Since when does an airline union get to define what is and isn't legitmate purpose?

[Occam's Razor]

Sigh...

As much as I hate to agree with the bane of the Dakota County School Board, I have to agree...

1. It just means you're right for once!
2. There is no such thing as a "Dakota County School Board"! It's Independent School District 191, or 196.

I keed!

 

[FN FAL]

I suppose you ought to learn about what the original purpose and use of a CVR was to be before opening one's pie hole about it.

"Purpose" and "use" of a CVR? I would assume that would be the recording of data for playback at a later date.

 

[Fugawe]

"Purpose" and "use" of a CVR? I would assume that would be the recording of data for playback at a later date.

Not for playback on Oprah, or on the evening news, or for every ambulance chasing lawyer to hyper-criticize out of context.

That is where these tapes will end up if released in court........would you want to have this happen to you.

CVR was designed for accident/incident analysis by the DOT and NTSB.....not for the judicial system except perhaps in the context of an aircraft accident. That is not the reason they are after the tapes now.

Despite Court TV, Judge Judy, and Hollywood's rantings, the public does not have a need nor a right to know, see, and hear anything and everything.

Fugawe

 

[GogglesPisano]

This sets a dangerous precedent. Expect CVR's to be played during future airline accident trials. Just what the families of the pilots need.

 

[FN FAL]

CVR was designed for accident/incident analysis by the DOT and NTSB.....not for the judicial system except perhaps in the context of an aircraft accident. That is not the reason they are after the tapes now.

Despite Court TV, Judge Judy, and Hollywood's rantings, the public does not have a need nor a right to know, see, and hear anything and everything.

"Designed for", "original purpose", "use" are terms that don't help me better understand how a union can define "legitimate [lawful] purpose".

Is there a law on the books that determines whether or not it would be lawful for the public to be allowed or denied access to the tapes?

 

[FN FAL]

Spoken like one who has never witnessed the roles of advocates and attorneys in a court of law. Of course it's the judges opinion, but each side makes a case for their position, and the judge considers those legal positions and should make a decision based on the law. Using your understanding, there would never be any arguments in front of judges!

True, the judge is the "impartial fact finder".

 

[FN FAL]

Unions do not enter these topics with the false expectation of having a "binding" influence. Thier intent is rather to be "persuasive".

I can agree with that statement. I think the union could have used a different argument than the "public's legitimate purpose".

 

[Care269]

Is there a law on the books that determines whether or not it would be lawful for the public to be allowed or denied access to the tapes?

If the tapes belonged to a government agency (ATC recordings, police 911's, etc...) then a Freedom of Information request (FOIL) could be made by anyone. If the agency decided releasing the contents could jeapordize an ongoing investigation, then the tapes could be redacted. If the tapes belonged to a private agency (as in the matter at hand), then the tapes could be requested by an attorney pursuant to a Subpoena Ducas Tecum. The private agency could contest the Subpoena. The matter would then be litigated and the balace test would be the relavancy and need for the tapes against the agencies privacy rights.

 

[dash8driver]

because the people on the tapes arent available to protest, the association they belong to (and to which they paid dues to protect their interests) is making the argument for them.

 

[FN FAL]

Is there a law on the books that determines whether or not it would be lawful for the public to be allowed or denied access to the tapes?

If the tapes belonged to a government agency (ATC recordings, police 911's, etc...) then a Freedom of Information request (FOIL) could be made by anyone. If the agency decided releasing the contents could jeapordize an ongoing investigation, then the tapes could be redacted. If the tapes belonged to a private agency (as in the matter at hand), then the tapes could be requested by an attorney pursuant to a Subpoena Ducas Tecum. The private agency could contest the Subpoena. The matter would then be litigated and the balace test would be the relavancy and need for the tapes against the agencies privacy rights.

Thanks for the reply.

I personally don't have a desire to see the tapes made public, I never watched any of the be-headings videos, so to me this wouldn't be much different.

I tossed the question out to stimulate discussion on the topic and more specifically the issue regarding a union attempting to dictate the public's "legitimate purpose".