High court rules cockpit recordings are public information

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

gli77
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Over there and to the left.

Post by gli77 »

[quote="CID"]Many pilot labour unions have been successful in negotiating agreements that prevent the airline from using flight recorder data to bring charges or disciplinary action against pilots outside of an official incident/accident inquiry.[/quote]

Perhaps that is were the expression "he's an accident waiting to happen" came from. Or maybe more correct "he's an accident waiting to happen and we can not do anything about it because he's union".
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

And sure, the TSB and NavCan being separate from TCCA may be a good thing - but NavCan isn't even government.
Not being "government" is one of the best things about NavCan. The private sector has historically been less wasteful than government agencies.
Perhaps that is were the expression "he's an accident waiting to happen" came from. Or maybe more correct "he's an accident waiting to happen and we can not do anything about it because he's union".
That's not exactly fair. Not everything said in a cockpit can be divided between "safe" and "unsafe". Sometimes there are a few off colour jokes shared between close friends. Sometimes it's a little free psycho-therapy as a couple of humans work out their problems.

We're not talking about monitoring known criminals. We're talking about highly trained professionals that are subject to close scrutiny througout their career. Like any profession, a few bad eggs make it through but checking out every FDR and CVR after every flight is not only ludicrous but really unneccessary given the overall safety record.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

CID wrote:Not being "government" is one of the best things about NavCan. The private sector has historically been less wasteful than government agencies.


Except private companies are exempt from Access to Information and government accountability rules.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
ei ei owe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:39 am
Location: getting closer to home

Post by ei ei owe »

I'd not be too happy if cockpit recordings were made public. Pilots have all trained to follow a checklist when something prescribed is happening. What do you do when something not on the list comes up or is in a combination that isn't described on the checks? We've been told to do the best we can following SOPs, using our heads and the information in the plane's AFM. When the last 30 minutes of a tape gets into the hands of some fame-seeking newscrew, the pilot will be grilled as to why he'd not done it "better." I'd hate to be that pilot(s) and answer to more people that don't know shit and face the public while they all judge you on a job well done (but you know it's never done well enough) or get crucified by CBC/CTV etc if something didn't go well.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Everything comes in threes....
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

On the other hand, it may clear things up and relieve the pilot of blame. As I said on the black box thread:
It may sound strange to everyone, but I (and the other families) would have been very grateful, if nothing else, to know what those last minutes on the plane were like. Did anyone attempt to make a call? Did my husband jump or was he still in the plane when it hit the water? Was there smoke? Did someone use the on board fire extinguisher (it was expelled and loose on the floor)? There are a lot of questions that could have been answered if we knew what had happened on board in those last minutes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
ei ei owe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:39 am
Location: getting closer to home

Post by ei ei owe »

I suppose a happy medium between releasing a report by a know-it-all-reporter to the uneducated public and those immediately affected by the accident could be found.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Everything comes in threes....
55+
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 437
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 pm

Post by 55+ »

Not being "government" is one of the best things about NavCan. The private sector has historically been less wasteful than government agencies. .........."


Right! As one having being acquainted with Nav Can (read employee), don't ever, ever kid yourself that Nav Canada hasn't/still is wasting $$$$. An airspace realignment between two FIRs in the eastern part late 90's and the subsequent reversal of that alignment shortly after, cost untold millions in relocations/publications/technical work etc. The ongoing reorganization of various sections within Nav Can operations is another area of expenditure/waste i.e. AIS. The Aviation community (general/corporate and to a lesser extent airlines) probably have no idea.
Only consolation, I suppose is the general taxpayer isn’t on the hook
:!: :?: :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
gli77
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Over there and to the left.

Post by gli77 »

[quote="CID"][quote]
That's not exactly fair. Not everything said in a cockpit can be divided between "safe" and "unsafe". Sometimes there are a few off colour jokes shared between close friends. Sometimes it's a little free psycho-therapy as a couple of humans work out their problems.

We're not talking about monitoring known criminals. We're talking about highly trained professionals that are subject to close scrutiny througout their career. Like any profession, a few bad eggs make it through but checking out every FDR and CVR after every flight is not only ludicrous but really unneccessary given the overall safety record.[/quote]

Actually it is very fair and I was not refering to CVR's, although that information could be used as well. There has been more than one case of captainitis and derogatory conversations about flight attendants been heard through CVR recordings. If people like Widow only knew how unprofessional some professionals can be.

I was more thinking in terms of FDR recordings and things like flying at lower power settings to gain overtime or flying at higher power settings to get to the destination for what ever reason. Improper use of nosewheel steering, improper use of brakes/thrust reversers, improper rotation speeds, improper overshoot, not following company SOP'setc etc. Most of these contribute to wear and tear but from my experience the offenders are usually repeat which shows a lack of regard for the equipment.

