Heathrow comments
Heathrow . .
I too spent many years as a controller and I understand your feelings re how the media distort whatever they get their hands on. Having said that, I think one needs to distinguish between pubic info and private info. My position -- and that of the courts or laws in many countries - is that whatever is transmitted "over the air" should be considered public info; that is to say it should not be considered "owned" by any party, and it should be available and distributable without restriction. I say that because those words and sounds are already public by the very nature of the fact that radio transmissons are by definition "out there" in the public domain.
Where you and I would agee (I assume) is in the release of data that has not been transmitted in a form that anyone can receive, and is not intended to be public. CVR info falls in that category. Conversations recorded on CVR's are just that -- conversations -- and include the same private information that any other conversation between individuals may contain. Those words and sounds are recorded solely for the purpose of assisting post-facto in an investigation of an accident or incident. Therefore they should not be used for any purpose that does not advance that investigation.
On that point, my reference to the release of CVR's in my earlier post (regarding AF358) was meant to refer to release of that data in and for legal proceedings. Desite Jerricho's comments earlier, in many cases it is still extremely difficult in Canada for lawyers to get access to original CVR data as part of information and evidence gathering in legal proceedings. Whether that is "right or wrong" will surely be further debated here and elsewhere. I'm simply reporting on the current situation in Canada.