Is it the end of a transparent safety culture in EU?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by readywhenreaching; 27th Jan 2016 at 13:22.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I have read the regulation and I have not seen anything about not being accessible to professionals.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-conte...4R0376&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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is!
[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.
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.
Last edited by SCP_sweng; 27th Jan 2016 at 12:52.
"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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A thoughtful article - Airlines aren't learning enough from near misses.
The original paper is worth reading, if only the discussion and conclusions - Madsen - 2015 - Risk Analysis.
“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?
The original paper is worth reading, if only the discussion and conclusions - Madsen - 2015 - Risk Analysis.
- 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.
“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?
