PDA

View Full Version : Confidential Reporting


ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Aug 2012, 03:18
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
10th Aug 2012, 03:39
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
10th Aug 2012, 03:58
Steve,

Best suggestion for a while. You will receive a stack of support on this. :ok:
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
10th Aug 2012, 04:06
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
10th Aug 2012, 04:20
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
10th Aug 2012, 05:36
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
10th Aug 2012, 06:04
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
10th Aug 2012, 06:05
Agree that a deidentifyable same would be good. REPCON has severe limitations and an alternate would be good.

Kharon
10th Aug 2012, 20:08
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. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Armchairflyer
10th Aug 2012, 21:43
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
10th Aug 2012, 23:27
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
10th Aug 2012, 23:28
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? :rolleyes:

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. :sad:

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. :uhoh:

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
10th Aug 2012, 23:36
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
10th Aug 2012, 23:45
Interesting :8.
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:
http://pearlsnapdiscount.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/three-wise-monkeys1.jpg
I still get paid, right? And most of the time no-one dies? :(

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Aug 2012, 23:45
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
10th Aug 2012, 23:59
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. :cool: Maybe they have to like you because you have legislative standing :E. 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? :confused:

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
11th Aug 2012, 00:01
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
11th Aug 2012, 00:06
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
11th Aug 2012, 00:17
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
11th Aug 2012, 06:06
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.

victor two
11th Aug 2012, 09:58
The involvement of hostile unions such as the ALAEA as some sort of defacto safety reporting authority is a dangerous idea and will be nothing but a paper tiger. It will be interesting when a safety issue is reported to the union and not to the ATSB or CASA and is ignored, hidden or not passed on for union or political reasons and results in a fatal accident. Can't wait to see the angry man from the union in court explaining that outcome. What a joke.

Unions do not serve all stakeholders equally, treat non union members diffently and are have zero powers to act in regulatory or compliance enforcement roles. Your Fed Sec is on an ego fueled power trip and is relying on gullible people to get information that they can use against employers. Simple as that!

Arnold E
11th Aug 2012, 10:04
The involvement of hostile unions such as the ALAEA as some sort of defacto safety reporting authority is a dangerous idea and will be nothing but a paper tiger. It will be interesting when a safety issue is reported to the union and not to the ATSB or CASA and is ignored, hidden or not passed on for union or political reasons and results in a fatal accident. Can't wait to see the angry man from the union in court explaining that outcome. What a joke.

Unions do not serve all stakeholders equally, treat non union members diffently and are have zero powers to act in regulatory or compliance enforcement roles. Your Fed Sec is on an ego fueled power trip and is relying on gullible people to get information that they can use against employers. Simple as that!

Alan, its true, you do read these forums.:ok:

Arnold E
11th Aug 2012, 10:08
Unions do not serve all stakeholders equally, Which stake holders do they not treat equally, and give an explanation please,......... Ta.:cool:

ALAEA Fed Sec
11th Aug 2012, 13:01
I think one airline are concerned with the idea. Sending the muppet in to discredit the idea.

Kharon
11th Aug 2012, 20:11
First we get this:-
Summary Miller report. (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2008/March/AA019_Miller_Review%20_Summary_of_Recommendations.pdf)

2007 Miller Report. (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2008/March/AA019_2008.aspx)
Then there's this:- Senate Inquiry into Pilot Training and Airline Safety Including the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reporting) Bill 2010.

18. With respect to CASA’s function in developing standards, effective rule-making needs to be based on principles of safety risk management. Safety risk management for the Regulator involves identifying hazards, assessing the safety risks of the consequences of those hazards and developing regulations that provide acceptable mitigation/control of the consequences of hazards.

19. In accordance with the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act, the disclosure of information from ATSB investigations for purposes other than addressing identified safety issues within safety systems is limited – even to CASA – in the interests of preserving the free flow of information to the ATSB. If CASA is concerned to get additional information it can source the information separately in the majority of circumstances through its own processes. However, this is not as practicable with respect to accident and incident reports which the ATSB receives over 15 000 notifications in relation to each year.

