MOR. Filing AGAINST???

[ATSAWHO]

Dear all

Being an experienced operational ATSA, and experienced PPL and PPL instructor, I am well aware of the downright hostility within an ATC ops room towards the likes of the above.

The reason for my post is the increasing use by my ATCO colleagues of an MOR to 'file against' a pilot or organisation, and intense parlez between those ATCOs and their Managers as to whether they themselves will be 'filed against', and who should take the 'first strike', or sit back, etc etc...hope you get my meaning??? (Loads of answers there I anticipate).

My impression of the MOR scheme was one of info dissemination, rather than blame/a**e covering, of safety related info, with blame/legal sanctions being considered only when blatant breaches of the legislation were considered to be attributable.

Checking the CAA website, the statement of Sir McNulty would seem to be in the spirit of the above, and I do not believe that I have misinterpreted it.

My issues are:

Listening to ATCOs rant and rave, and threaten a 'file against'...

and

Has the MOR scheme had lost confidence by 'the pros', and been superseded by CHIRP

and

To return to my original premise, re PPL training, the perception of 'the system' by it's most inexperienced, but qualified pilots, being hostile and blaming.

No doubt some replies will be hostile, but hopefully most will be discussive, and informative.

Thanks in advance to all replies. :uhoh:

ATSAWHO

[2 sheds]

ATSAWHO

You are quite right that there is an apparent attitude in some quarters that one files "against...", which is quite incorrect - nothing like pre-judging an issue when numerous factors might have contributed to a "happening" when it all comes out in the wash!

2 s

[anotherthing]

However an MOR should only state facts, not opinions and the watch management are aware of this (one of the reasons it goes through them first).

The MOR system is still very valid and should be used (not abused) - educationally it's a good tool

[PPRuNe Radar]

NATS controllers can also file an 'observation' using the same form. It doesn't go to the CAA and gets investigated locally. Recommendations or further action can then be formulated if required.

Very handy for capturing things which are not subject to formal MOR action.

[Spitoon]

NATS controllers can also file an 'observation' using the same formNot the same form that non-NATS units would use though.

[PPRuNe Radar]

NATS use the CA4114, for either MORs or 'Observations'.

If non NATS units have the same ability to file non MORs using their own in-house form, then good for them :ok:. Seems a shame to have to make one up though when the good old CAA have already done the leg work with all the money they get from the industry ;)

[niknak]

Each airport in the UK is required (by law) to have a Safety Management System in place in every department.
The UK SMS approved by the CAA requires each unit to have an internal reporting system.

Our SMS and any other, obliges Unit Management to respond with their intentions in writing and, once those intentions are given they are obliged to follow them through to the letter.
If they don't, we are free to file an MOR should we wish to do so.

All I'll say is that it works with a very high success rate at our place, but if you are going to file either report, be sure of your facts before you do so.

[Spitoon]

I'm not sure that niknak's description of the system is completely correct.

Yes, every unit has an SMS that should require occurrences to be reported and investigated at unit level - and I'm not sure that establishing the management's intentions is necessarily the same as investigating the occurrence.

At the same time, if an occurrence falls within the the definition of something that should be reported under the MOR scheme, then it should be reported as an MOR too.

The two reporting processes are in many ways complementary and done for some slightly different reasons. It's not like the MOR scheme is there to raise an issue if you can't fix it locally.

[EastCoaster]

I wouldn't call it "filing against...", if by definition I might have to "file against" myself for something that has happened while I've been on watch! And yes, that has in the past included incidents as serious as Airprox reports.

The point being, one might know that there's a strong likelihood that the outcome of any subsequent investigation might not shine too favourably on oneself; but by taking such reporting action as required under the law, then there is a strong likelihood that others involved might well be forced to examine their own parts in the same incident and might just learn the lessons that are there to be learned, where they might not otherwise even think about it! And in that way, the reporting scheme is doing what it was designed to do - examining the system, and making it safer for all concerned.
Of course, that's all dependant on somebody being brave sic enough to report in the first place. But then, if the individual doesn't report the incident (ostrich syndrome perhaps), then (s)he had better have a damn good explanation ready for when the ATS investigator comes a callin'! Because you can be damn sure that somebody will have reported something!

[Gonzo]

Yes, there is an attitude amongst many about 'filing against' or 'being filed against'.

Some think that in some way it is 'unfair' to be 'filed against' when a phone call would do.....however, there is no way to identify trends or learn lessons across the ATC community when there is merely a phone call.

If I ever do something that another ATCO feels was wrong, against procedure, or unsafe, then I would hope and expect them to file a 4114.

[Widger]

Gonzo,

Absolutely right. The "nice phone call" can often cover up deficiencies in procedures like co-ordination not being passed on between sectors or flight planning deficiencies. The "filing" of paperwork is essential to capture trends and to prevent a more serious incident from occurring. Unfortunately there is an element of ATCOs that are extremely worried about losing their licence (understandably) and a "filing" is often seen as a personal attack. It certainly exposes errors when every mouse press and action is recorded in intricate detail.

