BBC uses MOR reports for entertainment

[Thunderbug]

News Report - The Donald McIntyre Programme (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7637738.stm)

Just a heads up that the beeb has used the Freedom of Information act to get hold of 1100 MOR reports from the CAA. They are using them to air a programme on 5 live on Saturday 27th.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it depressing that safety reports are being used in this way. I'm sure the beeb would describe it has investigative journalism of the highest order, but in reality it is just titillation for the masses why failing to achieve any safety benefit. In fact some might feel it not worth filing MORs just for them to become light entertainment. :rolleyes:

[fireflybob]

I agree - no doubt it will be the usual journalistic sensationalism to put more unjustified fear into the travelling public.

Perhaps a writ should be issued to prevent broadcast of this type of material.

[oxo]

The M in MOR stands for mandatory. These are not voluntary CHIRPs

[Thunderbug]

M might be mandatory - but it ignores the Human Factor - it still requires someone to take the decision to file one together with the time & effort to do so. They might just get "too busy" or "slipped my mind".

Then safety suffers - not the beeb.

[L337]

The BBC and the Daily Mail both live in the same box.

[cwatters]

I guess the program may not be all bad if they give publicity to the issue of fume events.

[Romeo India Xray]

Odds on that they wont air details of any MOR related to the "security" lunacy that now surrounds us! I have cancelled my BBC World subscription through cable due to the fact I now regard the BBC as on par with the tabloid trash (think Sun or even Sport, although the latter provides better entertainment value than the BBC will ever be able to :})

RIX

[Bealzebub]

Then when you complete an MOR, keep in the front of your mind that it might be sequestered for entertainment puposes, and fill in the details briefly and factually, with the emphasis on brevity.

Of course then the safety culture suffers, but that is the price of placing light entertainment above safety.

[lomapaseo]

It's nice for a change that at least they are using facts (MOR). Now we will have to wait and see what analysis they use to illustrate these facts to the public.

Maybe they will get one of the members of this board to help them present this to the public:}

[Chippie Chappie]

C'mon lomapaseo, you know the drill. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. :}

On a serious note, has there been any reaction from BALPA?

Chips

[Cee of Gee]

Also, I imagine some operators tend to submit more reports than others -Will that give those a bad press, therefore influencing future reporting cultures?

As already said by Thunderbug, I'd like to know what benefit the Beeb will gain from this stunt. (Apart from the obvious entertainment factor!!) I wonder if they appreciate the implications of their actions :ugh:

Sounds like a topic that could be raised by CHIRP!?

C o' G

[seac]

Just checked the link , and the programme is 1900 28SEP08

[Dan Winterland]

Some MORs/ASRs can be amusing. Here's one from my company.

A330 Number Status Date/Time UTC Occurrence Title Flight No XX XXX. MOR Risk Port Reg O4795-08 05/06/2008 03:30 CHECK IN PROCEDURES No Minimal[ E] XXX X-XXXX.

Passenger headcount showed one passenger missing. It was discovered that a cremation urn containing bone ashes, was travelling with a group of three pax who presented the ticket and passport of the deceased to check-in staff. A boarding pass was then issued. Investigation: Statistics

[WHBM]

Wouldn't it be nice if the BBC had an MOR system in place as well about their own organisation - where reports of drunk cameramen, reporters who fluffed their lines so much that no piece to camera could be shown, etc, were required to be filed.

Then UK airline operators could obtain these reports and post them on a running sequence on their IFE systems so pax could while away the hours in the air understanding just how their compulsory contributions to the BBC through their licence fees are spent.

[PAXboy]

It is only compulsory if you have TV, radio is free as it is paid by the TV license.

The programme is now available to listen to via BBC iPlayer - BBC Radio 5 live - All programmes - Page 1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_five_live) and select Donal MacIntyr it will be available until Sunday evening 5th October. The programme has several items in it and you will have to listen through to reach the item in question.

[172 driver]

The programme has several items in it and you will have to listen through to reach the item in question.

Or skip to 46:20 to save time.

[OneIn60rule]

Somehow not surprised over the number of MOR's.

However the ones that spark interest are not the Pilot error or Tower etc but the fact that pax get in without being noticed.

Large knives manage to get through while a nail filer does not.

A chainsaw not being on the list of DANGEROUS sharp objects gets through because it's NOT on the list.

