Confidential Incident Reporting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confidential Incident Reporting
With the demise of CAIR Reports in Australia, one wonders whether an on line system of Incident Reporting should not be introduced or funded, possibly by the ATSB?
I see the UK CAA is funding the The CHIRP Charitable Trust, an on line incident reporting database.
Thoughts?
I see the UK CAA is funding the The CHIRP Charitable Trust, an on line incident reporting database.
Thoughts?
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It cannot be emphasised enough the respect with which CHIRP is held amongst UK Professional Pilots. Obviously, I cannot speak for the other branches that it represents ( ATC, Cabin Crew, Ground Engineers, Marine) but from our perspective it is invaluable to have a TOTALLY confidential reporting process that will accurately reflect your concerns back to all parties concerned with importantly an impeccable degree of credibility earned in the field.
CHIRP is, and should be both the envy and the goal of every major aviating power in the World to adopt, enforce, encourage and utilise. That Australian aviation had and subsequently lost a similar system is reprehensible, and is something that should be addressed as soon as humanly possible, and those responsible for its demise are not worthy of holding senior positions in a regulatory authority; one has to ask why? Why would you remove a moderated, confidential and proven reporting system.... unless.... well, maybe it isn't my remit to ask from my 10,000 mile removed position exactly why that may happen, but it did.
It must be replaced. It is as simple as that. Aviation is a global game, and the goal should be that eventually every country should be able to share safety-related information freely at both an official, Investigation Board level, but also and perhaps more importantly at a free, confidential, primary level.
Australia has taken a step backward. How is this to be reversed and advanced?
CHIRP is, and should be both the envy and the goal of every major aviating power in the World to adopt, enforce, encourage and utilise. That Australian aviation had and subsequently lost a similar system is reprehensible, and is something that should be addressed as soon as humanly possible, and those responsible for its demise are not worthy of holding senior positions in a regulatory authority; one has to ask why? Why would you remove a moderated, confidential and proven reporting system.... unless.... well, maybe it isn't my remit to ask from my 10,000 mile removed position exactly why that may happen, but it did.
It must be replaced. It is as simple as that. Aviation is a global game, and the goal should be that eventually every country should be able to share safety-related information freely at both an official, Investigation Board level, but also and perhaps more importantly at a free, confidential, primary level.
Australia has taken a step backward. How is this to be reversed and advanced?
The CAIR system also provided an excellent forum for dobbing in Dick Smith's warriors not complying with mandatory radio procedures. Perhaps he had a hand in it's demise...
Replacing CAIR with "self-dob" must have ben made by one of the new breed of bureaucrat: not an ounce of experience or commonsense, or any understanding of aviation safety.
This is not a good move, and will decrease the safety effort. ATSB should be funded to run both programs. John, stop porkbarrelling and get with it.
Replacing CAIR with "self-dob" must have ben made by one of the new breed of bureaucrat: not an ounce of experience or commonsense, or any understanding of aviation safety.
This is not a good move, and will decrease the safety effort. ATSB should be funded to run both programs. John, stop porkbarrelling and get with it.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you blokes actually keep up with what's going on, instead of looking for Dick Smith conspiracies everywhere.
There were very serious problems with the old and unlamented CAIR system, the major problem being that it was NOT confidential, in the way the UK or the US systems ARE confidential. The only thing confidential about CAIR was the name of the reporter,and that leaked often enough. Pilots have lost their licenses as a result of accusations under the CAIR system, including airline pilots.
The recent legislative amendments have given us a new scheme, much closer to the US or UK system , one that is actually confidential, and one that might hopefully develop into a proper safety tool, instead of being a vehicle for dobbing somebody into CASA, which in reality was what happened to CAIR, a vehicle for the disgruntled and/or dissatisfied.
There were very serious problems with the old and unlamented CAIR system, the major problem being that it was NOT confidential, in the way the UK or the US systems ARE confidential. The only thing confidential about CAIR was the name of the reporter,and that leaked often enough. Pilots have lost their licenses as a result of accusations under the CAIR system, including airline pilots.
The recent legislative amendments have given us a new scheme, much closer to the US or UK system , one that is actually confidential, and one that might hopefully develop into a proper safety tool, instead of being a vehicle for dobbing somebody into CASA, which in reality was what happened to CAIR, a vehicle for the disgruntled and/or dissatisfied.
Gin,
Then explain to me how a concerned cabin crew member could make a confidential safety incident report under the new system.
In these cases, I assume that the investigation revealed that the pilot had erred, and that the revocation of the licence was above board, after due process was followed? So what is wrong with that?
