High court rules cockpit recordings are public information

[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.

[CD]

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."

[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.

[grimey]

Does that mean we can now post ATC recordings on here without any mods getting fussy?

I am not a lawyer...

From the appeal:

[10] She then proceeded, as she was required, to an analysis under subsection 19(2) of the Access Act. She determined that the information should not be disclosed because it was not “publicly available”, except for the occurrences at Clarenville where the communications had already been made publicly available. She considered paragraphs 8(2)(a) and (b) of the Privacy Act and found that those provisions were not applicable to the cases before her. She concluded that the Board had properly exercised its discretion under subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act. As a result, she was satisfied that she did not need to address subsection 20(1), nor section 25 of the Access Act, nor whether subsection 9(2) of the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2, infringed subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).



[11] It is my view that the application judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the information requested was “personal information” under the Access Act and the Privacy Act. I consequently do not need to determine the other issues raised in this appeal, except for subsection 20(1) of the Access Act.

The appeal court only ruled on our rights under the Access Act and Privacy Act. It did not rule in any way to get rid of the Radiocommunications Act, subsection 9(2).

[79] In my view, therefore, NAV-CANADA has not satisfied its burden of showing that the ATC communications are confidential within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(b). Since the first two requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) are not met, I need not consider the other criteria of this provision. I conclude that the ATC communications at issue do not qualify for exemption from disclosure under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access Act.

So no, the Radiocommunications Act, subsection 9(2) ("do not intercept and divulge"), still applies. It just means that people like Widow can demand transcripts or tapes under the Access Act, and not be denied based on privacy reasons.[/quote]

[CD]

So no, the Radiocommunications Act, subsection 9(2) ("do not intercept and divulge"), still applies. It just means that people like Widow can demand transcripts or tapes under the Access Act, and not be denied based on privacy reasons.

Perhaps...

But now that the cat is out of the proverbial bag, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that this provision of the Radiocommunications Act also doesn't apply and should be struck down. Note how the media spun the court decision:

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.

Anyway, in case you missed it, the media is having a field day with the recordings of the SR111 accident (even though the transcripts were relased years ago). Here are a few of the headlines from today:

SWISSAIR DISASTER Air traffic control tapes detail final moments in cockpit - Globe and Mail
Doomed flight's tapes released; 1998 Swissair cockpit audio adds human element to transcripts from tragic crash near Peggy's Cove - Toronto Star
Swissair tapes made public; FLIGHT 111 crashed into atlantic in '98. Battle to have air-traffic recordings released went all the way to Supreme Court - Montreal Gazette
Swiss Air Flight 111's final moments Gripping soundtrack of disaster released - Winnipeg Free Press
Tapes chronicle final moments of Flight 111; Audio captured harrowing voices of pilots - Calgary Herald
Painful tapes detail the death of Swissair 111 - Hamilton Spectator

RVR6000 also posted a link to the actual recordings over on the ATS Question forum:

Swissair Flight 111 atc recording

[gli77]

Touche CID. LOL. I love good wit.

[CD]

Reaction swift to cockpit tape ruling; Transport Canada investigators may use recent Supreme Court decision on Clarenville crash

THE TELEGRAM (ST. JOHN'S)
Peter Walsh
05/23/2007

A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision over the release of voice cockpit recordings appears to have handed a "valuable" legal tool to airplane crash investigators, but the precedent-setting decision has some pilots worried about their careers.

Last week, The Telegram reported on the conclusion of a long court battle over public access to recordings of the last words between pilots and air traffic controllers.

The legal fight was sparked by the 1998 crash of Kelner Airways Flight 151 near Clarenville.

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and Nav Canada, the private company that operates air traffic control, claimed the cockpit-to-ground conversations were private. Canada's Information Commissioner at the time, John Reid, disagreed and went to court.

The case ended last month when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the conversations are not necessarily private and can be released.

Quick reaction

Reaction to the story was immediate.

On Thursday, The Telegram was contacted by an information officer with the safety board to arrange release of the recordings of Kelner Flight 151, nine years after the initial request was denied.

An investigator with Transport Canada, a federal department separate from the safety board that tracks crash investigations, also contacted The Telegram Thursday.

The investigator requested the file numbers of the court documents involving the Clarenville crash but was not authorized to explain why Transport Canada was calling.

A source in Transport Canada explained the recent Supreme Court decision is a precedent and could become a powerful investigative tool in current and future air accidents in Canada.

"It could become very valuable to us," said the source.

"We can imagine some instances where it can become important. To us it's not a specific event. We're just working on the future."

A spokeswoman for Transport Canada would not be specific about why it was calling but said the department must stay on top of all air accident investigations to keep Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon informed.

The precedent has some of Canada's pilot's worried.

Cockpit communications have long been considered private by pilots and the unions that represent them.

