An aviation safety action program where every ASAP report is ready before the ERC meets, and every action is tracked until it works
Every ASAP report ready before the ERC meets, every action tracked to closure.
See one case, screen by screen ↓An aviation safety action program is a voluntary, non-punitive reporting program set up by an MOU between an airline, its employees' union and the FAA; an accepted ASAP report is protected from FAA enforcement and company discipline for that event. Botminds' Aviation Safety Action Program is ASAP software for the ASAP Program Manager and the Event Review Committee: eight agents de-identify and pair every report, check it against the MOU and AC 120-66C criterion by criterion, link similar reports and past decisions, draft corrective actions and track each one to closure. The three seats decide.
How to choose AI for airlines: a buyer's guide to agentic AI solutions →
Updated
Under an aviation safety action program, a pilot who reports a safety event is protected from FAA enforcement and company discipline for that event if the Event Review Committee accepts the report. The ERC — one company, one union and one FAA member — decides by consensus whether each ASAP report meets the acceptance criteria in the MOU and AC 120-66C, and what corrective action is needed. Before every meeting the ASAP Program Manager reads every report, removes names, pairs crewmates' reports, chases the dispatch release, ATIS and charts, looks for similar events and writes the packets.
Each report is read on its own, so the same confusing chart note can appear in four reports over five weeks before anyone links them. Committees pick individual retraining where the chart or the procedure is the cause, and the event comes back. Corrective actions drift for months after the meeting, and nobody measures whether a fix worked — yet AC 120-66C asks the ERC to review its corrective actions' effectiveness at least once a year. Underneath sits the one risk that ends a program: a packet that lets someone work out who the reporter was.
Estimated split for one weekly docket of about 75 pilot reports, by hand and with the solution.
Eight agents prepare every report for the Event Review Committee and track each action; the three seats decide.
Corvane Airways runs a pilot ASAP under its MOU with the Corvane Pilots Association and the FAA. It is Tuesday 20 October, 07:40 Mountain time, and the Event Review Committee meets at 09:00 (meeting ERC-26-42). First on the agenda is CV 1280, San Francisco to Denver, an A321neo that crossed a fix 1,100 feet low. Here is the morning, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Paul opens Today. Since the last docket closed, the agents read 76 reports, removed every name, paired crewmates into 61 events and checked each against the agreement; the docket went to the three seats on Sunday at 09:00, 48 hours ahead. Beside it, the agents talk to him in plain words: the Eligibility checker found one possible exclusion that needs the FAA member in the room, and the Pattern finder says CV 1280 is the fourth report in 37 days about the same chart note. Below, what needs him: a late first officer's report to pair, two consent items the Packet checker disagrees with, two overdue actions.
Packet checker: “I re-checked every packet: no identifying details. I disagree with two consent items; they need the committee.”
The Event Review Committee docket is sorted for the two hours the committee has: 12 events that need debate, 43 routine ones to accept together, 6 waiting for evidence. Each event shows the eligibility verdict and its confidence, a plain de-identified summary, the likely cause, the proposed action and three seat markers. The seats' reading shows at the top: company 58 of 61, union 61 of 61, FAA 49 of 61. Paul asks why CV 1280 is first.
Pattern finder: “It is the fourth report in 37 days about the same chart note at VELLO, and the counts agree. One decision can fix it for every crew.”
The packet opens as a six-step review. Eligibility comes first: within the scope of the program; filed within 24 hours of duty end (captain 4 h 05 min after, first officer 13 h 20 min after, read from duty times inside the vault); not a sole-source report, because approach control advised a possible pilot deviation; none of the five exclusions; no reckless or intentional conduct; no repeat noncompliance, checked by the ASAP Program Manager in the vault. Apparent regulation: 14 CFR 91.123(a). Verdict: meets the criteria, 97%, and the Packet checker agrees.
The Eligibility checker flags a possible exclusion; it never excludes. Doubt goes to the ERC.
Denver changed to north flow at 17:20 and runway 34L was assigned, leaving 22 minutes to re-brief the ZARPS 3 arrival. In managed descent the A321neo crossed VELLO at 15,900 ft: the plan view of the chart says at or above 15,000, but a note in the notes box says at or above 17,000 when landing north. Approach control called; no loss of separation, nearest traffic 6.2 nm and 1,000 ft above. Likely causes: the restriction is only in the notes box (88%), the navigation database codes only the plan-view altitude (81%), the late flow change (64%). Three earlier reports — ASAP-26-0988, -1031 and -1102 — describe the same note, with no names and no crews.
The Event investigator states what the evidence shows; it never assigns blame or guesses intent.
