ATC recording of accident on the news.

[Jerricho]

Here's a turn up for the books.

As discussed here in the Canada forum (http://www.pprune.biz/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193085) , we had the unfortunate incident of a C208 experience icing and crashed while trying to return to the airfield. Within minutes, thanks to liveatc.net, the R/T transcript had been published on the web in in the afternoon news papers. The next day, the actual recording of the R/T was played on local CTV news.

The poor controller who was talking to the aircraft as it went down has had the whole thing played for all the world to listen to before any official investigation had started. That's gotta make you feel really special :rolleyes:

This is just so wrong for so many reasons I don't know where to start.

[Tall-Lion]

Is it ? I don't know... aren't radio transmissions free to be received by anyone who has the equipment ?

Internet is just a relay of that information... to 99 percent of the people the controllers voice is anonymous, I'd say.

Of course to be confronted with the mishap again, is most likely not what you want being the controller in casu.:ugh:

[Jerricho]

to 99 percent of the people the controllers voice is anonymous, I'd say

True, but I'm one of the 1% who's voice is more than a little recognisable here in Winnipeg. it wouldn't take a rocket-scientist to obtain a name.

But that's beside the point. Not in this case, but what would have happened if there had been controller error or omission?

[cossack]

I find that I'm caught in between on this issue.

I used to listen to ATC when I was younger, (and even occasionally when I was older for training purposes :O ) so restricting listening would be detrimental as well as nigh on impossible.

However, having the recordings played almost instantaneously on the news and transcripts published in print and on on the web, does not do anything to help the situation, either for the controller or for the family of the pilot.

It was a similar situation here in August with AFR358. Information was published and remarks taken out of context and passed on to an uninformed public.

I know in the UK, the Wireless Telegraphy Act (where's HD when you need him?) prohibits the use of information obtained from listening to ATC communications. I doubt whether similar legislation exists in Canada, or indeed anywhere else.

I too am very recognisable at my place of work and would not want my identity readily obtainable. I suppose I've given up some of my right to anonimity by posting here, as my IP could be used to track me down.

Its sad but it is only a matter of time before an error is played for the world to hear. I wonder if then the rules will be changed?

[604guy]

From Canada's Radio Act and is required knowledge for the Restricted Radiotelephone Operators Licence:


Radio operators and all persons who become acquainted with radiocommunications are
bound to preserve the secrecy of communications. No person shall divulge the contents, or
even the existence, of communications transmitted, received or intercepted by a radio
station, except to the addressee of the message or his accredited agent, or to properly
authorized officials of the Government of Canada or a competent legal tribunal, or an
operator of a telecommunications system as is necessary for the furtherance of delivery of
the communication.

goes further to say,

Any person who violates the secrecy of communications is liable, on summary
conviction, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, or, in the case of a
corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.

I was a designated examiner for this licence 30 years ago and knew it was there then, glad to see it still is.

[Jerricho]

Thanks 604.......... I knew there was something like that in existance.

So, will we see CTV getting fined over it? They bloody well should.

[cossack]

I'm glad to see there is legislation here too. I must have missed that when I did my licence :O Legislation is all well and good, but unless it is backed up by legal action to make an example of law-breakers, then the law will continue to be broken.

$25K to CTV is small change and well worth the price to them of a story.

[604guy]

Jerricho & cossack,

I agree media outlets that release this information in Canada should get nailed for it. I believe this would come under the responsibility of Industry Canada and if you think Transport is toothless…….

It also may enter a grey area depending on the source. It the source is not Canadian then where does that leave any legislated penalties? The example that jumps to mind is radar information that comes from the ETMS. FAA has this big computer in Maryland or Virginia that receives input from their own air traffic system as well as foreign sources ie NavCanada. This information is used for traffic management and planning by numerous air traffic systems, not just USA and Canada. For NC to use the information they have to provide this FAA computer a feed of all radar (civilian at least) data as well as flight planning information, proposed or otherwise. Even though it isn’t legal for NavCanada to divulge that information to individuals or corporations in Canada the information is very public. How? As the ETMS is housed on a US govt computer system and due to much more lenient public access laws in that country, people can set themselves up in business and put a drop on that computer and voila….. the flight-tracking industry is born. Now I have overly simplified the whole thing but you get the gist. So even though this information is technically sourced from NC, as it doesn’t flow from them directly to the public not much can be done. NC finds the ETMS far too valuable to cut off the feed. This was a roundabout way of wondering if these radio communication feeds could be sliding through a similar loophole.

As an aside, I find it ironic that what could be very valuable information to those bent on ill will has its source in a US govt computer and lenient access to information laws. This from the country who proclaim to be leading the charge on anti-terrorism. Stepping off the soapbox now.

[loubylou]

absolutely shocking
would hate for my voice to be aired on the news
hope the news station is brought to book over this

louby

[Iron City]

For 604guy and others: The ETMS data released to the outside is delayed to make it pretty useless for people to use as a system for tracking targets to attack. It also has military and other sensitive targets and tracks filtered out. The data in real time is considered sensitive official use only information and is not allowed outside. With the military and other tracks added it is at least sensitive security information. Surveillance information from the civil system (not Joint Surveillance System (JSS) ) is not classified national security information. Certain information about the JSS and products are.

