MOR. Filing AGAINST???
Guest
Posts: n/a
MOR. Filing AGAINST???
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Has the MOR scheme had lost confidence by 'the pros', and been superseded by CHIRP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.
ATSAWHO
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.
ATSAWHO
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
The MOR system is still very valid and should be used (not abused) - educationally it's a good tool
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Very handy for capturing things which are not subject to formal MOR action.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
. 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 
If non NATS units have the same ability to file non MORs using their own in-house form, then good for them
. 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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scenario
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Last edited by ATSAWHO; 7th Jan 2008 at 18:04. Reason: Wanted to add something!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thankyou Beazlebub
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
Any thoughts anyone that this may be a TRM issue?
WHO
Last edited by ATSAWHO; 7th Jan 2008 at 18:32. Reason: spelling
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Comedy World
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TRM, the way forward?
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
it up!'.
A message from the comedy store (that is Air Traffic).
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
it up!'.A message from the comedy store (that is Air Traffic).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 it up!'.
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
it up!'.