Is it the end of a transparent safety culture in EU? [Archive]

A and C

22nd Jan 2016, 07:09

This is a typical action of the undemocratic unelected European superstate, air safety information MUST be avalable to those who fly, maintain & control aircraft.

The experience gained from the MOR system has undoubtedly prevented countless accidents as the distributed information will have alerted aviation staff to hazards and they take action to avoid such hazards.

While I don't give a damm about the media having access to such information as all they do is misuse it for their own advantage I see this as an acceptable down side to the free distribution of air safety data.

It all seems to me to be another very good reason for the UK to vote to shed the yoke of EU and once again become a free nation.

fireflybob

22nd Jan 2016, 07:42

It all seems to me to be another very good reason for the UK to vote to shed the yoke of EU and once again become a free nation.

Hear Hear! Sooner the better.

Weary

22nd Jan 2016, 09:22

Knowledge is power - and in the case of the European Parliament, the genesis of corruption.
By removing knowledge from the general public, the Eurocrats hoard it for themselves.
In a stroke they reinforce their own omnipotence, and effectively eliminate accountability for their actions.

Fortissimo

22nd Jan 2016, 09:34

framer

22nd Jan 2016, 09:40

Will you still be able to go online to the regulators website, enter your aircraft type and search for all incidents and accidents and then read the report? If not, safety has just taken a back seat.

HeartyMeatballs

22nd Jan 2016, 09:40

I bet the DM are worried. Turning minor non events in the near disasters and scaremongering is their bread and butter.

Fortissimo

22nd Jan 2016, 09:45

For those who think this is another good reason for leaving Europe, you will be delighted to learn that the UK is almost certain to remain an EASA Member State even if the EU membership is terminated. The system would be too complicated to roll back to a UK-only licensing arrangement - and bear in mind that prior to EASA you had the JAA to broker the international agreements.

What do you propose should happen to the functional airspace block we share with Ireland? How do you re-write the agreements on airworthiness standards that currently exist between EASA and the FAA? Would you be happy to pay to have your ATPL converted to a stand-alone UK version when there would be doubt as to which other nations will recognise it?

It's not going to happen...

3db

22nd Jan 2016, 16:43

Fortissimo
It may or may not be a good reason for leaving Europe, but at least outside the EU we would be able to go it alone if desirable for UK plc. The USA, China, Turkey & ex-soviet block all operate outside EASA effectively, as far as I know (and probably some in the Middle East as well). I don't see why UK plc can't re-join them. It would most likely be desirable to harmonise with large parts of the EASA system, but that would be a choice, if outside. Bureaucracy is necessary in the modern world, but it needs to be proportional and cost effective, if not, dump it!

If EASA is too complex to roll back to a UK system , then dumping it and going alone seems a good choice.

As for Ireland, we shared the airspace long before EASA was born, we can do it again.

UK licences from PPL to ATPL were accepted before EASA, in most Countries around the World. Its nonsense to say they would not be accepted again – however, I am speaking as a FAA licence holder here.

I hope we at least take the first step and leave the EU.

Can737

22nd Jan 2016, 16:54

Thank you Fortissimo for the link, it is much appreciated. I was starting to think EU was going under the radar on that one.

Weary

22nd Jan 2016, 17:17

Fortissimo,

I cannot say I agree with you. IMO a parliamentary body, or indeed regulator, should be subject to open scrutiny by the people it purports to represent and/or protect. That cannot be done with one side limiting the flow of information.
As long as the general public risk their lives by buying tickets and travelling on aeroplanes, I suggest it is they who are the most interested party's.

On the subject of Eurocontrol, as things stand, the present arrangement makes perfect sense from a facilitative and safety point of view.

As for EASA licensing though, in the space of the last 13 years I have held a UK ATPL, a JAA ATPL, and now an EASA ATPL - this in addition to two other ATPLs from non-European countries that I held from before then. I would be deluding myself to claim that the EASA licence is superior, or that the transition has somehow made me a safer pilot. That said, I do get what you are saying though w.r.t. individual member states and political tantrums !

pax britanica

22nd Jan 2016, 17:30

people should read up on some of the consequences of Brexit-the most surprising of which are that 95% of things wont change at all .
britain is in Europe and cannot move 3000 miles west top be part of N America.
Vast amounts of everyday trade will continue as is and EU rules, which may not govern us but govern all the countries we trade with in geographic europe mean that we will always have to go along with their rules because when its 1 vs 23 its th e 23 or whatever the numebr is that will keep things their way.