I have worked with a few carriers that do random checking of FDR and CVR parameters and it is amazing what you come across.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lilfssister
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 2783
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:51 pm
Location: Mysteryville Castle

Post by lilfssister »

Widow wrote:On the other hand, it may clear things up and relieve the pilot of blame. As I said on the black box thread:
It may sound strange to everyone, but I (and the other families) would have been very grateful, if nothing else, to know what those last minutes on the plane were like. Did anyone attempt to make a call? Did my husband jump or was he still in the plane when it hit the water? Was there smoke? Did someone use the on board fire extinguisher (it was expelled and loose on the floor)? There are a lot of questions that could have been answered if we knew what had happened on board in those last minutes.
Releasing a transcript of recordings would give that same information, would it not? I don't have a problem with releasing transcripts relevant to the investigation. I don't see the point in releasing the actual audio recordings.
---------- ADS -----------
 
stopsquawk
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:06 am

Post by stopsquawk »

I think the title of this thread is misleading. If I'm reading the ruling right, this has nothing to do with CVR or FRD data or recordings, but only with the communications between the aircraft and ATC.. Correct?

ATC recordings are in essence, already public, since they are broadcast in the open, on frequencies and in a format that are readily available to anyone who cares to listen. CVR recordings are totally different. The day that CVR data is made public would be the last day I fly an aircraft equiped with one. (Really a mute point, since the a/c I fly isn't equiped with one).

I agree that ATC communications are public, but I also think that releasing the actual tapes to the media would be a big mistake. I'm sure the media would like those juicy sound bites to spice up the 6 oclock news, but without the analysis of an industy expert (a real one, not those talking heads they dig up for the newscast), a lot of damage can be caused to aviation careers, industry reputations, and the memory of loved ones. The media, and the public in generaly can not properly understand what they are hearing, so they shouldn't hear it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
swordfish
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 12:18 am
Location: CYZF

Post by swordfish »

This decision has huge impact on companies who investigate and enforce under their SMS.

Access to the CVR will automatically give you all the communications with ATC/on ATC frequencies that are tuned in the plane, as the CVR records everything - not just what the pilots say.

Not only does it provide information right up to the instant of the event, but it also conclusively indicates the demeanour, professionalism, and SOP adherence of the crew - all important and elemental parameters of an investigation.

TSB's, ATC's, and NavCanada's refusal to divulge this information during the course of an SMS investigation simply amounts to obstruction, and is therefore in violation of numerous Canadian statutes, regardless of their motivation for "privacy protection", concealment, or protection of their own intersts or liabilities.
---------- ADS -----------
 
layed-off-pilatus guy
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 6:59 pm
Location: NOT PEACE RIVER

Post by layed-off-pilatus guy »

Hey swordfish, how does it feel to be unemployed? :lol: Happy job hunting, and honestly, good luck.
---------- ADS -----------
 
sprucemonkey
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:31 pm

Post by sprucemonkey »

---------- ADS -----------
 
ei ei owe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:39 am
Location: getting closer to home

Post by ei ei owe »

gli77 wrote:I have worked with a few carriers that do random checking of FDR and CVR parameters and it is amazing what you come across.
What is it that you've found? Has anything been done to the crew?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Everything comes in threes....
Lommer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:44 pm

Post by Lommer »

ei ei owe wrote:
gli77 wrote:I have worked with a few carriers that do random checking of FDR and CVR parameters and it is amazing what you come across.
What is it that you've found? Has anything been done to the crew?
Gli, I too am very interested in how that all unfolded. As a pilot I fully accept that my day may need to be recorded so that the facts can be determined in the event of an accident or incident, and I support that the those recordings relevant to an accident should be made public. I do find it a little tough to swallow that even if I perform my job flawlessly that these recordings may be combed through for other things. Anyone who flies in a multi-crew operation probably has friends that they fly with and have fairly personal conversations with when in the cockpit. The idea of someone reviewing these recordings on a regular basis and interpreting them out of context is an idea I find revolting.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Swissair recordings revive horrifying drama of 1998 tragedy

Post by CD »

Swissair recordings revive horrifying drama of deadly 1998 tragedy

21 May, 3:51 PM

OTTAWA (CP) - After years of legal skirmishes, Canadians can finally hear the gripping soundtrack for one of the country's worst aviation disasters.

The Swissair Flight 111 air traffic control tapes, kept under lock and key since the 1998 tragedy, have been released to The Canadian Press following a tortuous court battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The hours of recordings include 12 critical minutes, starting as the aircrew reports smoke in the cockpit and ending with a last desperate transmission as the aircraft nose dives at high speed into St. Margaret's Bay, N.S., near Halifax.