I'm assuming it won't be long before someone gets to carry his blowgun with him because it's not on the list, right?

This is a tad worrying.

1/60

[Ancient Observer]

The idea of mandatory reporting of BBC cock-ups about Aviation is a great thought. I wonder who would do it? Maybe the CAA MOR software could be loaned to BALPA??

[Desk Jockey]

I'm surprised at David Learmont, I suppose thats the problem with interviews.
52.52
"They are known as mandatory occurrence reports, the airlines report them voluntarily."

It can't be both................

[smurphy]

Same journo reporting on availabiliy of high power lasers,

Still sensationalism?

[ZeBedie]

My employer does what it can to re-classify MOR's as ASR's. Who could possibly blame them when the MOR system is being abused in this way?

[Sir George Cayley]

Clifford Luton, nuff said

BBC 1 The Rest 10

Sir George Cayley

[whyisthat]

Surely the answer is to saturate the BBC via SMS while the programme is screening.

Question No 1:

Mr Learmont, please state your command experience in a modern glass cockpit airliner, and additionaly, please state your qualifications, that allow you to make comment on ongoing accident investigations and the competence of the organisations that are legally empowered to make those investigations. ( see recent coments in Flight International re recent Spanair accident).

In other words a factual statement from Learmont stating his experience and qualifications would severly dent the credibility of the programme. Hopefully it would then go away.

[Jake Russell]

As usual I am astounded by the level of vitriol you girls display for the fourth estate. I know it's very fashionable to profess a hatred for "journos" and "hacks" and it probably makes you all feel a little more professional to express such public disdain, but you're verging on bigotry, ladies. Calm down, lest we all look like the rabid, red-faced Daily Mail readers we probably are.

BTW: "BBC uses MOR reports for entertainment" is a spurious headline in itself. Maybe Thunderbug should apply to the redtops.

[whyisthat]

Jake

Would be grateful if you could explain how asking a person, who uses a public forum to question the acts of suitably qualified proffesionals, to provide evidence of his credentials, to ask such questions, is bigotry.

Don't know if "media bashing" is fashionable at the moment, but after 30 years in aviation I have rarely, if ever seen or heard, anything other than sensationalist crap, on the subject from the media. So perhaps, just perhaps, they deserve any "bashing" they get ???

[Ancient Observer]

Most, but not quite all, journos are monumentally incompetent, and only have a distant relationship with concepts such as integrity, fact-checking, truthfulness and so on. When they comment on Aviation, their cock-up frequency must be circa 98%. If anyone in Aviation, anywhere (apart from airport security of course, see the other thread for that) had that cock-up frequency - they'd be fired.

[BlueRay]

What a pompus bunch you are! Anyone dare critcise the airline industry suggest they are inaccurate or sensationalizing the issue.

I can tell you from the professionals I know in the media world, they are very dilligent to ensure they present facts, that sources are checked and double checked, otherwise they lay themselves open to court action. Maybe if those airline execs (mainly British Airways) are reading, if things are so bad, why don't you sue these papers/tv programmes?

Because they speak the truth and the public deserve to know the truth.

[M.Mouse]

I can tell you from the professionals I know in the media world, they are very dilligent to ensure they present facts

You mean like Andrew Gilligan?

[WHBM]

I can tell you from the professionals I know in the media world, they are very dilligent to ensure they present facts, that sources are checked and double checked......Because they speak the truth and the public deserve to know the truth.
ROTFLMAO.

And I write for a living !

[lomapaseo]

I can tell you from the professionals I know in the media world, they are very dilligent to ensure they present facts

not much different in many other venues.

i.e. there are pilots and then there are professional pilots


how broad a brush we sometimes paint with

[ted baker]

Only just got round to listening to this (which goes to show how highly I regarded the 'report').

Must admit I think it was all much ado about nothing really. My only problem with the program was that DL reminded me a little of Brucie on Saturday night... just a little doddery... so didn't do himself justice.

I might be wrong but 1100 ARS out of about 1,000,000 movements (1.1%) and only a handful of those deemed 'worthy' of a mention on the program. Given that I have to file an ASR for the likes of a simple Go-Around etc and.... well you get the picture...


Also, guys and girls, with regards to some of the posters on this thread may I remind you ... Don't feed the Trolls ;)