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

[FN FAL]

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.

So what's next, GM's union putting a motion before a federal judge that the public does not have a "legitimate purpose" for purchasing a toyota?

The American Medical Association filing a motion in federal court that people don't have a "legitimate purpose" for possessing a firearm?

 

[A Squared]

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?

Yes, 49 USC 1114(c)(1) prohibits the release of recordings and restricts the release of transcripts to only those portions found to be relevant to accident investigation.

49 USC 1154 restricts the discovery of CVR recordings and transcripts for judicial proceedings to certain circumstances. Using the CVR to manipulate the emotions of a jury is not one of those circumstances.

 

[A Squared]

So what's next, GM's union putting a motion before a federal judge that the public does not have a "legitimate purpose" for purchasing a toyota?

The American Medical Association filing a motion in federal court that people don't have a "legitimate purpose" for possessing a firearm?

Uhhh, no, very different situation. there is no law against purchasing toyotas. there is no (federal) law that prohibits the possession of a firearm in general (I know that there are some laws which restrict firearms posession)

There *ARE* laws which prohibit the release of CVR tapes, in this case it seem that the prosecutor might be or may have been granted an exception to that law. ALPA is protesting the the exception to the law. Big difference.

 

[dash8driver]

So what's next, GM's union putting a motion before a federal judge that the public does not have a "legitimate purpose" for purchasing a toyota?

The American Medical Association filing a motion in federal court that people don't have a "legitimate purpose" for possessing a firearm?

what is next? airing every cvr on the next episode of jerry springer? maybe next time everyone has a right to listen in on everyone elses phone conversations? next time maybe the lawyers can ask to have a parade down main street with mutilated bodies in glass coffins. maybe the AMA should have all their phones tapped and played for the public on demand.

do those scenarios sound silly? so do yours.



.

 

[A Squared]

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".

The legitimate purpose has already been defined by US statute. The union is not attempting to impose thier definition of legitimate use, they are attempting to influence th judges opinion of whether this fits the legitimate purpose which is already statutorily defined.

*edit* my understanding of the "legitimate purpose" of a CVR is this:

1) Accident investigation to further safety.

Obviously, this is not the case here.

2) evidence to ensure that somone *who is a party to a recording* receives a fair trial (if that party requests the CVR be released).

In the situation at hand, the CVR will be used to shock and stun the jury so hopefully they will judge Moussaoui more harshly. Now Moussaoui was not a party to the CVR, it will not be used to ensure him a fair trial, and he is not requesting the CVR be released, and he and his trial are only peripherially related to the specific events taking place during the recording.

It is very difficult for me to imagine how this fits the statutorily define legitimate use.

 

[Hold West]

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?

Betcher azz there is. Maybe if you actually read an ALPA motion, you would see:

Federal Law Prohibits Public Disclosure ​

Of Cockpit Voice Recorder Tapes. ​

In response to almost exactly the same situation presented here -- efforts by the news media to obtain for public broadcast copies of a CVR tape put at issue during a trial -- Congress passed the statute now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1154. The purpose of that statute, as the House Committee Report bluntly explained, was to "prohibit CVR tapes from being released to the public." H.R. Rep. No. 661 (Attachment 1 at 4). Specifically, Congress sought to prevent a repetition of precisely what Gannett seeks here: a judicial decision to release a CVR tape to the news media. Id. To protect the rights of litigants in cases arising out of aircraft crashes, the CVR statute allows use of CVR tapes and transcripts at trial, where necessary, "only if the court places the part of the transcript or the recording under seal to prevent the use of the part of the transcript or the recording for purposes other than for the proceeding." 49 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(4)(B). See also S. Rep. No. 450, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6376, 6381 (Attachment 2 at 6) (statute intended to "eliminate the use of [CVR materials] except to insure that litigants are able to receive a fair trial"). Accordingly, Gannett’s request for access to the CVR tapes should be unequivocally denied.
To understand this legislation fully, some background on the use of CVR information -- and the limitations on the use of that information -- is important. CVRs have been mandatory equipment on most large commercial aircraft since 1965, and since that time the use of CVR recordings and transcripts has been limited by regulation and statute. To airline crewmembers, CVRs represented a frightening and unprecedented invasion of privacy and intrusion into the workplace, since the existence of a CVR meant that every workplace conversation would be recorded, and every statement and action would be placed into a record to be reviewed and analyzed in excruciating detail. Statement of ALPA President Henry A. Duffy before the Aviation Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate (May 10, 1990). (Attachment 3 at 1-2.) However, pilots also recognized, as did the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), that CVRs provided a unique opportunity to advance aviation safety by allowing detailed analyses of the cause of aviation accidents -- assuming, of course, that one could be sure that the pilots were not inhibited in their cockpit communications by the presence of the recorder. (Id.) In response to these concerns, the FAA would require CVRs and agreed that CVRs would be used only for accident investigation and prevention:

Information obtained from the [CVR] record is used to assist in determining the cause of accidents or occurrences in connection with investigations under Part 830 [of the NTSB’s regulations]. The [FAA] Administrator does not use the record in any civil penalty or certificate action.
​

