Narrative:

Contrary to 14 code of federal regulations and 49 code of federal regulations, a recent air carrier X hazmat training course (and, as I recall, all previous courses and tests) failed to clarify proper incident and discrepancy reporting procedures. This issue has been brought to the attention of the company via a 58 page report of irregularity I filed in 1998, but to this day the company's hazmat training courses fail to inform hazmat employees of the employee's -- or person's -- reporting responsibilities (eg, see 14 code of federal regulations 13.1 and 49 code of federal regulations 171.31, etc) versus the carrier's reporting responsibilities (eg, see 49 code of federal regulations 171.15, 171.16, etc). Though the definitions -- or lack of definitions -- in 14 code of federal regulations and 49 code of federal regulations of terms such as air carrier, carrier, person, hazmat employee, and hazmat employer are ambiguous, confusing, conflicting, and open for debate, the intent of the reporting procedures of the far's and hmr's are clear -- these regulations were created as a system of checks and balances, a system that would ensure all hazmat incidents and discrepancies were reported to the appropriate federal agency(ies) consistently and unbiasedly. However, hazmat employers like air carrier X clearly fail to acknowledge and inform hazmat employees of the distinction between these 2 entities and their 2 distinct reporting responsibilities. On several occasions over the last few yrs, I have spoken with several FAA officials concerning these issues, and one of these individuals, after consulting with one of the department's attorneys, stated simply because a hazmat employee or person notified their immediate supervisor of an illegal shipment of hazmat on an aircraft, that hazmat employee was in no way relieved of any responsibilities or liabilities these federal regulations created (as noted in the 1998 report of irregularity). Still, though we, the hazmat employees, can still be held responsible for these incidents and discrepancies, we, the hazmat employees (ie, the individuals that discover illegally shipped hazmat), have no way of knowing or documenting whether our employer's have, in fact, notified the appropriate federal agency(ies) of these hazmat incidents and discrepancies, since, in fact, the far's and hmr's do not require the hazmat employers to provide the reporting hazmat employees documentation that the hazmat employers had, in fact, notified the appropriate federal agency(ies).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A STOCK CLERK RPTS CARRIER'S HAZMAT TRAINING COURSE FAILED TO CLARIFY PROPER INCIDENT AND DISCREPANCY RPTING PROCS.

Narrative: CONTRARY TO 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGS AND 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGS, A RECENT ACR X HAZMAT TRAINING COURSE (AND, AS I RECALL, ALL PREVIOUS COURSES AND TESTS) FAILED TO CLARIFY PROPER INCIDENT AND DISCREPANCY RPTING PROCS. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTN OF THE COMPANY VIA A 58 PAGE RPT OF IRREGULARITY I FILED IN 1998, BUT TO THIS DAY THE COMPANY'S HAZMAT TRAINING COURSES FAIL TO INFORM HAZMAT EMPLOYEES OF THE EMPLOYEE'S -- OR PERSON'S -- RPTING RESPONSIBILITIES (EG, SEE 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGS 13.1 AND 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGS 171.31, ETC) VERSUS THE CARRIER'S RPTING RESPONSIBILITIES (EG, SEE 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGS 171.15, 171.16, ETC). THOUGH THE DEFINITIONS -- OR LACK OF DEFINITIONS -- IN 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGS AND 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGS OF TERMS SUCH AS AIR CARRIER, CARRIER, PERSON, HAZMAT EMPLOYEE, AND HAZMAT EMPLOYER ARE AMBIGUOUS, CONFUSING, CONFLICTING, AND OPEN FOR DEBATE, THE INTENT OF THE RPTING PROCS OF THE FAR'S AND HMR'S ARE CLR -- THESE REGS WERE CREATED AS A SYS OF CHKS AND BALS, A SYS THAT WOULD ENSURE ALL HAZMAT INCIDENTS AND DISCREPANCIES WERE RPTED TO THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY(IES) CONSISTENTLY AND UNBIASEDLY. HOWEVER, HAZMAT EMPLOYERS LIKE ACR X CLRLY FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND INFORM HAZMAT EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTINCTION BTWN THESE 2 ENTITIES AND THEIR 2 DISTINCT RPTING RESPONSIBILITIES. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS OVER THE LAST FEW YRS, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL FAA OFFICIALS CONCERNING THESE ISSUES, AND ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, AFTER CONSULTING WITH ONE OF THE DEPT'S ATTORNEYS, STATED SIMPLY BECAUSE A HAZMAT EMPLOYEE OR PERSON NOTIFIED THEIR IMMEDIATE SUPVR OF AN ILLEGAL SHIPMENT OF HAZMAT ON AN ACFT, THAT HAZMAT EMPLOYEE WAS IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF ANY RESPONSIBILITIES OR LIABILITIES THESE FEDERAL REGS CREATED (AS NOTED IN THE 1998 RPT OF IRREGULARITY). STILL, THOUGH WE, THE HAZMAT EMPLOYEES, CAN STILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE INCIDENTS AND DISCREPANCIES, WE, THE HAZMAT EMPLOYEES (IE, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT DISCOVER ILLEGALLY SHIPPED HAZMAT), HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING OR DOCUMENTING WHETHER OUR EMPLOYER'S HAVE, IN FACT, NOTIFIED THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY(IES) OF THESE HAZMAT INCIDENTS AND DISCREPANCIES, SINCE, IN FACT, THE FAR'S AND HMR'S DO NOT REQUIRE THE HAZMAT EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE THE RPTING HAZMAT EMPLOYEES DOCUMENTATION THAT THE HAZMAT EMPLOYERS HAD, IN FACT, NOTIFIED THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY(IES).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.