The challenge is for management of whatever unit to ensure that there is a no-blame culture within their organisation and to positively encourage the raising of paperwork even if an incident did not actually happen but "the safety of an aircraft could have been compromised". Once a unit files enough reports, the fear goes away and personnel see the system for what it is...a way of managing safety.

[ATSAWHO]

I get to train new ATSAs on a fairly regular basis. Not surprisingly, many aspire to become ATCOs. Once we have got their feet under the table, they inevitably, and quite rightly, gravitate towards the unit ATCOs, in an attempt to progress.

Many witness the 'filing against' rants I have mentioned earlier. Of those who go on to the ATCO training, I have doubts that the training overrides the first impression they have been given at an operational unit.

Does any body else believe, like me, that this is a TRM issue? I see WMs even, inappropriately articulating the MOR scheme, which could leave a lifelong mindset to an impressonable, less experienced newbie.
Once again your thoughts please.

Thanks for no rants. In my original post I referred to there mostly being hostility to private aviators, however I am aware of individuals/units who bend over backwards to give info/giudance/unit visits to aviators who do not use the ATS on a day to day basis.

WHO:ok:

[Bright-Ling]

Go on then ATSA, who filed against you then?!!? :)

B-L :ok:
(ex ATSA!)

[ATSAWHO]

No one. Ever. Just fed up with listening to ATCOs bickering about such an issue, and more responsible persons giving completely inaccurate impressions of the MOR scheme.

I HAVE had ATCOs literally trying to threaten me, over the telphone, in the name of the MOR scheme. This has happened after 'events' at aerodromes. Extreme arse covering by the ATCO I noted, and when I quoted back a few ATC regs the ATCO IMMEDIATELY backed off. This`was when I was an experienced PPL. Fortunately I had the ATS background as well. I have also witnessed certain WMs at my present unit 'brow beat' less experienced pilots, over the telephone, in the name of the MOR scheme. To my mind, a complete bluff by the said ATS 'Managers'.

WHO

[Bealzebub]

Totally agree with you ATSAWHO, the MOR is of course just that, a Mandatory Occurrence report. The overall objective of the MORS is to use the reported information to improve the level of flight safety and not to attribute blame.

The MOR and ASR schemes might in some circumstances be used to attribute blame and even penalty sanctions, however that would be a matter for the relevant authority or the courts. The report should state the facts, it is not a vehicle for making threats or acting against any individual or organisation. If it were used for that purpose the recipient might well have grounds for a claim of malfeasance on the instigator.

We all make mistakes and when we do we often genuinely believe we were in the right. As have many others, I have been required to file an MOR where I believed the fault lay elsewhere, but the subsequent analysis showed I was solely at fault. The result was "a lesson learned and remembered". There was no sanction or punishment and presumably that was the point of the scheme.

Commercial aviation throughout many parts of the world, but certainly in the UK, is an extremely busy and stressful industry. Anybody who has spent longer than a few weeks involved, will realize that the strain placed on the system often exceeds the capacity constraints that the resources actually allow. This places a serious requirement for the highest levels of diligence and professionalism on the part of all those involved. Inevitably there are times when parts of the system fail and sometimes incidents occur as a result of that. Without doubt these realities give rise to occaissional bouts of irritation and frustration on the parts of Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers.

I think sometimes we forget that our experience is something that takes time to aquire, and we become irritated by our own failure to either make allowance, or have the time to make allowance for others. MOR's are a legal requirement and are required to be filed when the occurrence falls within defined parameters. Beyond this, matters that might better fall within the category of minor transgressions, can either be dealt with by an ASR or whatever other form of suitable "private" communication the parties feel is sensible. I doubt "rants" over the radio fall into any suitable category, although it is perhaps understandable why they sometimes happen.

[ATSAWHO]

Your comments are far more thought through than I could manage. I freely admit that my comments come more from a 'gut reaction' about the rights and wrongs of the situations I describe, and experience.

Any thoughts anyone that this may be a TRM issue?

WHO:)

[RadarRambler]

I think that the attitude as improved to what it used to be, i think more people do see that MOR's or Safety reports are now a method to improve safety and not just get people into trouble. MORS are a requirement to report the facts under specified conditions, and i dont think people nowadays just fill them in just to cause trouble.

People in stressful situations, caused by whoever or whatever sometimes might rant and rave, but action later is often more sensible and see that instead of just getting mad, they need to see it as a way of learning, educating, and hopefully preventing it from occuring again, whatever the reason.

[WhatUMean]

In some ways this where TRM should extend into, seeing that it is a need to all work together and learn from each other, not just whip someone, only to find we end up whipping someone else for the same mistake, or another controller gets caught out by it also.

[WHODOUDO]

So,

The operational watch management have been loaded with the board's dirty work, and without specific legal training 'vet' their op staff's reports under the MOR. How useful for the 'higher' management....the same who run TRM?

