The ASAP program, as I understand it, accepts voluntary reports of facts that may have led (or if allowed to continue, might lead) to an unsafe circumstance or it reports something that was or is not in compliance with existing rules, regulations, policies, or procedures. Filing such a report insulates the reporters from any further action being taken against the one doing the reporting and others involved. But I also understand that if it is found that the facts of the circumstance lead to a conclusion that the claimed “error” involves criminal activity, substance abuse, the use of controlled substances, alcohol, or intentional falsifications, an enforcement action may be pursued whether or not an ASAP report has been filed. I also understand that if an ASAP report is filed, and the unsafe practice was found to exist through some alternative investigation NOT USING the information provided by the offending party(ies), where there is sufficient evidence found through another means that would have justified processing a corrective action, including an enforcement action, that corrective or enforcement action may be taken.
I also understand that if an accident or incident occurs, and no ASAP report has been filed, whatever is found can be used in any potential corrective or enforcement action. Noticeably, however, the fact is the voluntary reporting program was designed to highlight and, hopefully, correct the situation before an accident, incident, or another rule violation occurs. Without such information, there is little hope that the circumstance that might lead to such an outcome will ever be known. Believing that a rule requiring the reporting of such violation of rules, practices, or procedures will lead to their being reported is simply naive. If the “offenders” would be subjected to punitive or embarrassing actions if they reported the incident, wouldn’t the motivation be largely to hide the evidence, stay quiet, and hope that no one found out … thereby hopefully avoiding any kind of punitive or embarrassing actions being taken?
In this case I agree with Sturgell … the best course of action is to urge the airlines and the labor unions to resolve their differences. The name of the operation should be PREVENT … not PUNISH. I think there are adequate caveats with the existing program to take necessary punitive or corrective action when someone criminally jeopardizes safety – and I think that operating an aircraft while impaired is at least as bad as operating a motor vehicle under the same circumstances. This industry is currently enjoying one of the safest times in its history. For one, I think that the ASAP program can claim at least some part of that safety record. I would hate to see it removed because of “in-fighting.” I may be all wrong, but I would think that companies would much prefer to re-train a handful of crewmembers … and that labor organizations would rather see their members re-trained … than to have the continuing viability of the operation jeopardized by an accident.