Nav Canada and the Safety Board have previously agreed in collective agreements not to use pilot's recorded conversations in performance reviews or internal disciplinary hearings.

The recent court decision does not rule directly on this issue but still has pilots worried.

Many people identifying themselves as pilots, but writing anonymously, wrote to an Internet forum on AvCanada.ca, a Calgary-based website for aviation professionals.

"I agree that (air traffic controller) 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 six o'clock news, but without the analysis of an industry 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 general can not properly understand what they are hearing, so they shouldn't hear it."

Another person identifying themselves as a pilot wrote, "What I think they need to do is find a way to release information in an accurate, non-judgmental way so that families have access to whatever they feel will help them heal, but not force pilots to fear for their careers and their life savings every time something outside of their control goes wrong."

The Supreme Court decision also led to the immediate release of the cockpit recordings of the 1998 tragedy of Swiss Air 111, which crashed into the ocean near Peggy's Cove, N.S., killing 229 people. Access to information requests over Swiss Air 111 and Kelner Airways 151 cockpit recordings were among four requests that eventually constituted the successful case made by the Information Commissioner.

[CD]

Clarenville plane crash tape released; Last moments of Kelner Flight 151 revealed in cockpit audio

THE TELEGRAM (ST. JOHN'S)
Peter Walsh
05/29/2007

It took nine years and a precedent-setting case in the Supreme Court of Canada, but the final words from the cockpit of Kelner Flight 151 - which crashed near Clarenville in 1998 - have been released to The Telegram through an Access to Information request.

The tape reveals the daring of pilot Boyd Bursey, but also possibly explains why the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (TSB) partly blamed him for the crash.

The transcript has also caused one of the passengers to re-evaluate his opinion of what happened that day.

The single-engine Pilatus PC-12 crashed in a bog after an engine failure at 16, 000 feet. No one died, but all 10 people on board suffered serious injuries.

A request nine years ago for the audio records of the cockpit communications by a CBC reporter was refused. But after a long court battle involving the Information Commissioner of Canada and the TSB, the tapes have now been released.

Flight 151 took off from St. John's Monday, May 18, 1998 on its way to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The TSB accident report later said Bursey failed to follow emergency procedure after he first noticed a low-engine oil pressure warning light about 23 minutes into the flight.

On the tape released to The Telegram, the first sign of anything unusual also occurs at about 23 minutes into the flight. However, Bursey doesn't mention an oil pressure light to the Gander Flight Centre.

Bursey: "I'd like to turn around and go back to Torbay (airport) there if possible please."

Tower: "You need any assistance there, sir?"

Bursey: "Negative sir. Just like to return there. We seem to have forgotten something."

Five minutes later, Bursey reveals the first sign of serious trouble.

Bursey: "Gander, Kelner 151 is requesting immediate descent."

Tower: "Is there a problem we should know about sir?"

Bursey: "Yes, sir. We'd like to declare an emergency. We got some engine vibrations going on right here now.

Tower: How many people on board?"

Bursey: "I got 10 souls on board."

Thirty-two minutes into the flight Bursey's voice becomes urgent, but not panicked.

Bursey: "We have a complete engine failure. Complete engine failure. Repeat complete engine failure. I need vectors to the nearest suitable airport."

Tower: "Are you able to make it to St. John's?"

Bursey: "Negative sir, negative."

With the commercial plane reduced to a glider, Bursey - his voice returned to calm - and the controller discuss weather conditions.

They decide to head for a Clarenville airstrip about 20 miles away. At this point, another pilot in a nearby Air Nova flight breaks in and offers assistance and moral support. "If there is anything we can do, don't hesitate. Hang in there, Bursey."

For 12 mostly quiet minutes on the tape Bursey glides the plane downward in a race against time, distance and gravity.

For several minutes Bursey is hopeful he can make the airstrip, or at least a nearby highway. But 44 minutes into the flight, he faces a cold reality.

Bursey: "It doesn't look like we're probably going to make the field there. I'm just waiting to break out below the cloud layer and let you know what's going on."

Seconds later he loses radio contact with the Gander tower. Another pilot listening in, this time with Labrador Airways, reveals Bursey's daring plan to save the lives of his passengers.

Lab Air: "And Gander, he's going to try to put it on a bog."

Tower: "He's going to what?"

Lab Air: "He's not going to make the field. He's going to put it down in bog."

Tower: "OK."

Passenger Don Pilgrim, who was sitting in the rear of the plane, says he didn't know anything was wrong until he heard the engine blow.

"It was 20 minutes down to hell. We knew we couldn't survive that. We knew we were going to die. All our hopes and dreams and memories of our children were gone," he says.

Pilgrim wrapped his coat around his head and lowered it between his knees.

The pilot's daring bog landing worked and all survived. Pilgrim suffered cuts to his legs. Bursey, the pilot, was not as lucky.

