Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By seanxair
#1754647
johnm wrote:Consider it done @PeteSpencer


Any chance for me to please @johnm ?

I buy the magaazine on my way to Ireland every few weeks to see my ageing parents. Good read while travelling. All trips off for the forseeable so looks like I will have to subscribe!
By johnm
#1754650
seanxair wrote:
johnm wrote:Consider it done @PeteSpencer


Any chance for me to please @johnm ?

I buy the magaazine on my way to Ireland every few weeks to see my ageing parents. Good read while travelling. All trips off for the forseeable so looks like I will have to subscribe!

PM contact details and subscribe :-)
kanga liked this
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1754656
PeteSpencer wrote:Would any kind person be able to scan/photograph the article and whats app or email it to me please? I tried to contact Matt but no joy so far.

I can pm contact details
.
Many thanks
Peter


Or you could subscribe - we all have to eat, pay salaries etc.

https://subscriptions.flyer.co.uk/product/7-50-every-quarter-copy/
johnm, wigglyamp, Dave W and 16 others liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1754663
G-BLEW wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:Would any kind person be able to scan/photograph the article and whats app or email it to me please? I tried to contact Matt but no joy so far.

I can pm contact details
.
Many thanks
Peter


Or you could subscribe - we all have to eat, pay salaries etc.

https://subscriptions.flyer.co.uk/product/7-50-every-quarter-copy/


Cancelled my long-standing sub a few years ago . One flying mag in the house is enough

Peter :wink:
By Edward Bellamy
#1754693
One or two of you may have seen I briefly covered Occurrence Reporting in a recent Flyer article. I did not really address issues of confidentiality because it would have been difficult to cover in a relatively short space.

I have not managed to read Matt's article, but in terms of the thread starting question, I think the issue here is that the need for MORs to be generally confidential is cutting across the issue of whether someone who has been accused of infringing should see the evidence against them.

When the European Occurrence Reporting regulation came in 2014-16, there was a tightening of the circumstances in which people could access MOR data - access to data is permitted for the purposes of improving aviation safety, but this is at the discretion of the Competent Authority. There was some debate around this at the time, but personally I think the European MOR legislation itself strikes the balance between confidentially and access to data correctly.

Remember that generally the MOR process is there to support Just Culture and I echo DaveW's comments insofar as for the most part, it does. The vast majority of MORs do not involve one aviation stakeholder accusing another of breaching regulation, but in the small number of circumstances in which they do, processes within organisations dealing with MORs should find ways to balance the need to explain the evidence against an individual while maintaining appropriate confidentiality of the original report.

In the infringement context I see no particular reason why someone sanctioned for infringement should not be shown technical evidence, it does not mean that NATS or whichever ANSP it was have to share the original MOR submission.
Dusty_B liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1754698
@Edward Bellamy, what should happen in a circumstance where (for example) an alleged infringer claims that an ambiguous clearance or statement by an ATS provider was made?

That's a made up example, but what I mean more generally is what should happen in circumstances where the alleged infringer claims that the situation was far from clear cut and for them to demonstrate that requires access to evidence from the airspace management side of the equation?

At the moment the situation can be "You can't demonstrate that. We say you infringed down to your own actions and decisions alone, so suck it up."

There is no apparent way in CAP1404* of differentiating between an error and a mistake:
  • Mistake - Usually accidental. You know it’s wrong.
  • Error - Usually made due to the lack of knowledge. So, the action was wrong because it was different from the rules. The lack of knowledge may be due to ignorance, or it may be due to a misunderstanding. If the latter, it's very important to know why the misunderstanding occurred because lessons may need to be learned to avoid others misunderstanding it too.


*interestingly there explicitly is in CAP403 Appendix D1, which describes the Flowchart Analysis of Investigation Results (FAIR) System from Baines-Simmons, iused during investigations of apparent air display breaches. Appendix D1 of CAP403 also explicitly draws a distinction between non-Judgmental and judgemental phases of an investigation. It would be a major advance if the same principles were written into CAP1404 and actively seen to be followed.
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
#1754699
It's one thing to choose magazine B over magazine A.

It's quite another to publicly post on magazine A's forums asking someone to copy an article that's cost money to produce for magazine A, and send it for free to you.

Good grief, go and buy the magazine.
mmcp42, Rob P, Dave W and 19 others liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
#1754701
johnm wrote:@PeteSpencer I think you cancelled the wrong one, I'm toying with stopping the other one!


I did. Kept Flyer on the grounds that the list and forum have provided enough entertainment over the years, never mind the mag.

On the other hand, if it keeps Ian off the chocolate biscuits, happy to cancel as a social duty :D
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1754704
During my time at the CAA (pre ECCAIRS) I was often consulted by the then Safety Data Unit when an aerodrome MOR came up. Typically runway lighting, bird hazard or deicing reports.

I got to know the people there well and heard from them examples of the MOR as a weapon used by aggrieved people to get back at someone or organisation.

Remember the story about the Captain's packed lunch?

So these types of reports were easy to spot and dealt with appropriately. Generally by a word in a superiors ear by one of the Inspectors

So my worry has alway been that changes alluded to by Edward, the loss of people from whatever the SDU is now called and new agendas opens up the possibility of misuse of a reporting system that worked well in my limited experience.