Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
In most safety systems the reporting of "near misses" is as important as the reporting of accidents or incidents. It is widely accepted there is a direct relationship between deaths and near misses in the ratio of for every 600 near misses there will be 30 incidents that might result in 10 accidents of which one might be a serious accident or death. It doesn't matter if some use a different ratio - that is really beside the point. There is a direct relationship between near misses and deaths. If the causes of near misses are understood and addressed the number of deaths can/should be reduced.

In our particular branch of aviation accidents and major incidents are investigated by the AAIB (because that is an ICAO responsibility), but who receives near miss reports, analyses them and promulgates any conclusions/recommendations? Airproxes are dealt with over there, Chirp does other stuff over here, MORs go somewhere (sometimes it appears like into a black hole), who looks into maintenance and aircraft design issues? How does a recreational pilot know what to report where? I suspect most don't know and report nothing. Why isn't the analysis of near misses of all types to do with light aviation brought together to reduce the overall accident rate?

This train of thought has been set off by the thread on infringements. The logical (but improbable) extension of an infringement is a collision between an airliner and a small aircraft. The current thinking appears to put all the emphasis on the recreational (amateur) pilot to avoid restricted airspace, and to punish us when we transgress. If the accident investigation machinery were to investigate near miss reports also would there be some pressure on other aspects of airborne collision avoidance pie to improve overall outcomes? My own beef is airspace design, but there are other areas. Also procedures, training and perhaps regulation could could be highlighted and improved in other areas that the recreational aviation population perceive as dangerous (circuit joining procedures come to mind, but there are many others) before a fatal accident if the data were collected in an integrated manner?

Clearly the funding of any integrated near-miss/incident/accident investigation authority is an issue. But when the World seems to be expanding the application of safety (management) systems it seems curious to me that the way our branch of aviation handles near misses is so out of step with good safety management practice.
JonathanB wrote: I don’t think User72 meant just in the literal sense. Any “almost happened” event is a near miss.

(and the others too)

So file an airprox. Shirly that is the definition of (and accepted method of reporting) a near miss?

{Edit: I misunderstood the OP. If he/she is talking about "near miss" in the aviation context, I took it to mean an unintended close-call between two aircraft in flight, rather than in the general H&S sense}
The MOR process is for everything that does not warrant reporting as an incident/accident to AAIB.

In CAT at least most incidents (which I think most ‘near misses’ are) that had a likelihood of becoming accidents are required to be reported to AAIB. Examples might be gross failure to achieve take off performance or failure of major flight instruments. These are available for public review like any other AAIB investigation.

There is no reason GA pilots cannot report such incidents either but I suspect many just shrug and keep it to themselves.

To the extent that MORs (that do not meet the threshold of AAIB investigation) filed by private individuals are investigated, it is by the CAA. They may not be widely reported but investigations do happen. This would include issues related to the design / certification of aircraft. Access to the MOR system is possible for organisations with a flight safety interest.

For incidents that take place within an organisation, in the first instance it is the responsibility of the relevant safety office / officer to investigate and forward as an MOR to the CAA if necessary. Again this does not find its way into the public domain, but deidentified versions of the original reports would be available to those who have applied for access to the MOR database.
Last edited by Edward Bellamy on Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
In many cases, it's difficult to quantify. If you return to your field and 5 minutes later there's a huge deluge, is that a near issue or did your planning work out well? Would you have tried to land in the torrential rain or hold off until it passes? If the cloudbase is also lowering, would you try and get in or divert back in the direction you came? If you fly through a cloud and out the other side, do you know for certain there was no one else in the cloud? If you are too high and fast and you go around, do you look at it like a journalist, thinking, "I nearly stuffed that into the far hedge!" or do you look at it as routinely going around to try again?
Hawkwind liked this