"He had his face nearly severed. He had the skin pulled back over his face. He had other broken bones and his legs were hurt too. The co-pilot had his leg broken in four or five places," says Pilgrim.

Pilgrim was angry at the TSB for partly blaming Bursey for the crash. The TSB said the plane may have landed safely under power if Bursey had turned back to St. John's when he first noticed the oil pressure light.

Praise for pilot

For years, Pilgrim dismissed that finding, instead praising Bursey as his "saviour."

That was until he read the full transcript of the tape given to him by The Telegram. Pilgrim says "the hair stood up on my neck" when he read that Bursey initially wanted to return to St. John's because he had "forgotten something."

Pilgrim now agrees with the TSB that Bursey should have returned to St. John's immediately after the oil pressure light engaged.

"I'm shocked over what was said. I know he saved our lives, but he could have killed us as well. It was something that I never heard before. This accident shouldn't have happened. I'm not condemning Boyd, it's just a case of men pushing machinery, but it's sad."

Attempts to reach Bursey by The Telegram were unsuccessful.

On the Web

Podcast: Excerpts of cockpit recording from the crash of Kelner Airways Flight 151 http://www.thetelegram.com

[Widow]

Gee, I guess there can be something learned from these recordings.

[CD]

I still personally disagree with the publication of the recordings. Transcripts, on the other hand, should be made available.

In the case of SR111, the transcripts of the communications with ATC had been released publicly shortly after the crash. However, as we saw last week, although there was nothing new to be learned it was suddenly 'news' again because the public could now listen to the voices of people who were about to die.

[Widow]

It sounds as though this person hadn't even had access to the transcripts before.

[Rotten Apple #1]

I'm not sure what could be learned from this recording...other than Boyd is one cool dude. Had he panicked, in the powerless descent towards the cloud obscured "ground", things might have been tragically different.

So what was exactly gained by the press and the rest of us actually "listening", that couldn't have been gleaned by "reading"?

I'm some glad he's got the job he (BB) has now. An asset to the outfit...

[Rotten Apple #1]

And another point:

I just skimmed the TSB report, exactly what new information was gained from the transcript/recording that seemed to upset Mr. Pilgrim? The TSB published these findings a long time ago...

Sorry Widow, not with you on this one.

JD

p.s. I seem to remember a certain QM inspector/director/superintendant who fought the initial Canadian certification of the the Caravan (IIRC), being single engined, for IFR "revenue" passenger flights (sometime back in the late 80's). He took a lot of flack for it from HQ and elsewhere...perhaps unjustly so.

[CID]

Something can indeed be learned from the transcript. Namely, even IFR equipped single engine airplanes shouldn’t be operated commercially in IMC.

As far as the release of the actual recording, all it does is give the news media yet another means to satisfy the general public’s voyeuristic appetite.

[Widow]

And another point:

I just skimmed the TSB report, exactly what new information was gained from the transcript/recording that seemed to upset Mr. Pilgrim? The TSB published these findings a long time ago...

Sorry Widow, not with you on this one.

I thought it didn't seem he'd read the transcript. If the guy had already read the transcripts, he would have understood the TSB report. Wonder why he didn't read it before.

[eternalhold]

One thing left to consider is if the move towards cockpit video recorders were to go through will the air operators, TSB or other agencies be able to protect them from the public or media or will some wonder of the courts force them to be released to those other than stakeholders.

Somebody has forgotten that these tapes are made to assist in establishing the cause of an incident and enhance safety by trying to prevent future occurences under similar circumstances.

I agree that transcripts or recordings should be made available for viewing by parties who have a legitimate interest in the incident/accident and if there are indications of criminal involvement or negligence that documents of relevance be provided as evidence in any court proceedings.

The media are vultures looking for any horror show to boost ratings. You don't need this information to tell the story unless you want to sensationalise the event. It is sad when you open the morning paper and find that somebody has been killed after stepping in front of a bus, but it's just disgusting when instead of a rather neutral picture of the bus some pervert will have a close up of the splat!

It really seems like we've lost any sense of decency and taste. How long until we've got front row seats to watch somebody losing a fight for their life on channel 4. How would the people that allow these recordings to be made available or broadcast this feel if some idiot got to watch their final moments while drinking a beer and scratching their nuts.

If nobody can assure me that my last moments won't make the evening news that night or 20 years later then there are no guarantees that I might "inadvertently" pull that breaker when I enter the cockpit.

[Widow]

In my eyes, the issue was that NavCan was protecting the recordings in part by being "private" instead of "public". All government agencies (public) are required to release information to stakeholders, black inking personal information anyway.

Can someone comment, or does anyone have knowledge, of whether the transcripts were available to stakeholders before this ruling?

Again, it seems in that one case, the passenger did not read the transcripts prior to the release of the recordings. Was that because they were not available, or because he was not being active in his own "investigation"?

[cruisecontrol]

Easy EH sounds like you've got lots of passion there.