"Swissair one eleven heavy is declaring emergency," says one of the pilots in a heavy Swiss-German accent, as the second pilot makes a nearly simultaneous transmission in the cockpit confusion: "We are declaring emergency now."

"Heavy" refers to the aircraft's nearly full fuel tanks as it began its transatlantic flight from New York to Geneva on Sept. 2, 1998.

The voices of the Swiss pilots - Urs Zimmermann, 50, and co-pilot Stephan Loew, 36 - become slightly muffled in the recordings when they don their oxygen masks. The official transcripts do not indicate which pilot is speaking at any time.

Ten minutes later, as smoke billows through the cockpit and a massive electrical failure disables all flight controls, including the lights, there's another harrowing transmission: "Eleven heavy we starting to dump (fuel) now we have to land immediate."

There's a slight urgency in his voice as the pilot makes a final, repetitive transmission: "And we are declaring emergency now Swissair one eleven."

The MD-11 aircraft, with 229 people aboard, flew for about six more minutes before it slammed nose first and almost upside down into the dark, choppy sea off Peggy's Cove at 10:31 p.m. Atlantic time.

Hitting the water at about 550 kilometres an hour, everyone aboard died instantly and the fuselage shattered into several million pieces. The tremendous impact caused seismographic needles to flutter in Halifax and Moncton, as if an earthquake had hit.

The recordings add a human dimension to otherwise sterile transcripts, as air traffic controllers and the pilots betray hints of taut emotion while the high-altitude tragedy unfolds.

As the Halifax airport controller attempts to contact the aircraft there's a final brief radio burst, sounding like someone shouting. Investigators could not determine the source, but the electronic squeal provides a eerie coda to the drama.

Vic Gerden, chief investigator into the crash, said families of the victims were briefed frequently at the time of the disaster but have not previously heard the audio.

"I don't recall them having the opportunity to listen to the tapes," Gerden, who retired last year, said in an interview from Winnipeg.

Miles Gerety, who lost his brother Pierce in the crash, predicted that hearing the tapes will be painful for families.

"These things bring an event back to people, the family members, who've put a lot of time and distance between the crash ... and their losses," he said in an interview from his home in Redding, Conn.

"I think it would be hard to hear."

A four-year, $57-million investigation by the Transportation Safety Board blamed flammable insulation that allowed a small electrical arc fire to spread uncontrolled, melting the cockpit ceiling, shorting out all power and leaving the aircrew helpless.

Within days of the tragedy, the safety board released transcripts of the air traffic control recordings but steadfastly refused to release the audio itself, saying it contained personal information.

John Reid, then Canada's information commissioner, initially supported the refusal. "In my view, the voices, along with the tonal and emotive characteristics constitute personal information of three air traffic controllers and the two pilots," he ruled in 1999.

But after receiving complaints about the board's refusal to release ATC recordings for four other air disasters, Reid changed his mind and went to court. He lost at federal court in 2005, but won on appeal in 2006 when three justices dismissed the claim that ATC audio recordings by their very nature contain personal information.

The Federal Court of Appeal also dismissed a claim by Nav Canada, responsible for air traffic control, that such recordings are "commercial" and should therefore be withheld to protect the business interests of the organization.

The safety board and Nav Canada then went to the Supreme Court of Canada but were rebuffed last month when the high court refused leave to appeal. The board was therefore compelled to turn over the Swissair tapes after an Access to Information Act request from The Canadian Press, which was a complainant in the court action over the four other air disasters.

The high court ruling brings Canada into line with the United States, where ATC recordings have been available to the public for years. Even in Canada, radio enthusiasts have long been able to freely monitor ATC transmissions because open, unencrypted communication among aircraft and ground controllers has been seen as an essential safety measure.

At least one U.S.-based website (http://www.liveatc.net) broadcasts live ATC transmissions from airports around the world, including Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

In Canada, cockpit voice recordings of conversations between pilots remain legally unavailable because of privacy rules. The Swissair investigation was hobbled in part because cockpit recording equipment failed in the last few minutes of the flight, apparently due to electrical failures.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

Lommer,

Contrary to what is written here in this thread, I don't know of any airline that regularly reviews flight recorder data to check up on pilots. If there are, it's a pretty dirty thing to do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Post by Dash-Ate »

Or you could just erase the CVR as this "test pilot" allegedly did


http://fromtheflightdeck.com/Reviews/727/TWA727/

WTF?


