the bloke who finds nothing wrong is a hero, he is promoted and teaches his methods to the new kids. Turn a blind eye mate, that's what got me the Foreman job.

The guy who finds things wrong is under constant scrutiny from the idiot Foreman and Manager. They talk about him and ways to prevent him finding things wrong with aircraft. They make his life difficult and constantly promote the inexperienced at the expense of the good LAME. This crap has gone on in many Qantas departments for the last ten years,that's why the place is a mess. It needs to stop and a having reports deidentified will benefit many.

It may also add weight to your reports. I don't know if you are a rampy maybe, you report a manager who uses a mobile phone on tarmac. They would have to address it and wouldn't know if you are a Rampy, Pilot or LAME.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Fair enough. I thought LAMEs had it easier than that. Pardon my attack of the grumps. I find this new three wise monkey 'safety' culture really frustrating.

Anyway, it's a good idea and I hope you can make it work.