No wonder there is tension when a MOR is mooted...the operational management are 'guessing' at the civil/criminal law without the slightest guidance from above, and with the unsaid threat...'Don't :mad: it up!'.

A message from the comedy store (that is Air Traffic).

[Gonzo]

The operational watch management have been loaded with the board's dirty work, and without specific legal training 'vet' their op staff's reports under the MOR. How useful for the 'higher' management....the same who run TRM?

No wonder there is tension when a MOR is mooted...the operational management are 'guessing' at the civil/criminal law without the slightest guidance from above, and with the unsaid threat...'Don't :mad: it up!'.

I'm sorry, I must be a bit slow today...I didn't understand a word of that....Any chance you could elucidate?

[WHODOUDO]

Ever heard of corporate manslaughter? Would'nt any corp go to lengths for being framed for the above? Do you not think an MOR may be used as evidence in a crim/civil court?

ELUCIDATE!

Do you think people follow your orders??? A highly discredited defence!!!

And, more seriously, your thoughts on the TRM issues related to this, which is what the poster was attempting to move towards...you must have missed that!

Tommy Cooper

[Gonzo]

Yes, quite. :rolleyes:

All perfectly clear now.......

[WHODOUDO]

Very slow two days in a row Gonzo!

I think the original poster was trying to point towards the potentially highly litigous aspects of the whole aviation world. Issues don't go there very often, but when they do, aviation people get fined/banged up/end up not working in aviation ever again/commit suicide or shot dead on their door step by an aggrieved relative. And that just applies to the waged aviators, let alone the same burden being potentially applied to private aviators, who unless are lawyers in their professional life, are unlikely to be aware of the very serious legal burdens that may come to bear on them.

And what of the management who 'control' the MOR process at an ATC unit? Unless they have had specific training they are in the same legal boat as the private aviator, described above. Lots of potential liability vs limited knowledge of it.

Net result...fear all round, hence tension at a unit/between that unit and pro and private users of it. OR, I regret to say, an 'I'm above it all' or 'Won't happen to me attitude' which seemed to be a feature of your last post Gonzo.

HEAD OUT OF SAND PEOPLE!:ooh:

Billy Connolly

[Arkady]

I'm glad I inhabit the real world, rather than the Comedy World you are from WHODOUDO.

In the real world MORs are submitted to the regulator, not unit mangement. There is no need for unit management to even know the report has been submitted. In the past pressure has been brought to bear on individuals not to file for what ever reason, but that culture is long past precisely because of the threat of Corporate Manslaughter charges.

In a modern Air Traffic Unit safety accountabilites are defined and written down for all to see. An investigation into any incident will highlight failures of the individual and/or the processes within the unit that may have contributed to the incident. Under these circumstances the filing of MORs and Safety reports is positively encouraged.

A report is a statement of the facts, nothing more, nothing less. No legal training is required to relate the facts, in the same way that no legal knowledge is needed to provide a witness statement to the Police. And yes, it may be used in a court of law, if that is as far as the investigation takes it. If the Corporation responsible is confident that it has fulfilled all its responsibilites properly why wouldn't it want the facts to come out? And the only way and Corporation can be certain of this is to be confident that its work force will feedback weaknesses in the form of reports, MORs etc

The phrase "Filing against" has been in use for many years, mostly between ATSUs where one unit believes there has been a breach of regulations and the other doesn't. It can get a bit acrimonious and usually ends up in a tit-for-tat exchage of paperwork on any small issue that arises between the two units. It is poor TRM and should be addressed but don't forget that the phrase (or threat, if you prefer) to file against someone is often being made by a controller who has just had the living sh1t scared out of him/her, and may not be in a wholly reasonable state of mind.

[WHODOUDO]

...and Arkady, I've been embroiled in it MANY times through professional aviation!


It is poor TRM and should be addressed but don't forget that the phrase (or threat, if you prefer) to file against someone is often being made by a controller who has just had the living sh1t scared out of him/her, and may not be in a wholly reasonable state of mind.


100% agree with you on this Arkady, and I hold my hands up that I would NOT like to work under the potential pressures that a controller will inevitably experience during their career.


A report is a statement of the facts, nothing more, nothing less. No legal training is required to relate the facts, in the same way that no legal knowledge is needed to provide a witness statement to the Police. And yes, it may be used in a court of law, if that is as far as the investigation takes it.


Sorry, but I still have reservations about that comment, and general approach to the issue. I maintain that there are so many influences that may come to bear on a single report that may be part of 'evidence' in a larger investigation. And that those who may be compelled to file such reports could find themselves in a 'world of pain' they never thought possible, when they law abidingly, and almost certainly well intentionedly, filled out the form in the first place.


The whole issue was well summed up in a first page editorial in Flight International within the last couple of months. I seem to have mislaid my copy, but if I can find it, I would like to link it, or at least refer to it. If anyone can find it before me...HELP!

FYI my interest in this stems from being an ex (medical reasons) professional aviator now becoming legally qualified, and surprise surprise, taking a particular interest in aviation law, amongst other things.


Buster Keaton