Flying Lawyer
Pittsextra
Quote:
Why is that?
The answer was contained in the opening paragraphs of BBC news report which you originally linked in post 847.
You quoted a part of the report and then said:
Quote:
It is my personal view that filming with a Go-Pro is not done for flight safety and so the various arguments that relate to other recorded aircraft safety media do not apply.
Your error lies in "do not" apply.
If you had said "should not" then that would have been an opinion with which some might agree and others would not.
Whether or not you agree with the relevant law (I do), the AAIB will not and can not disclose unless ordered to do so by a court which has the power to order disclosure.
The law also specifies the conflicting factors which a Judge must take into account before deciding whether or not to order disclosure of material sought. (In all such applications.)
Similar restrictions upon disclosure apply in all jurisdictions in the developed world.
The terminology and procedure vary but the principle remains the same, as does the underlying flight safety reason for the restrictions.
If you genuinely wish to learn more then you should start with:
- The Convention on International Civil Aviation. In particular, Annex 13. The Convention has been amended several times since it was adopted in Chicago in 1944 so ensure that your read the most recent version.
- The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996. In particular, Regulation 18.
- Regulation EU 996/2010 on the Investigation and Prevention of Accidents and Incidents in Civil Aviation. In particular, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 14.
Some of your subsequent comments in post 878 further confirm your lack of understanding of the underlying reasons for the relevant laws. I tried to explain them to you several times in the other Hunter thread but eventually gave up.
I say "genuinely wish to learn" because, unless you are prepared to contemplate the possibility, however unpalatable it may be, that you are currently failing to understand then reading the documents I've referenced will be a waste of time.
You may also find that discussion is more productive if you don't accuse people with whom you disagree of "heckling".
Yep you got me. It is the law.
The irony is that having read Article 14 (which you initially referred me to) that Article has the title "protection of sensitive
safety information" and then continues in paragraph 3 that notwithstanding all of paragraphs 1 & 2 records can be disclosed if the administration of justice decides it should be...
I agree my sentence construction was poor and I used the words "do not" when "should not" was the better choice. However actually for all of the pages of legal text there is still a debate to be had AND in fact it is a debate that is likely to happen.
So where does this leave us in terms of aviation safety? Do we want to treat personal Go-Pro cameras in the same way as specific safety related aviation recording devices? Do you believe that Go-Pro camera footage should be covered by the laws you refer me to, and if so how is that protecting aviation safety?
Finally it would seem quite odd and ultimately pointless to have para 1 & 2 of Article 14 if para 3 drives a coach and horses between it, especially because one might well believe that those with the ability to pull the trigger on para.3 are very likely not to have much in the way of an aviation background. Doesn't that then become less to do with aviation safety and more to do with process?
Thanks for the reply and for completeness I didn't suggest you were heckling.