rubik101;
Many thanks for your thorough and very helpful reply. In my view you describe a system which is healthy, robust and does it's job in terms of raising and/or maintaining an acceptable level of safety at your airline.
If I might be permitted a few supplementaries...
Would you consider that either non-pilots or retired pilots who were not on the equipment being monitored would be able to do as effective or accurate a job of analyzing the daily flight data? I assume they're different than the base facilitators or would I be incorrect there? Either way, do they fly most of the time and volunteer their time for FDA work or are they provided with time away from flying duties to do this work, (supported by management).
Given the 98% fleet coverage indicated, if two or three base facilitators are able to handle the Class 2 events including investigation, the crew-contact process (which is not always straightforward and can be quite time-consuming) and, where indicated, time to coordinate with management, would it be fair to say that the fleet size is such that 2 or 3 pilot-facilitators handle the work-load well enough or is there always a need for more resources given the importance of the work?
Do the pilots support the approach taken (use of data) or do they have a choice? In a situation where the pilots' union is strong, there is a need to bring and keep the union onside and even take some of the responsibility for the program including handling Class 2 outcomes such as retraining and so on. Is this the case at your airline?
I assume the facilitators are "in for the long haul" and neither rotate through a larger roster or leave the job after, say, six months as it takes such a long time to gain the experience necessary to make the judgement calls required. Is this the case?
Your comment regarding ASRs is valuable and of great interest. For the most part we have kept the two separate to prevent identification of the crew by management (who receive all ASRs but which are all de-identified). We have recently altered that approach such that FLIDRAS data is provided to both management and union safety investigators in an incident (such as a tail-strike or turbulence event etc), but we still do not coordinate ASRs with "Class 2" type events.
In any situation where the pilots' union is relatively strong there is the twin responsibilities of protection of the crew member and the need and responsibility to deal effectively and clearly with safety issues where competency and/or "maverick" behaviour is indicated. Such twin roles are difficult to balance and execute but that they must be, with safety taking priority.
Again rubik101, your willingness to engage these questions publicly is of enormous value to all simply for reasons you state and is of benefit to me through comparisons with our own approach and set-up. It has been an exceptionally difficult task to establish at our airline not because the pilots are not onside but because, from all evidence, management is not. After a decade, only two of five fleet types are monitored and one of those fleet types is monitored at a rate of less than 60%, the "statistical" method being seen as a viable, acceptable way to do flight data analysis. A popular commuter-level jet is our new-hire entry and main captain-promotion airplane but it is not monitored at all; similarly, two wide-body fleet types are not monitored. We have been lobbying for 100% coverage since the beginning but were told data analysis would be expanded onto other fleet types when it was "commercially viable", whatever that meant.
The value of this forum is admirably demonstrated in the direction this thread has ultimately taken. Information about a very valuable but little-understood flight safety program is here for all to read, passengers and journalists alike. For a professional aviator (40 years, 35 at a major carrier) and flight data specialist, to be able to compare approaches at different carriers, in confidence but in public so that we may ourselves make progress in our own data analysis work is very valuable indeed and I extend my thanks for your candidness and time once again.