While Cruising at mach .816 at 39,000 feet pressure altitude and attempt was made to extend 2 degrees of the trailing edge flaps independently of the leading edge slats, The Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 leading edge slats began to extend. Two seconds later the aircraft began to buffet and roll slowly to the right. Six to seven seconds later the roll rate began to increase do to increasing slat asymmetry as the Nos. 2,3 and 6 slats retracted. The No. 7 slat failed to retract




The aircraft had a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and it was undamaged. 21 minutes of the 30 minute tape were blank. The remaining 9 minutes of the tape had good fidelity but pertained only to the flightcrew conversations after the aircraft was on the ground at Detroit. Tests showed no discrepancies in the CVR’s electrical and recording systems. The CVR can be bulk erased from the flightdeck after the aircraft was on the ground with its parking brake engaged, but the Captain stated that he usually activates the Bulk Erase feature at the conclusion of each flight but he could not recall having done so this time. The rest of the flight crew stated that they did not erase the tape nor did they see the captain activate the erase button on the CVR control panel.


I doubt that was sop...
---------- ADS -----------
 
That'll buff right out :rolleyes:
Image
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

They don't even have to erase it. They can just pull the breaker before the flight.

Pilot's understand how important the contents of the flight recorder can be. This can be seriously undermined by using the information against flight crews without a legitimate reason like an accident or incident.
---------- ADS -----------
 
gli77
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Over there and to the left.

Post by gli77 »

Lommer and ei ei owe in most cases the only time I have seen data used is from an FDR, QAR, or engine monitor unit. The data is used for trend monitoring, and verifying proper operations.

With my current operation the QAR disc is removed and analyzed daily. EMU data is downloaded every L check. And the downloading of the FDR is decided between engineering and flight ops. This is not in Canada. Not all countries operate the same as Canada. I have seen the CVR periodically downloaded and especially if contract pilots are used.

Pulling the cb for a recording unit would be incredibly stupid and likely something even a union may not be able to protect a pilot from.

The cockpit is not a private place and a little common sense I would think would be obvious.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

Lommer and ei ei owe in most cases the only time I have seen data used is from an FDR, QAR, or engine monitor unit. The data is used for trend monitoring, and verifying proper operations.
gli77, that sort of contradicts what you stated earlier.
I have worked with a few carriers that do random checking of FDR and CVR parameters and it is amazing what you come across. :oops:
So is it "random checking" or "trend monitoring"?

And yes, it's not smart to pull the circuit breaker on recorders. I was merely stating what pilots may be inclined to do if their employers were doing "random checking".
---------- ADS -----------
 
gli77
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Over there and to the left.

Post by gli77 »

Well CID trend monitoring is done with engine monitor unit data and I think most people understand that.

So if you look at the part that you quoted engine monitor is not included. As I indicated some operations I have been to do randomly check a CVR or FDR.

I also indicated that the only time I have seen data used is from FDR/QAR/EMU. I have not seen CVR conversations used as was indicated by my post. Listened to is one thing, used for something is another.

Stop trolling, and put 2 + 2 together when reading.

I doubt many pilots would trip the cb if their operator was checking CVR or FDR recordings. In the event that there was an incident and it was found the CB was tripped they've just cast a dark shadow over themselves. Although someone should pull the breaker to your computer.

I recently read that the NTSB released the transcripts from the CVR of the comair CRJ crash in Kentucky where they lined up on the wrong runway. Apparently the transcripts show that during the taxi out the crew were talking about non flight related matters which was in violation of Comairs sterile cockpit procedures. I would be less concerned about what someone might hear during a random check and what an accident investigation will hear.

Maintenance, pilots, ATC, fueling, and other ground staff adhere to policy and procedure manuals. No one should be free from repercussions from not adhering to those policies no matter how they were found to be in contravention to them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
zforzulu
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:03 am

Post by zforzulu »

Re: FDR

A friend of mine works for an airline where the FDR info for every flight gets downloaded to their flight safety department. This info is analyzed for SOP conformity and any trends which may affect safety. All the information is "de-identified" (ie. pilot names, flight number and date) and this flight safety department is run completely separate from "The Management". There are no repercussions for individual pilots due to the FDR information.

The CVR information is never downloaded.

Now, if there was an incident or accident, all of the above would not apply.

z

PS. I agree that accident pilot-ATC transcripts may be released, tapes should not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CD »

cpl_atc wrote:So given this development, what transcripts/audio recordings are available to the press? Does this cover only those transcripts associated with a TSB investigation? Or only major TSB investigations? Or any time frame of the press' choosing?
Very good question... I do see that the tv news has chosen to give the audio recordings from SR111 the number one spot overnight and have been playing them over and over...

How does that media saying go? "If it bleeds, it leads." :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

Well CID trend monitoring is done with engine monitor unit data and I think most people understand that.
Perhaps. I've seen engine exceedance data downloaded directly from an engine trend monitor recorder, the FADEC, the FDAU or the FDR. Depends on the airplane.
Although someone should pull the breaker to your computer.
My computer doesn't have a breaker. But it does have an A/D converter. :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”