The same applies to many other relationships-we can trade with turkey who aren't in the EU but want to be , so no changes there then. And as for the USA their chief trade negotiator has already gone on record and said their will be no separate trade agreement with the UK because in their eyes we are part of Europe. he added if there was one it would be the same as the EU one but Britain would have no say in it at all.

This whole thread is a classic distortion of the truth something the DM specialises in - and which sadly the general degree of ignorance in the UK just seems to go along with.

if we elave Europe on a trading level nothign will change except a lot of global companies will leave the UK for mainland europe the moment there are hiccups in any trade relationships between Britain and the EU,

Sure the EU arliament is useless and the Commisson corrupt but is our government any better-no its just as muddled and just as corrupt as we see and read every day, and of course its wonderfully transparent too eg the Chilcot enquiry . And the Commission-which sort of equates to the UK civil service-is anyone really saying that the civil service are efficient and incorruptible--please...

Capot

22nd Jan 2016, 17:40

EU 376/2014 (the document that all the huffing is about) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0376&from=EN)appeared in April 2014, with a date for coming into force of November 2015. Evidently the Daily Mail has only just caught up.

Strangely, although it only affected aviation, it was issued by the EU Commission and not by EASA. As anyone who has not been hibernating for for the last 21 months or so knows, not a single EASA Regulation has yet been amended to reflect the content of EU 376/2014. Various promises about issuing guidance have been made and broken by EASA, in the usual way.

The UK CAA has produced some guidance, the latest in December 2015. (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2015117..pdf)

Apart from the rightness or wrongness of the contents, EU 376/2014 is probably the worst piece of drafting I have ever seen for a document purporting to have a legal force and related to aviation safety regulation. The so-called "preamble" contains no fewer than 55 numbered points, which seem to try to lay down the regulations in an unending series of facile, and often fatuous assertions about aviation safety and occurrence reporting.

I haven't a clue why it was issued by the EU Commission and not EASA; no doubt it's some obscure bureaucratic nonsense that only died-in-the-wool bureaucrats could dream up, let alone understand. The effect is that no-one, including EASA, appears to know whether or not it's in force now, or whether we wait until the various Implementing Regulations are amended.

The UK CAA has tried to help, but it is a ridiculous situation. I have given up trying to work it out.

EASA's enormous, overbearing, unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy, arrogant incompetence and simple stupidity give me a problem. I believe passionately that the UK should play a leading role in Europe from within; any other course puts us in thrall to the USA and we all know what happens when the chips are down; the USA looks after itself first, at our expense if necessary. And why shouldn't they do that? So it's Europe for me. But then I see the idiocies, extravagance, financial incompetence and waste that exists in the EU Commission and EU Parliament, and I know that we cannot be part of that. So unless Cameron can get them to see what is wrong and put it right, the UK has to walk away, from the EU and EASA.

edmundronald

22nd Jan 2016, 17:53

With respect, as a journalist AND as an engineer with a PhD, the whole point of data is that everyone can have access to it. Crime statistics, health statistics etc. Hospitals that have bad statistics also get caught out eventually and get shamed.

Do you people really think the 787 Dreamliner battery problems would have been tackled smartly if the press hadn't got behind it? I remind you, the holes in the swiss cheese were possibly some faulty cells, really bad design, self-certification in a company with no chinese walls, benign neglect by the FAA.

The three-leg stool which keeps the industry honest is
- regulation
- verification
- publication.

I have little respect for the Daily Mail or Sun scare stories. But supplying a legal basis for stopping publication of in-depth reports on the industry is to say it mildly suicidal. As pilots, do you think the industry would be better off it the the AF 447 report had been buried?

Edmund

J.O.

22nd Jan 2016, 18:14

Do you people really think the 787 Dreamliner battery problems would have been tackled smartly if the press hadn't got behind it? I remind you, the holes in the swiss cheese were possibly some faulty cells, really bad design, self-certification in a company with no chinese walls, benign neglect by the FAA.

