MORs against Foreign organisations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MORs against Foreign organisations
Can you MOR foreign organisations using the trusted CAA report form or will it get bounced back?
Anyone have links to the foreign equivalent of the British MOR system that we use?
I was flying out of CDG the other week where the departure controller should of had a rocket fired up her ar5e to sharpen her up since her R/T to us was very poor. In hindsight I should of followed it up but that led me as to the question of how transparent our MOR system is and what would be the best procedure to follow?
Probably nothing would of been done anyway if I had flagged it up but it would be helpful if anyone could give me an insight as to the best procedure for reporting such a event when it relates to a foreign country.
Anyone have links to the foreign equivalent of the British MOR system that we use?
I was flying out of CDG the other week where the departure controller should of had a rocket fired up her ar5e to sharpen her up since her R/T to us was very poor. In hindsight I should of followed it up but that led me as to the question of how transparent our MOR system is and what would be the best procedure to follow?
Probably nothing would of been done anyway if I had flagged it up but it would be helpful if anyone could give me an insight as to the best procedure for reporting such a event when it relates to a foreign country.
I have no answer for your question, but just a polite suggestion that the French controller might have had some difficulty understanding your particular form of English. For example what does it mean when you say 'could of' or 'should of'. What is this of-word?
Being non-English I would like to learn!
Being non-English I would like to learn!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can say hand on heart that my R/T was no factor since the situation in question is down to one specific controller making no attempt to use our full callsign. Alpha-numeric callsigns such as what we had on that day are there to reduce callsign confusion so the controller should of stuck to the full callsign! We all make mistakes but to constantly abbreviate the call sign when there was other company aircraft on frequency is not safe!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding your specific circumstances; after inital call up your voice print is recognized, voice recognition. . .so that when you, or ATC responds to follow up queries, [during a single conversational engagement] it isn't absolutely necessary to crowd the airwaves by stating your full call sign over and over. . .unless there is some doubt. . . .Because you are not constrained from exercising common conversational sense. Your voice is unique and it's immediately recognized by all listeners. You are entitled to say "roger" or "wilco" without acting like a parrot and repeating every syllable of the controller's instructions. Obviously, there are items that must be read back in full, such as holding short of a runway, altitude assignments,. . . 
I think it is a common occurence in France to abreviate callsigns. Wether this is their SOP, or just something they do, I do not know. It is not per definition wrong to do so.
If there is an EZY 2PM and a EZY 5AC on the frequency, I can see no reason why the French controller can't speed things up by saying EZY PM, EZY AC. As long as the controller knows exactly who is in his sector and which callsigns might create confusion.
Mike, you say you might be ok with this on a very quit night, I say it is more down to the controller, after all, he has a bigger picture. On the other hand I can understand that you do not trust the controller to be in control...
However, in your situation I bet you $100 that the controller just made a mistake because there is no way you can realistically abbreviate NJE (fraction) 2PN into November 2PN.
If there is an EZY 2PM and a EZY 5AC on the frequency, I can see no reason why the French controller can't speed things up by saying EZY PM, EZY AC. As long as the controller knows exactly who is in his sector and which callsigns might create confusion.
Mike, you say you might be ok with this on a very quit night, I say it is more down to the controller, after all, he has a bigger picture. On the other hand I can understand that you do not trust the controller to be in control...
However, in your situation I bet you $100 that the controller just made a mistake because there is no way you can realistically abbreviate NJE (fraction) 2PN into November 2PN.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'should of' really should be 'should have'
Loosing that hour in bed with the clocks changing obviously took its toll!
OK, you're in a general aviation environment dealing with alphanumeric tail numbers; easier susceptible to conflict than air carrier flight numbers.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birchington, Kent, England
Age: 82
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 382
Mister Geezer
I think a report should be accepted as it does seem to fall within the scope of CAP 382 Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme. I think Appendix B Para k would cover it.
Subsequently the CAA should exercise their responsibility as at Para 2.3 d) where they "take such steps as are open to it to persuade foreign aviation authorities and organisations to take any necessary remedial and preventative action in relation to reported occurrences".
I think a report should be accepted as it does seem to fall within the scope of CAP 382 Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme. I think Appendix B Para k would cover it.
Subsequently the CAA should exercise their responsibility as at Para 2.3 d) where they "take such steps as are open to it to persuade foreign aviation authorities and organisations to take any necessary remedial and preventative action in relation to reported occurrences".
