Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#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
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?
#1885541
You might also want to read the August 21 issue where the subject start.

I think the CAA point of view is that being sent to the GASCO course (old physical or new online) or having your license suspended is not prosecution despite all the money it will cost the pilot and other troubles.
I think the CAA think it is just safety education and having a safety system and that any costs is just the usual "regulated need to pay for action of regulator".
I think they view the new issue of CAP1404 and the communication about it as enough to alleviate all the wrongs of the previous issue.

I have reservations on their interpretation and I'm sure other have but until a prosecution got thrown out by a court on the basis that it started (only) from a MOR, the CAA will continue
#1885622
It should be remembered that a just culture is not a no blame culture. Individuals still need to be accountable for their actions, particularly if it involves wilful misconduct or gross negligence. A just culture should create an atmosphere where it is safe to report errors so lessons can be learnt and then applied to make aviation safer and more error tolerant.
One thing is for sure, humans will make errors; we are very good at it. What we need to do to improve safety is to make systems tolerant to errors, so one error will not lead to an undesirable outcome. To do this we all need a real just culture so everyone feels safe to report errors without jeopardy. Investigation and study of the circumstances that led to these errors can be used to identify safety lessons that can be shared and safety improvements can then be made to make aviation safer for us all.
A4 Pacific, Cub liked this
#1885625
Dominie wrote:Have I misunderstood? Any comments please?


No, you havent misunderstood. The CAA appear to misunderstand how "Just Culture" works though. @xtophe appears to have explained their possible reasoning, but that doesnt make it "Just"...

Regards, SD..
Stampe liked this
#1885802
Alt wrote:...What we need to do to improve safety is to make systems tolerant to errors, so one error will not lead to an undesirable outcome. To do this we all need a real just culture so everyone feels safe to report errors without jeopardy.

Exactly. If they want people to report errors/issues/poor decisions so that the wider audience can learn and hence safety is improved, then they surely cannot also punish the originator of an MOR (quite apart from the questionable legality of such action). As I said:
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.

I'm sure that there are many of us (most of us?) who have done things which were pretty stupid at some time - probably dangerous and some actions may have been illegal. I know I learn from information such as AAIB reports and CHIRP; quite often I am amazed that someone could be so dim - then I remember myself doing something comparable once or twice and getting away with it (i.e. no damage and not being caught!) ...
kanga liked this
#1885821
PeteSpencer wrote:Took me ‘kin ages to read just 8 pages of chirp on my iPhone .

Tiny font, three columns meant so much scrolling ,left swiping and stretching I felt quite sea-sick at the end ,

Reminded me why I can’t face online Flyer, where there are ten times as many pages . :wink:



Don't worry, help is on the way…

Ian