“Significant” is a circular definition in this context.
It’s not clear to me that every poster has informed themselves of what AMC 20-8 says (it is 18 pages long of which about three and a half is the list for operators) but what it actually says about reporting fuel spills is:
“IV.AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES, FACILITIES AND GROUND SERVICES
…
B.Aerodrome and Aerodrome Facilities(
1)Significant spillage during fuelling operations”
So a teaspoon of fuel spilled by a pilot during a first flight of the day fuel check is clearly not included.
Timothy wrote:
This is a typical example of losing the concept of “policing by consent”. By over-egging the pudding, they are putting people off the whole reporting system.
Let alone that to some bureaucrats and prosecutors this system is like Xmas and Easter in one. They abuse just culture for their own devices.
Timothy wrote:
A properly functioning reporting system is the bedrock of aviation safety and for a bunch of anal bureaucrats to wreck it by pushing it too far is criminal.
One feedback I got to a forum message elsewhere on that subject unfortunately tells the truth….
“Just Culture never existed. It was a Red Herring invented to get people to be stupid enough to indict themselfs. Now we see the consequences. You can be sure that nobody I know will ever make that mistake again…”
You are right, to destroy this is criminal. So why do people who use the system in good faith go to prison or get fined instead of those who willingly abuse it?
Even worse is when reports can be used in criminal prosecution as in Switzerland: it kills the whole system, regardless of what the legal requirement may be
Honestly, the whole thing is silly, most people should almost be writing a MOR after every flight the triggering conditions seem so trivial (how often does a small amount of fuel get spilled when you sample your tanks?) – leading to a complete loss of respect for the system.
The regulators should ask themselves with respect to private flights in light aircraft: “if we don’t require X to be reported by a car driver, we should not require it for private flying either”. No one would report hitting a pigeon with their car. It’s absurd that it’s required for a Cessna 172.
It is human nature to inflate one’s workload, if one is getting paid for it 
If not getting paid, most people want to do as little as possible.
The same goes for fuel spillage, the smallest of which is reportable.
This is a typical example of losing the concept of “policing by consent”. By over-egging the pudding, they are putting people off the whole reporting system.
A properly functioning reporting system is the bedrock of aviation safety and for a bunch of anal bureaucrats to wreck it by pushing it too far is criminal.
Why don’t regulators know when to stop?
Peter wrote:
It is probably similar to reporting hangar rash. It is similarly random and while the perpetrator is not going to be dead he will very likely not own up to it
It’s probably going into some big data AI. After a few years the AI will find an “surprising” correspondence between bird strikes and seasonal bird migration
I wonder what the learning value is from a bird strike report.
It is probably similar to reporting hangar rash. It is similarly random and while the perpetrator is not going to be dead he will very likely not own up to it
EASA page
https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/safety-management/aviation-safety-reporting
Reporting portal page
http://www.aviationreporting.eu/AviationReporting/
Full lists of who must report what are in
EASA AMC 20-8
Google (or otherwise search) that term and you will get to it. The EASA website is, to use a technical term, pants so a direct link is not practical.