On Patterns, P-26-07 groups the four reports in 37 days at DEN, across all fleets, and names the hazard they point to: an arrival chart restriction not where pilots look for it. The flight data comes only as counts, through the FOQA gatekeeper: 6 of 212 north-flow arrivals below 17,000 at VELLO (2.8%), against 1 of 488 in south flow (0.2%). A person confirms the links and sends the pattern to the hazard register in the safety management system.
Links are proposals until a person confirms them. Flight data arrives as counts only — no flights, no crews.
The Precedent finder brings the committee's own decisions, with their effect 90 days later. ERC-25-311, a PHX arrival with a crossing restriction only in a chart note: the note moved into the plan view, a bulletin and recurrent training — 0 recurrences in 90 days. ERC-24-188, a SEA arrival crossing missed by three crews: individual retraining for each crew only — 3 recurrences in 90 days, fixed later by a chart request.
“A chart fix stopped the PHX recurrences; retraining each crew did not stop the SEA ones. So no individual retraining is proposed here.”
The Action drafter proposes systemic actions first, each with an owner, a due date and how the committee will know it worked: CA-26-412, a chart change request to put the landing-north restriction in the plan view and code it in the navigation database (Greg Holloway, due Fri 13 Nov); CA-26-413, Flight Operations Bulletin FOB 26-19 to all pilots (Capt. Tom Brandt, due Fri 23 Oct); CA-26-414, feedback letters to both reporters, through the vault. Paul asks the agents in the conversation to “Add a recurrent training item”, and CA-26-415 appears.
Action drafter: “Drafted CA-26-415: a recurrent training scenario ‘ZARPS 3 north flow’ for DEN-based crews… It is a proposal until the ERC decides.”
Paul starts the meeting from the docket: a meeting bar with the clock, item 1 of 12 and the minutes one click away. On the decision step he records what each seat says in the room, with a reason code. Company seat, Capt. Rachel Ibarra: A2, accept with an added action — a recurrent training scenario for crews who fly the arrival before the chart changes. Union seat, Capt. Neil Sorensen: A1, accept — fix the chart, no individual training. FAA seat, Linda Tran: A1, accept — no enforcement action, ASAP corrective action. Paul signs that he recorded the positions as stated.
If all three agree, it is consensus; if not, the FAA member decides acceptance.
The packet reads “Accepted · consensus”, recorded by Paul Kessler, in the minutes of ERC-26-42. The three positions sit under it with their reasons, and the actions are now with their owners: the chart change request, the bulletin, the feedback letters and the recurrent training scenario with Capt. Amy Chen, due Fri 29 Jan 2027. The Action tracker will remind each owner 7 days before the due date and measure the effect 90 days after.
Corrective actions never reach a pilot's training or personnel record; the learning system gets a de-identified completion token.
The Action tracker writes the minutes as the meeting runs: each item, each seat's position and reason, the decision and the actions — for E-26-1147, the three positions and CA-26-412 to 415. The minutes show 0 of 3 signatures until each seat signs in its own name. Earlier meetings sit beside them: ERC-26-41, 58 events, 11 discussed, 2 FAA decisions, signed by all three seats the next day.
“Each seat signs in its own name; you cannot sign for them.”
The same docket and the same six-step packet, seen by the people who run the program and sit at the table — what the week before the meeting looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents prepare every report for the Event Review Committee and track each action; the three seats decide.
Reads each pilot report on arrival, removes names, employee numbers, bases and seniority, pairs crewmates' reports into one event, and flags immediate safety concerns and reports outside the program.
Tests each event against the agreement and AC 120-66C — scope, timeliness, sole-source, the five exclusions, reckless or intentional conduct and repeat noncompliance — citing the passage for each answer.
Builds the timeline and the likely causes from the reports, the dispatch release, ATIS, charts, the navigation database and flight data counts.
Links similar de-identified reports by procedure, fix, runway, phase and words, asks the FOQA gatekeeper for counts, and proposes hazards for the register.
Finds the committee's own decisions on similar events — 1,206 since 2019 — and whether each worked at 90 days.
Drafts corrective-action options, systemic first, each with an owner, a due date and an effect measure.
Re-checks every eligibility answer, every consent item and every packet, minute and letter for identifying details, and says so when it disagrees.
Writes the minutes as the committee decides, assigns actions, reminds owners, collects evidence, drafts feedback letters, measures effect at 90 days and drafts the quarterly report.
Decide by consensus; the FAA member decides when there is none. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Every screen has a conversation with the agents who did the work. Ask why, or tell them what to change; each answer points to the passage, report or decision behind it.
What should the committee spend its time on?