The new system is NOT a confidential IR system like the overseas ones. I agree we should have one of those, and the CAIR system was closer to them than the new version.
Then explain to me how a concerned cabin crew member could make a confidential safety incident report under the new system.
Pilots have lost their licenses as a result of accusations under the CAIR system, including airline pilots.
The new system is NOT a confidential IR system like the overseas ones. I agree we should have one of those, and the CAIR system was closer to them than the new version.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find the ATSB's reason for stopping CAIR was as a result of the legal implications that came with it. For over 15 years the BASI/ATSB CAIR system has been a very usefull tool, however in this day and age of litigation, the ATSB had no option but to get rid of it.
I agree that we need a similar system in this country of self reporting, and if we had a system that was based on ASRS in the USA, it could work quite well.
For those that are interested, very breifly, and crudely, the American ASRS is where a report gets reviewed by a panel of experts, made up of ex airline pilots, engineers, etc and a course of action is recommended - usually by way of something to the FAA to promulgate to the industry as a whole to learn by. It's quite a good system. I do however stand to be corrected on this by someone from the USA that has experience with this.
I agree that we need a similar system in this country of self reporting, and if we had a system that was based on ASRS in the USA, it could work quite well.
For those that are interested, very breifly, and crudely, the American ASRS is where a report gets reviewed by a panel of experts, made up of ex airline pilots, engineers, etc and a course of action is recommended - usually by way of something to the FAA to promulgate to the industry as a whole to learn by. It's quite a good system. I do however stand to be corrected on this by someone from the USA that has experience with this.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A response to Mr Conrad.
Yes, you are quite close to the mark. By disclosing incidents on oneself here in the United States, the ASRS reporting system allows you to self-disclose events that are not criminal in nature, without fear of reprisaltry action.
It can be used as a "get out of jail" free card, once in a defined period of time, I believe eighteen months. I've never it for that reason.
One time I filled one out for a situation where two waypoints rhymed with each other in the Denver terminal area, we nearly went to the wrong one!
On the next Jepp revision, they changed it!
It can be used as a "get out of jail" free card, once in a defined period of time, I believe eighteen months. I've never it for that reason.
One time I filled one out for a situation where two waypoints rhymed with each other in the Denver terminal area, we nearly went to the wrong one!
On the next Jepp revision, they changed it!
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 28th Jun 2004 at 17:37.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,
You said:
Then explain to me how a concerned cabin crew member could make a confidential safety incident report under the new system.
Straight from the CASA Website:
CASA confidential hotline 1800 074 737 If somebody is putting safety at risk - report it!
TBT
But a word of advice: Dial 1831 before the 1800 number to block recording your phone number at CASA.
Woomera
You said:
Then explain to me how a concerned cabin crew member could make a confidential safety incident report under the new system.
Straight from the CASA Website:
CASA confidential hotline 1800 074 737 If somebody is putting safety at risk - report it!
TBT
But a word of advice: Dial 1831 before the 1800 number to block recording your phone number at CASA.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 1st Jul 2004 at 00:51.
CAIR System (repeat of 9 June post)
This system was used and abused by many so when ATSB was challenged to also admininister a self reporting system with no additional funding there was a strong reason to drop it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and associated regulations, a new voluntary and confidential aviation reporting system introduced by the Government, entitled the Aviation Self Reporting Scheme (ASRS), commences operation on 21 February 2004. Within the ATSB the ASRS replaces the Confidential Aviation Incident Reporting (CAIR) scheme. CAIR has been in place in BASI and the ATSB since 1988 and has served the industry well. However, there is an excellent level of mandatory incident reporting to the ATSB and operators have developed new confidential reporting schemes as part of their safety management systems. CAIR resources have been redirected within the ATSB to the new ASRS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/asrs/index.cfm
Seems resources weren't a problem for the other section of ATSB:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 20 May 2004, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) will start operating a Confidential Marine Reporting Scheme (CMRS) under the Navigation (Confidential Marine Reporting Scheme) Regulations 2004 (the Regulations). The aim of the scheme is to improve safety in Australian waters by enabling the ATSB to receive, assess and act on confidential reports to prevent or reduce the risks of marine accidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.atsb.gov.au/marine/cmrs/index.cfm
Try and figure a bureacracy. How much has the former BASI functions been diluted and resources removed since it became a part of ATSB????????????
