Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:13 pm
#1885537
I have just received the latest CHIRP (November 2021) by email; see https://www.chirp.co.uk/chirp-publicati ... n-feedback if you've not had the email. It includes (Comment No 3) a bit about Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MORs), in which the originator questions the use of MORs as the initiator of legal action and concludes with
In their response, they at CHIRP try to justify the CAA's use of MORs for legall purposes and they quote Reg (EU) No376/2014 Article 15 which is about MORs. Their argument is that legal action is very rarely taken and if you've done something dreadful, you can expect to be prosecuted even if you have raised an MOR.
Now, Article 15 includes the following:
I think that's pretty clear in support of Comment No 3. Presumably the CAA think that the "purpose of safety" includes prosecution. To me it is totally contrary to "Just Culture" and is actually illegal as Article 15 specifies otherwise. My view is that the originator of the comment was spot on, and I won't be raising an MOR if I think I even just could be in the wrong. If I get prosecuted, that's tough, but I don't intend to be the person who fessed up in the first place if they didn't know about it.
Have I misunderstood? Any comments please?
Anything that could possibly be the source of a prosecution will become a personal secret that is never told to anyone.
In their response, they at CHIRP try to justify the CAA's use of MORs for legall purposes and they quote Reg (EU) No376/2014 Article 15 which is about MORs. Their argument is that legal action is very rarely taken and if you've done something dreadful, you can expect to be prosecuted even if you have raised an MOR.
Now, Article 15 includes the following:
The handling of the reports shall be done with a view to preventing the use of information for purposes other than safety, and shall appropriately safeguard the confidentiality of the identity of the reporter and of the persons mentioned in occurrence reports, with a view to promoting a ‘just culture’.
I think that's pretty clear in support of Comment No 3. Presumably the CAA think that the "purpose of safety" includes prosecution. To me it is totally contrary to "Just Culture" and is actually illegal as Article 15 specifies otherwise. My view is that the originator of the comment was spot on, and I won't be raising an MOR if I think I even just could be in the wrong. If I get prosecuted, that's tough, but I don't intend to be the person who fessed up in the first place if they didn't know about it.
Have I misunderstood? Any comments please?