20. For this reason the ATSB and CASA are presently considering ways in which CASA can obtain more open access to the ATSB accident and incident notification information, in order for CASA to enhance its ability to fulfil its functions under the Civil Aviation Act, without compromising confidentiality where it is required. Understandably, providing more open access necessitates the development of appropriate protective mechanisms governing CASA use of the information it obtains for certain regulatory purposes. In this respect, the ATSB and CASA are cooperating closely in the development of evolving ICAO standards affecting the disclosure of sensitive safety information
My bold.
.
Is there a need for a NTSB style system? seems so.

victor two
13th Aug 2012, 04:01
Ok - let me out out a scenario to the Fed Sec.

The ALAEA becomes a defacto safety reporting body because pilots and oter industry stakeholders are too scared of their job security to use the exisiting and legitimate reporting systems, including confidential systems, which already exist.

You are informed of a serious safety issue at a regional airline. The issue is well documented and is backed up with substantial proof. The issue represents a serious risk to the safety of the public who travel on the airline. The issue involves a senior employee of the airline who is ignoring critical safety checks and suigning off works as completed when they are not.

The employee in question turns out to be a 7 year memeber of the ALAEA and is paid up union member.

So - are you saying that a union would investigate and forward allegations against a union member with the same enthusiasm as a non union memeber , or a management figure who has clashed with the union, or any union, over IR issues???? Not a chance in hell that it would go any further. It would be mothballed and the shonky engineer would be tipped off by his comrades within 5 minutes.

What stakeholders do unions not treat equally? Read the above scenario again, slowly this time, or just make your own list of anyone who clashes with a union body for anything that is not in the union interest.

Fed Sec Steve - can you confirm for the readers that you, as a union organiser, would forward safety reports about union members which would likley result in prosecution of that union member.

Why not just say it like it is??? The union wants gullible and scared people to report safety issues directly to them so they can use them against the employer as they see fit.

The alternative is akin to calling the police officers union when you see a bank robbery taking place instead of calling the real police. A dumber idea has never been put to paper!!

Greedy
13th Aug 2012, 06:47
Victor Two,
The scenario you describe has already occured to me. CASA is the body I reported to and Dr Aleck and FOI Scrimes informed the company I work for. My email was provided to the company. CASA is as corrupt as the situation you have described.
Greedy

victor two
13th Aug 2012, 08:24
Its a pointless discussion anyway as it will never happen. CASA may be a rudderless and dysfunctional mess .....but they are a lot better than the ALAEA.

The recent public circus on the corruption and stealing within the HSU is indicative of the level of the behaviour which is found within most Australian Unions.

ALAEA Fed Sec
13th Aug 2012, 08:49
So - are you saying that a union would investigate and forward allegations against a union member with the same enthusiasm as a non union memeber , or a management figure who has clashed with the union, or any union, over IR issues???? Not a chance in hell that it would go any further. It would be mothballed and the shonky engineer would be tipped off by his comrades within 5 minutes.

You don't even know enough about us to get your propoganda correct. We absolutely report our own members if they have made an error and have done so on numerous occassions. In fact I have even instructed ALAEA Reps to lodge safety reports on themselves and they have.

You see when someone makes a mistake there are usually several contributing factors. Deliberate, intentional errors are extremely rare. Errors usually occur because of a faulty system. You can write any crap on here you want fella, nobody is taking you seriously.

BrissySparkyCoit
13th Aug 2012, 09:09
The recent public circus on the corruption and stealing within the HSU is indicative of the level of the behaviour which is found within most Australian Unions.

Hope you are not a religious man V2. Your above view is absurd as asuming that all priests molest boys.

blow.n.gasket
13th Aug 2012, 09:53
I wonder if a certain Airline CEO was ever a choir boy?:E

Worrals in the wilds
13th Aug 2012, 12:47
The recent public circus on the corruption and stealing within the HSU is indicative of the level of the behaviour which is found within most Australian Unions. What is a defamatory publication?