Frank Burden
The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and associated regulations, a new voluntary and confidential aviation reporting system introduced by the Government, entitled the Aviation Self Reporting Scheme (ASRS), commences operation on 21 February 2004. Within the ATSB the ASRS replaces the Confidential Aviation Incident Reporting (CAIR) scheme. CAIR has been in place in BASI and the ATSB since 1988 and has served the industry well. However, there is an excellent level of mandatory incident reporting to the ATSB and operators have developed new confidential reporting schemes as part of their safety management systems. CAIR resources have been redirected within the ATSB to the new ASRS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/asrs/index.cfm
Seems resources weren't a problem for the other section of ATSB:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 20 May 2004, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) will start operating a Confidential Marine Reporting Scheme (CMRS) under the Navigation (Confidential Marine Reporting Scheme) Regulations 2004 (the Regulations). The aim of the scheme is to improve safety in Australian waters by enabling the ATSB to receive, assess and act on confidential reports to prevent or reduce the risks of marine accidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.atsb.gov.au/marine/cmrs/index.cfm
Try and figure a bureacracy. How much has the former BASI functions been diluted and resources removed since it became a part of ATSB????????????
Frank Burden
The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Bloggs;
Coming to a conclusion based on assumptions of due process and fair dealing, where CASA is concerned, is a brave call.
In fact, in one quite amazing case ( a marriage bust up) a TAA F/O was fired without even an investigation, as a probationer, as a result of accusations by said departing wife. IHMO, having known her since school, she was a ratbag. There is, sadly, more than one of these in the AFAP and AIPA files.
In one AIPA case, NO, the pilot ( a Captain) had committed NO breach of company or CAA/CASA rules, but in the land of the pan-fried steak for the tec. crew meal, the vindictiveness of a blue coat, as they were then, knows no bounds. It was the most procedurally unfair thing I have ever seen, and I've seen a few.
In the US or UK system, the same result could NOT have happened, but with CAIR, stuff went straight to CAA/CASA, and was all too often treated as gospel !!!!
Coming to a conclusion based on assumptions of due process and fair dealing, where CASA is concerned, is a brave call.
In fact, in one quite amazing case ( a marriage bust up) a TAA F/O was fired without even an investigation, as a probationer, as a result of accusations by said departing wife. IHMO, having known her since school, she was a ratbag. There is, sadly, more than one of these in the AFAP and AIPA files.
In one AIPA case, NO, the pilot ( a Captain) had committed NO breach of company or CAA/CASA rules, but in the land of the pan-fried steak for the tec. crew meal, the vindictiveness of a blue coat, as they were then, knows no bounds. It was the most procedurally unfair thing I have ever seen, and I've seen a few.
In the US or UK system, the same result could NOT have happened, but with CAIR, stuff went straight to CAA/CASA, and was all too often treated as gospel !!!!
Sultanas,
I would agree with you that due process certainly wasn't followed in that case, and I assume that a government department may be a little more even-handed... I mean, did the FO have the right to go to the AAT? I certainly am not suggesting that this be the modus operandi of a CAIR-type system. My only point is that we no longer have a confidential reporting system where a person can, without fear or favour, make a report against another party, anonymously, to improve safety. And for the reasons you have stated, I do not buy the argument by Time Bomb Ted that you simply pick up the phone and ring the hotline.
Cancellation of CAIR, despite it's failings, has, in my opinion, removed a vital plank in the battle to improve aviation safety. Funny the boat people have just got a similar system?! Anderson and his cronies should stop wasting miilions on Dick Smith airspace and give BASI ooops ATSB Aviation division some additonal funds to set up and run a robust, accountable confidential reporting system.
I would agree with you that due process certainly wasn't followed in that case, and I assume that a government department may be a little more even-handed... I mean, did the FO have the right to go to the AAT? I certainly am not suggesting that this be the modus operandi of a CAIR-type system. My only point is that we no longer have a confidential reporting system where a person can, without fear or favour, make a report against another party, anonymously, to improve safety. And for the reasons you have stated, I do not buy the argument by Time Bomb Ted that you simply pick up the phone and ring the hotline.
Cancellation of CAIR, despite it's failings, has, in my opinion, removed a vital plank in the battle to improve aviation safety. Funny the boat people have just got a similar system?! Anderson and his cronies should stop wasting miilions on Dick Smith airspace and give BASI ooops ATSB Aviation division some additonal funds to set up and run a robust, accountable confidential reporting system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it from the CHIRP web site, CHIRP is an independent trust funded by the UK CAA. Reports are filtered, considered by an independent panel of experts, "sanitised" and reported to the relevent authority, carrier, CAA etc.
That arms length from the regulator approach would be ideal for Australia and guarantee the autonomy of participants.
That arms length from the regulator approach would be ideal for Australia and guarantee the autonomy of participants.
