• Title/Summary/Keyword: Aviation Safety Action Program(ASAP)

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.017 seconds

Privilege and Immunity of Information and Data from Aviation Safety Program in Unites States (미국 항공안전데이터 프로그램의 비공개 특권과 제재 면제에 관한 연구)

  • Moon, Joon-Jo
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.23 no.2
    • /
    • pp.137-172
    • /
    • 2008
  • The earliest safety data programs, the FDR and CVR, were electronic reporting systems that generate data "automatically." The FDR program, originally instituted in 1958, had no publicly available restrictions for protections against sanctions by the FAA or an airline, although there are agreements and union contracts forbidding the use of FDR data for FAA enforcement actions. This FDR program still has the least formalized protections. With the advent of the CVR program in 1966, the precursor to the current FAR 91.25 was already in place, having been promulgated in 1964. It stated that the FAA would not use CVR data for enforcement actions. In 1982, Congress began restricting the disclosure of the CVR tape and transcripts. Congress added further clarification of the availability of discovery in civil litigation in 1994. Thus, the CVR data have more definitive protections in place than do FDR data. The ASRS was the first non-automatic reporting system; and built into its original design in 1975 was a promise of limited protection from enforcement sanctions. That promise was further codified in an FAR in 1979. As with the CVR, from its inception, the ASRS had some protections built in for the person who might have had a safety problem. However, the program did not (and to this day does not) explicitly deal with issues of use by airlines, litigants, or the public media, although it appears that airlines will either take a non-punitive stance if an ASRS report is filed, or the airline may ignore the fact that it has been filed at all. The FAA worked with several U.S. airlines in the early 1990s on developing ASAP programs, and the FAA issued an Advisory Circular about the program in 1997. From its inception, the ASAP program contained some FAA enforcement protections and company discipline protections, although some protection against litigation disclosure and public disclosure was not added until 2003, when FAA Order 8000.82 was promulgated, placing the program under the protections of FAR 193, which had been added in 2001. The FOQA program, when it was first instituted through a demonstration program in 1995, did not contain protections against sanctions. Now, however, the FAA cannot take enforcement action based on FOQA safety data, and an airline is limited to "corrective action" under the program. Union contracts can exclude FOQA from the realm of disciplinary action, although airline practice may be for airlines to require retraining if there is no contract in place forbidding it. The data is protected against disclosure for litigation and public media purposes by FAA Order 8000.81, issued in 2003, which placed FOQA under the protections of FAR 193. The figure on the next page shows when each program began, and when each statute, regulation, or order became effective for that program.

  • PDF

Comparative Study on the Aviation Monetary Penalty in Korea and the United States (한·미 항공 과징금 제도의 비교)

  • Lee, Chang-Jae
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.35 no.2
    • /
    • pp.41-74
    • /
    • 2020
  • The monetary penalties system inherently has efficiency as DNA. In the event that administrative measures to recover unfair profits from businesses that violate the law, deprive business licenses, or order to suspend business, infringe the interests of ordinary consumers, a system that can achieve the same effect through financial sanctions. It is a monetary penalties. In addition, it is convenient for the government because it takes effect only by the administrative agency's unilateral imposition order compared to the trial process, which takes a long time and huge cost to prove the illegality. However, it is questionable whether procedural legitimacy is well established in Korea's aviation monetary penalties. Compared to foreign legislation, Korea's aviation monetary penalties system need to be improved. This paper was for the purpose of studying the improvement direction of the monetary penalties system disposed of in the Korean aviation field. This study suggests the direction by examining the US system, which is an aviation advanced country, in the aviation safety area. The research was conducted with the intention of exploring the direction as follows: First, the characteristics of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation administrative sanctions and the US aviation penalty system will be outlined. Furthermore, with the recent paradigm shift in aviation safety management, this paper tried to look at new trends that focus on autonomous reporting of aviation safety as a proactive and preventive measure in conventional post-airline accident management administration, focusing on various systems including ASAP. This article also reviewed the formal process for imposing monetary penalties adopted by the FAA. Based on the above review, this paper also looked at ways to improve the reporting system for aviation safety in Korea.