The definition of "defamatory matter" varies among Australian jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions common law definitions apply, while in others (e.g. Queensland and Tasmania) the definition has been codified.
Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule (trivial ridicule or good natured humour is less likely to be problematic than derisory ridicule).
In its 1996 report on defamation law (http://www.dpa.act.gov.au/ag/Reports/CLRC/r10/def1.html#RTFToC3), the A.C.T. Community Law Reform Committee outlined defamation as follows: "Defamation is the publication of words or images to a person that damages the reputation of another ['slander' if spoken words, 'libel' if written words or images]. A defamatory statement is one that is likely to cause ordinary, reasonable people to think less of the person about whom the words or images are published. An inference that casts a defamatory imputation is enough to bring an action.
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

Sunfish
13th Aug 2012, 22:16
V2:

You are informed of a serious safety issue at a regional airline. The issue is well documented and is backed up with substantial proof. The issue represents a serious risk to the safety of the public who travel on the airline. The issue involves a senior employee of the airline who is ignoring critical safety checks and suigning off works as completed when they are not.

The employee in question turns out to be a 7 year memeber of the ALAEA and is paid up union member.

So - are you saying that a union would investigate and forward allegations against a union member with the same enthusiasm as a non union memeber , or a management figure who has clashed with the union, or any union, over IR issues???? Not a chance in hell that it would go any further. It would be mothballed and the shonky engineer would be tipped off by his comrades within 5 minutes.


Wasn't that exactly what happened to the Sunnies engineers V2? They grounded aircraft over serious unresolved security issues. The company response was to stand them down.

Furthermore, you have failed to address the very real "double bind" problem - where the "official" corporate culture is allegedly safety oriented, but the actual corporate culture is to ignore the regulations. This leaves a pilot or LAME in a terrible situation which is all too common.

Typhoon650
14th Aug 2012, 01:59
Safety in aviation is for the most part, just something you are required to look like you do something about.
My previous employer had a supposed safety reporting system, it was there because they were required to have such a system.
I was labelled a troublemaker and told to keep my head down because I submitted "too many" reports. Bear in mind that I was working in a brand new start up division for this company, so there were PLENTY of safety issues that cropped up with equipment and procedures. Things like unserviceable equipment, improper use of safety equipment, driving extremely dangerously around aircraft etc. As a team leader, I'd try to deal with the issue there and then, but staff who knew it all would not change.
I thought little things like stairs blowing away from aircraft and cabin attendants nearly walking out of the aircraft were real issues. Some were acted upon, but it soon got around that I would "grass out" anyone, which was not true. We were told the system was there to be used and that it would be kept confidential. It got to the stage where people I worked with were stabbing me in the back to "get me back" for reporting their stupid behaviour and even going as far as telling staff in other companies we worked with how I couldn't be trusted etc, just because I filled out safety reports.
The whole problem was piss poor, spineless management who couldn't adequately deal with safety problems and made any issues that arose a personal problem with the staff involved, instead of learning and improving the areas around the problem.
I really don't think I'd ever work in aviation again after that.

Cactusjack
14th Aug 2012, 09:38
Sounds like Typhoon650 has worked in FNQ??

victor two, bored are we??

Worrals in the wilds
14th Aug 2012, 10:32
Sounds like Typhoon650 has worked in FNQ??Unfortunately the dodgy practices he describes also occur frequently in the big smoke.
I really don't think I'd ever work in aviation again after that. This is the problem. I know people who've come to aviation from other high risk industries (such as construction, rail or mining) who were left wide eyed and horrified by what passes for 'safe' in aviation. All too often it's Amateur Night 101. There is more holey cheese in aviation than a top class deli. But rest assured; nothing bad's happened.
Yet. :(

victor two
15th Aug 2012, 10:36
OK, whatever - if it is such a magnificent idea, go ahead and make it happen then.

When can we expect to see these inspired improvements implemented and really making a meaningful improvement to safety anyway?

Union Pride - Touch One Touch All.......if you know what I mean.