The reception of radio transmissions in the US is allowed to anyone who wants to listen. The use to which the information obtained may be put is different for the different radio services. For aeronautical communications I don't believe there is an expectation of privacy or a legal limitation on the recording or transcription of these communications. As a practical matter in the past there are so many hours of routine communication that the cost of recording it all in the (thankfully) rare event of something exciting to the general public going on is prohibative relative to the news or publicity value. With the advent of technology tools to acquire and create transcripts that are reasonably priced and tools for disemination (the internet, for example) it may be time to revisit assumptions implicit in usual practice or statute.

I, for one, would not want it to be illegal to listen but along with others posting here I 'm not sure that allowing unlimited disemination of recording and transcripts of parts of communications in all forms is a good idea. Maybe when we all go to digital radio and use encoding to make more efficient use of the limited spectrum it will be impossible (or more difficult for awhile) for casual observers to listen in, record, create trnscripts, etc.

[Scott Voigt]

Iron City;

Actually if you were to use what you pick up on the scanner for commercial purposes, you are in violation. We had a news service put out a rebroadcast of an emergency that I worked at a little airport that we do the approach/enroute services for. The ATM got some nice phone calls about how good the service sounded etc... on how we handled the emergency. ATM then got on the phone to the regional office who contacted the radio station and advised them that if the story wasn't pulled with the actual ATC feed, legal action would follow... In this case, a heafty fine or even the possiblity of losing a station license... They pulled it...

regards

Scott

[av8boy]

Scott,

With respect, this is contrary to my understanding of US law.

47 USC 605 “Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications,” (which is Section 705 of the Communications Act) says, in part:

No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.

Further, 18 USC 2510 (18 USC is the part of the Code which defines Crimes and 2510 is part of Chapter 119, relating to interception of communications) appears to allow the receiving, storing, and republication of aviation radio traffic. Finally, I’ve seen an FCC opinion which states that the rebroadcast of police and fire radio traffic over the Internet is not prohibited. Because police and fire radio traffic is covered by the same laws and regulations (as far as I know) as aviation, I would think that there’d be no restriction on commercial publication of aviation radio traffic either.

This is not to say that I don’t believe that the incident with the RO and the commercial radio station went down exactly as you’ve described--I am sure it happened just as you've said. Rather, I’m just curious about what regs were cited in that conversation.

Thoughts?

Dave

[604guy]

Iron City

With respect to the delay on the ETMS stream, yes I understand there is a delay in the actual information of some few minutes. I wasn't suggesting the feed be very useful in "target tracking" It is all the ancillary information that comes with that stream that causes me angst. I should have been clearer in my remarks. Ignoring the grapic depiction, what comes with it is some text with things like ETA at a specific location, aircraft type, owner name etc. Not such a big deal for airline ops. Their aircraft for the most part are operating on well publicized schedules and generally have the name of the operating airline emblazoned down the side of them. I however are one of those folks who operate in the corporate world. Our aircraft, like most in this sector, do not sport corporate logos. Short of the legally required registration the aircraft tend to be nondescript. For security reasons obviously we like to keep our comings and goings unpublished. Unfortunately through the magic of ETMS and the flight following industry that information is all available. You don't even have to sit in front of the computer and wait for info. You can set it up so you get an email alert when aircraft depart or even file. And yes all military aircraft domestic and foreign are filtered...not so with our crowd. And yes we can request that our registration(s) be blocked from being published. Unfortunately that is all that gets blocked. The rest of the flightplanning info is all there for the world to see. We can't get filtered completely ala military. It isn't hard to stand at an airport fence and watch an aircraft depart, observe it's markings and look up those markings in any number of reference locations for owner name etc etc etc. Now since the aircraft type is not blocked, if I am the only aircraft of a particular type that took off from your airport of choice in the last few minutes.....it takes very little intellect to put all the information together as to where we are going and what time we are getting there! Even though we have taken pains to be secure with our information here in this country, the FAA computer has been quite talkative as it were. Do you see my cause for concern now?

[Iron City]

AV8BOY:


In all radio services in the US that I know of you are free to listen. Where the problem comes in is in retransmitting, publishing or otherwise using the communications.

I think if you look at the history of the statutes you cite you'll find the intent was to make it possible for people listening in on radio messages to provide them to others in order to assist a ship, aircraft or whatever in distress. Once the immediate emergency is past, the aircraft is down or ship sunk and rescue operations complete there is no useful purpose to relaying the communications, especially transcripts and recordings.

If the communications are recorded and rebroadcast that is, in essence, third party traffic and is illegal in most radio services. The internet, being an unregulated wild west kind of place, goodness knows.


If this rebroadcast or publication of transcripts would happen in the US I believe a short testy and one sided conversation with the FAA, the NTSB (interfering with an investigation is a federal offence and is prosecuted with varying degrees of vigor depending on the U.S. Attorney involved but I have heard of a 10 year sentence for stealing a piece of wreckage from a GA accident site) or maybe the FBI if there is a criminal aspect to it or maybe the DHS. In short, it really is not something that should be done, is not necessary for other than shock value and in fact could backfire on the media people involved.

And the whole reason we are discussing this is because someone was trying to do their job of getting the Feb Ex through and paid dearly. RIP