Horse hockey. If you actually believe that B787 operators (and the manufacturer) had no interest in fixing the issue then you'd best build a padded room and never leave it again.

Weary

22nd Jan 2016, 18:45

edmundronald -

Notwithstanding the comments about the Dreamliner batteries, I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

J.O.

22nd Jan 2016, 18:52

I have little respect for the Daily Mail or Sun scare stories. But supplying a legal basis for stopping publication of in-depth reports on the industry is to say it mildly suicidal. As pilots, do you think the industry would be better off it the the AF 447 report had been buried?

Edmund

Where did you read that there is any intention to bury accident reports? That is not even close to what has been proposed. The MOR program is intended to provide data to regulators about certain higher level events / issues that may be indicators of risk. The program relies heavily upon the concept of just culture since many items on the mandatory list involve human performance issues. Protection of the data is only meant to encourage reporting without fear of reprisal, either in the form of employer punishment or by wildly uninformed speculation and tarnishing of reputations by irresponsible media and lawyers.

framer

23rd Jan 2016, 00:41

So........Will you still be able to go online to the regulators website, enter your aircraft type and search for all incidents and accidents and then read the report?

Fortissimo

23rd Jan 2016, 18:30

Framer,

If you have a good reason for wanting the information (see Annex II for definition of interested parties) you will not only get the UK reports on your type, you will get the reports from every other EASA MS. That surely has to be an improvement?

ff

framer

24th Jan 2016, 05:01

As it stands now, if I arrive at an overseas hotel that I have been to 1000 times and I think some study is in order I search the ATSB, NTSB etc for 737-800 incidents and accidents. I learn more from incidents than accidents. Something as trivial as a bleed trip will always teach me something.
Does the new regulation deminish the ease of access that pilots and engineers have to incident and accident reports? If it does in any way, no matter how small, it is a movement in the wrong direction.If I have to fill out an application form, or identify myself over the web, or store the report on my company iPad that is already short on memory, then it is a step in the wrong direction. We have a great safety record built on extraordinary investigations where the findings and learnings are shared with all, tampering with that strategy is foolish in my mind.

LlamaFarmer

24th Jan 2016, 11:30

Excellent point framer.

But it's not just you, a wannabe pilot who's massively interested in aviation but not yet started training currently has access to all manner of reports.
They may very well learn something that is useful 10 years down the line and think oh, "I read about this kind of incident, they should have done this to resolve it, but they did that and made it worse"

Even restricting it to people with a professional interest could be a bad move, and I don't see any justification for it.

Rwy in Sight

24th Jan 2016, 16:19

I have read the regulation and I have not seen anything about not being accessible to professionals. However the questions about confidentiality reminds me the initial confidentiality about the EU blacklist - around late 2004. Then come August 2005 with the long line or crashes and presto few months later the list was public. Not that it is directly similar but the blacklist confidentiality was quickly breached.

readywhenreaching

24th Jan 2016, 17:38

by "A and C"
Typical EU
This is a typical action of the undemocratic unelected European superstate, air safety information MUST be avalable to those who fly, maintain & control aircraft.

The experience gained from the MOR system has undoubtedly prevented countless accidents as the distributed information will have alerted aviation staff to hazards and they take action to avoid such hazards.

While I don't give a damm about the media having access to such information as all they do is misuse it for their own advantage I see this as an acceptable down side to the free distribution of air safety data.

It all seems to me to be another very good reason for the UK to vote to shed the yoke of EU and once again become a free nation.
what an awful polemic statement..as if nationalism is part of any solution for air safety matters

Exnomad

24th Jan 2016, 18:34

Reading about other people's mistakes is a good idea.
It may remind you of mistakes you nearly made, and avoid you doing so future.

llondel

25th Jan 2016, 00:02

As someone who's never flown anything bigger than a Cessna, I find the accident reports interesting and helpful. They are a fascinating insight into how things can still go wrong, occasionally updates me on the contest between those designing idiot-proof widgets and the latest improved model idiot as delivered by the universe, and has taught me critical thinking for when I need to do worst-case design. It also helps me when I do get something wrong to understand what I did and why.