Redpanda
15th Aug 2012, 15:28
V2, maybe you should stop touching yourself.........

gobbledock
16th Aug 2012, 13:08
When can we expect to see these inspired improvements implemented and really making a meaningful improvement to safety anyway?
Naughty Victor 2. CASA employee's are bound by legal obligation not to comment publicly about such matters. Be careful.

ALAEA Fed Sec
8th Oct 2012, 13:17
Ok guys. I've been working on this little one. I want confidential reporting made as easy as possible. How about a smartphone app.

In development now but interested in the feedback. Would it help if you could download an app that is extremely simple. Options (all built into app) are just take a photo of a document (log coupon, ASIR, hazard report etc....) and it sends it into central location?

Options such as aircraft Rego, department and your name available if you wanted. Sent in photo is completely anonymous and cannot be traced with options to delay send up to 48 hours (in case you are in flt mode or want to cover your tracks a bit).

I know it won't be used by everyone but if 3% of aviaiton professionals used it along with the official reporting systems (that get covered up), we will make a difference. Let me know your thoughts. I have some blueprints I've developed if anyone wants further info.

hiwaytohell
8th Oct 2012, 14:29
Sent in photo is completely anonymous and cannot be traced with options to delay send up to 48 hours (in case you are in flt mode or want to cover your tracks a bit).

What is the point? "Anonymous" systems have potential for, and quite some history of abuse.

Confidential is just that... Confidential!!!

The idea of an app though is a great idea. There are a couple about for fatigue management and I know of one trucking company trialling one at the moment along with balancing the "confidential" reporting system. Their big challenge was no one had even heard of a "just culture"... but the CEO is willing to listen and is making progress.

The challenge he is still facing though are those drivers using the tool trying to leverage better wages or other gripes!

airtags
10th Oct 2012, 02:43
Fed Sec - an APP is a good way to go but it has to go to a 'safe' server first (ie to the union's server etc) as lodgement can still be traced - the 'safe server' effectively masks the informant.

It's simple and low cost to build and it will be used by more than 3%

Issue with the current systems is that they are still biased in favour of the airline - REPCON is all but useless in reporting matters dealing with the major RPT carriers - the issue is that while the reports are de-identified, the process is covert with only a tokenistic feedback loop.

By having an App that feeds into the various systems there is a valid and verified 'checkpoint' that brings some 'macro honesty' back into the equation.

I would suggest that all the aviation unions fund an independent office to handle the ever growing volume of reports thereby creating a credible, professional pathway that sets aside the EBA and political nonsense.

Aviation investigation, particularly in relation to one or two carriers has become the ultimate black box that is never interrogated

AT :E

scam sniffer
10th Oct 2012, 05:15
Great concept. But suggest it be made for Android as well. Not everyone has silly enough to be been sucked into the Apple Vortex.

SS

Capt Claret
10th Oct 2012, 05:33
One has to wonder at the confidentiality of ASIR, given the details from what I presume was the report to the ATSB on a near miss in Darwin, being reported in the press today. :=

VH-Cheer Up
10th Oct 2012, 05:57
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!
+1

If this is truly required then the system is so broken as to be irrelevant. The system is dead. Long live the new system.

Lookleft
10th Oct 2012, 06:19
CC there is nothing to stop the crew from talking to the media. An ATSB investigation is not the same as a court case so anyone ,including Qantas can say whatever they want. What the crew or anyone who is interviewed can't do is provide the media with a copy of what they have told the ATSB.

VBA Engineer
10th Oct 2012, 08:56
One has to wonder at the confidentiality of ASIR, given the details from what I presume was the report to the ATSB on a near miss in Darwin, being reported in the press today. :=

Published on the ATSB website October 4th.

See here: Investigation: AO-2012-131 - Loss of separation assurance VH-NXQ / QFA A839, near Darwin NT, 2 October 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131.aspx)

600ft-lb
10th Oct 2012, 09:06
I'm concerned that 'The Australian' seems to have their hands on a copy of the actual ASIR and uses the pilots full names along with quoting word for word what the report says.

