I note that Geroge Patterson and yourself make similar comments ie.


Perhaps the co-pilot and flight engineer simply admitted to filling out
these forms?

Even so, should this information appear in a formal investigation report,
even if it was voluntarily submitted?

To provide fair context, the incident report
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publicati...7b__n523mc.cfm

of this Boeing 747 incident states that the investigation was lanched
independently of the filings I mentioned (through noise complaints related
to low level flight of all things).

However, I see this as a bit of a cop out. For a "confidential" reporting
system to maintain its integrity, it should not be mentioned within the
context of a formal investigation report. Either a 'confidential' report
remains confidential or it doesn't.

George referred to a 'get out of jail' card. I understand this from a human
perspective, but it really blurs the lines and thus undermines the
confidential reporting system.

I see this as a clear and simple deliniation. If you are involved in an
aviation incedent that requires a madatory, formal report, then you are
liable if you fail to lodge the correct report, regardless of any 'informal'
reporting through ASRS/ASAP,etc. In the same respect, if you take your
chances, and only report confidentially through ASRS/ASAP, then this should
be kept confidential regardless of any further investigation.

The analogy is a bit the police "crimebusters" programme that runs in many
countries. If you report an offence confidentially to crimebusters, the you
will not be investigated or "outed" because of your report, even you were
superficially invovled in the incident. However, this will not stop or in
anyway mitigate an independent police investigation that might implicate
yourself. You could not use "well, I phoned crimebusters to report the
murder, even though I only did a small theft" as a defence.