It all started when I came close to being in an incident, in that I was on G-VSKY back in 1997 on its trip to LAX (landing gear failed to descend correctly on its return flight to LHR) and I was fascinated by the level of detail in the report. That's an engineering geek for you.

framer

25th Jan 2016, 07:14

I have read the regulation and I have not seen anything about not being accessible to professionals.
How do I identify myself as an aviation professional?
As I said:If I have to fill out an application form, or identify myself over the web, or store the report on my company iPad that is already short on memory, then it is a step in the wrong direction.
The way it is now I can mention something from a report to a young F/O and tell him or her that I regularly peruse incident reports on the net and hopefully, with it being so easy, one or two of them might just do the same. If they have to register their identity they may not bother and our industry is less safe ( read more funerals).

Ian W

25th Jan 2016, 10:47

It would probably be worth people reading the legislation (Reg (EU) 376/2014) instead of assuming that the press garbage is correct. If you are interested (and as aviators you should be) you can find the document at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0376&from=EN

It in no way means 'the end of a transparent safety culture in EU'. The parts you need to read are the preamble, Articles 10 and 11, and Annex II. Article 10 gives regulators and safety authorities full access to the data, and permits access to 'interested parties' via the NAA points of contact. Interested parties are listed in Annex II and include individuals such as pilots; operator associations and representative bodies like ECA, BALPA etc can also get access via the relevant NAA.

Article 11 directs the process of information release, which is restricted to disidentified data specific to the request and its purpose. You will not find the press being able to trawl for Daily Mail-style "shock plummet horror terrifies young children and nuns" scaremongering stories.

If you read nothing else, it should be the preamble, which lays down Just Culture principles and gives new weight to the need to protect safety data and the people who provide it. The other major change is that NAAs are now required to provide follow-up reports - call me old-fashioned, but I quite like a system that insists something is done with safety data.

The only change to access is that you have to apply to your NAA for the data. If you need it, you will get it!

It would appear from what you are saying (see highlight) that those saying that access is restricted are correct. So a pilot wanting access to accident and incident information now has to apply to the 'aviation authority' just to get access? Then convince some low level bureaucrat that you 'need access'? So most crews won't try will they - access is being deliberately restricted.

As Framer says this is a backward step by EASA almost certainly to avoid the embarrassment of public/media access. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how these reports are used and how they were intended to be used. By reducing access to flight safety incidents and reports EASA is directly hazarding flight safety.

LlamaFarmer

25th Jan 2016, 12:19

It would appear from what you are saying (see highlight) that those saying that access is restricted are correct. So a pilot wanting access to accident and incident information now has to apply to the 'aviation authority' just to get access? Then convince some low level bureaucrat that you 'need access'? So most crews won't try will they - access is being deliberately restricted.

As Framer says this is a backward step by EASA almost certainly to avoid the embarrassment of public/media access. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how these reports are used and how they were intended to be used. By reducing access to flight safety incidents and reports EASA is directly hazarding flight safety.

2. Interested parties listed in Annex II may request access to certain information contained in the European Central Repository.

4. For security reasons, interested parties shall not be granted direct access to the European Central Repository.

So does this mean that you have to make a request each time you want access to another report or bit of information?

F*** that for a laugh.

Can737

26th Jan 2016, 05:41

Well, from what I can read in here, it doesn't seem that clear anymore and maybe the EU should provide more information on the changes to the regulation.

If it appears to be true that a pilot has to make a request for every single report he wants to read, it is absolutely a huge step back on access to information and safety.

Aluminium shuffler

26th Jan 2016, 05:53

EASA is a contradiction in terms, putting safety second to financial interests every time. The FTL scheme and MPL are two great examples. This is a cynical attempt to cover up the increase in incidents that are going to occur under EASA, nothing more. They may pretend it is about confidentiality and to prevent media access and distortion, but it is to hide their own failings, pure and simple.

Less Hair

27th Jan 2016, 07:28

The EU should establish some independent accident investigation authority aside from EASA and national aviation authorities. This Euro-NTSB should be at least as open about all investigations like it's US counterpart. Freedom of information is the right concept.