Lookleft
10th Oct 2012, 09:32
If the material has come from within the ATSB then the law has been broken and the AFP should investigate. If the material has come from Qantas Safety then QF policy has been breached and their internal security should investigate why confidential material has been provided to the media.

Capt Claret
10th Oct 2012, 11:20
VBA Eng,

That link doesn't give the pilots names or quotes, which appeared in the newspaper articles. :=

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Oct 2012, 11:48
Great concept. But suggest it be made for Android as well. Not everyone has silly enough to be been sucked into the Apple Vortex.


I did say smartphone app. Statement covers them all. Development is underway for Android (Samsung) and iphone.


I would suggest that all the aviation unions fund an independent office to handle the ever growing volume of reports thereby creating a credible, professional pathway that sets aside the EBA and political nonsense.


I had answered the "independent" concept when I first posted this. The creation of a new system is not so others can be bought off by the airlines. It would be absolutely known and open that the ALAEA or other unions if they come on board have the information and want the problems fixed.

The ALAEA would not be carrying out any investigations, just passing information on to the relevent authorities. The difference being that they (CASA) would know that we are watching them and will go public if they don't take appropriate action.

Anyone got any comments on how the app should look or problems we may encounter in development?

andrewr
10th Oct 2012, 22:31
Anyone got any comments on how the app should look or problems we may encounter in development?

One important thing, if expecting a photo to be anonymous is to strip out all the identifying data from the photo. Digital cameras (especially smartphones) tend to embed a lot of information into the photo - e.g. the exact time and location it was taken, the type of camera etc.

Many people have been identified or accidentally disclosed information from the data embedded in a digital photo.

ALAEA Fed Sec
11th Oct 2012, 00:53
One important thing, if expecting a photo to be anonymous is to strip out all the identifying data from the photo. Digital cameras (especially smartphones) tend to embed a lot of information into the photo - e.g. the exact time and location it was taken, the type of camera etc.


Exactly the feedback I was seeking although developers already looking into this one. cheers

neville_nobody
11th Oct 2012, 01:44
In development now but interested in the feedback. Would it help if you could download an app that is extremely simple. Options (all built into app) are just take a photo of a document (log coupon, ASIR, hazard report etc....) and it sends it into central location?

I would suggest that smart phone and confidential are not two words that belong in the the same sentence.

Smart phones are tracking devices and I doubt very much you could send a truly anonymous message with them. Especially if it all got a little nasty I am sure that the Australian Government would be able to figure out who sent the message confidential or not.

ALAEA Fed Sec
11th Oct 2012, 02:14
Especially if it all got a little nasty I am sure that the Australian Government would be able to figure out who sent the message confidential or not.

I think people are missing the point here. Not only are you entitled to report this stuff, you are obligated to. If another person becomes aware of the breaches or concerns, they also carry this obligation. To report an aviation breach like this in fact reports two breaches.

1. The original matter that was sent to us.
2. The fact that someone is too scared to report this to their employer.

neville_nobody
11th Oct 2012, 02:46
Yeah I agree but I am assuming you are looking for a better more confidential way of reporting this stuff and protecting people's privacy so they feel that the company won't find out. A smart phone will not provide that protection.

If you want real confidentially you go old school hand written documents on sealed envelopes. That way noone can hack your computer or phone, and the post has legal protection in that it can't be intercepted. Even get it sent registered if it's that big a deal.

ALAEA Fed Sec
11th Oct 2012, 03:10
Nev we have that stuff already available. Many don't use it for whatever reason. Just trying to create another option and yes we want all the identification stuff removed. A smartphone app can specifically remove identifiers if constructed in the right way.

To be honest, 90% of the stuff we recieve from members is identified. We know who they are and they are happy about that because we can always call for more details. The "confidential" aspect of reporting to a union is more about preventing the company or CASA finding out who the reporter is. They wouldn't have access to any of that stuff and never have from the ALAEA (in my memory anyway).

On the other hand, I have worked alongside mates who have reported confidentially to CASA and then been dragged over the coals by their employer for doing so.