The twelve Discuss items, starting with CV 1280 into DEN: a chart problem behind four reports. Then E-26-1139 with the FAA member present, and E-26-1151, where the seats differ. The 43 consent items can be accepted in one signed step.
Would retraining the crew fix it?
Not on its own. In 2024 the committee retrained three crews for a similar SEA crossing and saw 3 recurrences in 90 days; the PHX chart fix in 2025 had none. Both crews here read the chart as printed.
Can I see who filed ASAP-26-1147?
No. Only Paul Kessler, the ASAP Program Manager, sees identity, in the vault, with a reason that is logged. Everyone else sees the crew position: captain.
Why is closure 64 days, not 30?
Systemic actions: their median is 41 days after the decision, and chart and manual changes wait on outside cycles. Packets are no longer the delay: every docket this quarter was ready 48 hours ahead.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How the program is set up, from the MOU. Every change is logged; changes to acceptance criteria and thresholds need the three seats.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Meeting day and time | Tuesday 09:00, Mountain time | Tuesday · Wednesday · Thursday; 08:00 · 09:00 · 10:00 |
| Packet lead time | 48 hours before the meeting | In steps of 12 hours |
| Timeliness window | 24 hours after duty end | From the agreement; does not apply to sole-source reports |
| FAA member attends for exclusions and medical questions | On | Agreement 8.c · On · Off |
| Consent agenda rule | 90% confidence, minor deviation, low risk, no open pattern, checker agrees | On · Off |
| Send to Discuss below this confidence | 90% | In steps of 1%; the three seats approve |
| A pattern needs at least | 3 similar reports within 60 days | In steps of 1 report |
| Remove identifying details from every packet | Locked on | Required by the agreement and part 193 |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (FAA Report to Congress on voluntary safety programs, 2022 — 62 of 94 Part 121 operators run an ASAP; FAA AC 120-66C, Aviation Safety Action Program, 2020; 14 CFR part 193 and 49 U.S.C. 40123 on the protection of voluntarily submitted information). People, airlines, flights, reports, procedures and fixes named on this page — including Corvane Airways, the ZARPS 3 arrival and VELLO — are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
An aviation safety action program is a voluntary, non-punitive reporting program set up by an MOU between an airline, its employees' union and the FAA; an accepted ASAP report is protected from FAA enforcement and company discipline for that event. Botminds' Aviation Safety Action Program is ASAP software for the ASAP Program Manager and the Event Review Committee: eight agents de-identify and pair every report, check it against the MOU and AC 120-66C criterion by criterion, link similar reports and past decisions, draft corrective actions and track each one to closure. The three seats decide.
The Eligibility checker tests each event against the agreement and AC 120-66C: scope, filing within 24 hours of duty end, sole-source, the five exclusions, reckless or intentional conduct and repeat noncompliance. Each answer cites its passage and carries a confidence. It flags a possible exclusion and brings the FAA member to the room; it never excludes a report.
The Report reader removes names, employee numbers, bases and seniority on arrival, and only the ASAP Program Manager can open the vault, with a reason that is logged. The Packet checker re-checks every packet, minute and feedback letter for identifying details. Flight data reaches the agents only as counts, through the FOQA gatekeeper.
A sole-source report is one where all evidence of the event comes from the report itself. Under AC 120-66C, timeliness does not apply to it. The Eligibility checker marks it on the criterion with its citation — in the demo, a report filed 41 hours 30 minutes after duty end is shown as late but sole-source rather than excluded.
The docket is sorted into Discuss, Consent and Waiting for information. In session, the ASAP Program Manager records each seat's position with a reason code and signs that he recorded them as stated; if all three agree it is consensus, and if not the FAA member decides acceptance. The Action tracker writes the minutes live, and each seat signs them in its own name.
Yes. The Action tracker assigns each action to its owner, reminds them 7 days before the due date, collects the evidence, drafts the reporter's feedback letter and measures the effect 90 days after a systemic action. Only a person closes an action, and nothing is written to a pilot's training or personnel record.
Yes. The agents prepare, check, link and draft; the company, union and FAA seats decide by consensus, and every position carries a reason code and an electronic signature. Agents never exclude a report, close an action or send anything outside the program, and changes to criteria and thresholds need the three seats.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your ASAP MOU, your ERC procedures and the systems your evidence comes from — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own de-identified reports first.
Every report routed the same day, every repeat linked before it is scored.
1-min demoSafety Investigation ManagementReports drafted in days, not weeks, with every finding tied to its evidence.
1-min demoSafety Risk ManagementEvery hazard owned, scored on this week's evidence, and ready for the FAA.
1-min demoWe'll run the Aviation Safety Action Program on your own MOU, your de-identified reports and the systems your evidence lives in.