Aluminium shuffler

27th Jan 2016, 09:02

They should, but they won't. Accident reports have far too much politics and money riding on them for the bureaucracies to give up control over. The investigators will do an amazing job of finding out exactly what happened, kick the paperwork upstairs to the managers with their findings and then the manipulation and editing starts. I know that first hand.

Less Hair

27th Jan 2016, 09:30

So how did the US get their independent NTSB going? They even have the power to critisize the FAA. NASA is collecting incident data forever. Maybe we need the flight safety foundation to cover Europe as well?

SCP_sweng

27th Jan 2016, 12:03

[Edited for poor English]
The way it is looking so many people will be able to have access that the 'mischief makers' will have few problems in getting hold of whatever they want and then being able to add the cachet of it being from a 'secret report' (probably as accurate as any other reporting).

Meanwhile I would probably find myself unable to garner enough sympathy from my NAA to get access. I have no direct involvement in aircraft operations - I just write software that flies the things. But I find forums like this and reports from the likes of AAIB very informative and serve to remind everyone how easy it is for things to go wrong if they are not done properly.

It is also very informative to see how (on occasions) systematic errors, or cognitive errors, creep into system design. I feel it fills out my background knowledge and it helps me ensure lessons learned 'the hard way' are taken on board in my own field.

This proposal looks like ineffective bureaucratic nonsense! The only people it will affect are those who want to do things right but can't justify access to 'real life' information to a pen-pusher. :ugh:

Less Hair

28th Jan 2016, 08:49

"The media" will have access to incident and accident data anyway as they can pay for it.
What will get lost is the big picture for industrial observers. As said above aviation today became so safe because of it's willingness to share lessons learned and improve based on that. Limiting information access will just prevent progress.
Who is afraid to share information? Who lobbied the EU to close the doors again? You just open the doors to speculation and wild fantasies by doing so. Now that will really scare away Joe Public.

David Bass

28th Jan 2016, 13:51

Anyone who believes that the DM and similar won't be able to gain access to these occurrence reports, or make stuff up from passenger social media reports, is naive.

Restricting access to MORs merely prevents those with a technical background from getting to the reality behind the screaming headline.

I would argue that "interested party" = "anyone who want to perform a risk assessment for their next flight", even if they are, like me, SLF.

Aluminium shuffler

29th Jan 2016, 03:39

Less Hair, while the NTSB is separate from the FAA, that is more to do with its responsibility for investigating all sorts of transport systems, not just aviation; it is far broader than the AAIB, for example. But, as a government organisation, don't for a moment thing that it is truly "independent" of politics and bureaucratic meddling. None of these agencies are, sadly.

Microburst2002

29th Jan 2016, 09:25

Sounds bad, but you are taking into account that this is the Daily Mail, right?
Anything on the serious newspapers about this issue?

safetypee

29th Jan 2016, 09:40

A thoughtful article - Airlines aren't learning enough from near misses. (www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/byu-aal011916.php#.VqVNbNy6ABp.mailto)

The original paper is worth reading, if only the discussion and conclusions - Madsen - 2015 - Risk Analysis. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12503/pdf)

Airlines can learn from all occurrence data (near-misses), theirs and others. So make this data available – EASA?
It is important to report and investigate deviations from the norm – not the rule. Beware SOP itis; rules and regulation, blame and train.
Broaden what is reported and make it easier to report (lower costs). Instead of requiring the operator to investigate, report and circulate the facts to the widest audience. – EASA’s communication task, make the data available?
There will be different interpretations of individual events, but safety can be improved by considering the overall pattern of events (not possible biased conclusions) across the widest operating base. Further, operators might not be best qualified to investigate their own events – outcome bias, availability of specialist resource, and even saving face.
“… a near-miss … offers observers two distinct interpretations - one that provides evidence for hazard threat and one that provides evidence for system resiliency.”

“Too often when events are identified as near-misses, if the effects of the near-miss can be easily corrected, decision makers may assume that by correcting the outward signs of the near-miss they have eliminated the problem, and thus danger does not seem salient.”

Has EASA set themselves up as the only arbiter of these aspects?