14 C.F.R. § 121.359(h).
By itself, however, the FAA proved unable to restrict the use of CVR materials to their intended purposes for several reasons. First, the FAA was not the only entity with access to CVRs; the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"), which had independent jurisdiction to investigate aircraft accidents, also regularly came into possession of CVR tapes. Second, in 1966, the year after CVRs were introduced, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act, which greatly increased disclosure of information in the hands of the federal government. And third, at about that time news media interest in commercial air disasters began to increase. Consequently, pilots and their families became subjected to CVR transcripts in the news media immediately after aircraft accidents, which in turn led to uninformed speculation about the cause of the accidents, and "unwarranted and unfair accusations being made against the flight crew and others involved." (Attachment 3 at 2.) To curb such abuses, in 1982 Congress supplemented the FAA’s existing regulatory limits on CVR use with legislation directed at the NTSB. That legislation provided:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the [NTSB] shall withhold from public disclosure cockpit voice recorder recordings and transcriptions, in whole on in part, of oral communications by and between flight crew members and ground stations, that are associated with accidents or incidents investigated by the Board: Provided, That portions of a transcription of such oral communications which the Board deems relevant and pertinent to the accident or incident shall be made available to the public by the Board at the time of the Board’s public hearing, and in no event later than 60 days following the accident or incidents[.]
​

Pub. L. 97-309 § 2(c), 96 Stat. 1453 (October 14, 1982).
​

Unfortunately, even this legislation proved insufficient to protect pilots’ privacy interests, and in the few years following that 1982 statute there were three notorious instances where CVR material found its way into media accounts. (Attachment 3 at 2-3.) The third of these incidents, which served as the final impetus for passage of new legislation, occurred when the actual CVR tape from a Delta Airlines jet involved in a fatal crash in Dallas was played on national news programs. (Id.) Again Congress reacted, this time by enacting in 1990 the provisions of the statute now at issue.
First, Congress mandated procedures for the NTSB to follow regarding protection and disclosure of CVR information when the NTSB was investigating an aircraft accident. In a provision now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1114(c), Congress reiterated that the NTSB could not release CVR recordings, and could only release CVR transcripts at specified points during its investigation.
Second, with the stated goal of "prevent[ing] a repetition" of the incident in which the CVR from the Delta crash was broadcast on national news, Congress imposed precise limitations on the use of CVR information in judicial proceedings. H.R. Rep. No. 661 (Attachment 1 at 4). These limitations, which are now codified in 49 U.S.C. § 1154, were independent of the limitations placed on the NTSB; indeed, since limitations on the NTSB existed under the 1982 statute, the purpose of this portion of the 1990 law was to broaden the protections against release of CVR materials to parties other than the NTSB. As the House Committee Report explains:

Although it was the intent of the existing [1982] law that the recordings themselves would not be made public, the law did not prohibit release of the recordings by persons other than the Board. In 1989, a Texas state court ordered Delta Airlines to release a CVR tape from an accident which had occurred a year earlier. The CVR tape was then broadcast by the media. The reported bill would prevent a repetition of this unfortunate occurrence. It would prohibit CVR tapes from being released to the public.
​

It goes on a even greater length...

 

[Hold West]

So what's next, GM's union putting a motion before a federal judge that the public does not have a "legitimate purpose" for purchasing a toyota?

The American Medical Association filing a motion in federal court that people don't have a "legitimate purpose" for possessing a firearm?

Well, why not? If there were a court case that involved them, and the judge granted them a motion to intervene, they could file anything they want. What you mention above is such total nonsense that it would immediately be tossed out, but they'd be welcome to file such a brief. Ain't it a great country, where everyone can have their day in court? Even dead guys, represented by their union.

 

[FN FAL]

Uhhh, no, very different situation. there is no law against purchasing toyotas. there is no (federal) law that prohibits the possession of a firearm in general (I know that there are some laws which restrict firearms posession)

There *ARE* laws which prohibit the release of CVR tapes, in this case it seem that the prosecutor might be or may have been granted an exception to that law. ALPA is protesting the the exception to the law. Big difference.

Ah, it becomes clearer now. I knew someone would cite a specific reference to a regulation, as you did in your first post. I kind of knew that there were regulatory limitations on CVR/CDR recordings, but wasn't quite sure, thanks.

I hate to say it again, but the "legitimate purpose" statement threw me for a loop. As with anything the media presents to the public, things can appear out of context in their articles. Maybe the ALPA attorney was intending that the jury's hearing of the tapes v. reading the transcripts, wouldn't serve any more "legitimate purpose"?

If the jury is given transcripts, does the media in the court room get to see the transcripts? I haven't been following this trial very closely, so I don't know if they have allowed tv cameras or audio recordings by media at the trial. Also, I don't know if I have ever seen a written transcript of any of the 9/11 CVR in the media or if those transcripts have ever been released.

The reason I'm asking those questions, is because if the jury was to hear the tapes in court and the media was present and could Video or Audio tape during the trial, then they might as well make the tapes public, because they would surely be by the time the six o'clock news rolled around.

 

[FN FAL]

Ain't it a great country, where everyone can have their day in court? Even dead guys, represented by their union.

Actually, the dead guys don't have a day in court. Those tapes being played or not, only affect the living.

 

[A Squared]

The reason I'm asking those questions, is because if the jury was to hear the tapes in court and the media was present and could Video or Audio tape during the trial, then they might as well make the tapes public, because they would surely be by the time the six o'clock news rolled around.

Nope, even if the use of a CVR or transcript is allowed in a trial by 49 usc 1154, there are still provisions which prohibit it from being disseminated to any " person that does not need access to the part of the transcript or the recording for the proceeding." which I take to mean, no one but counsel for the defense, prosecution and the jury, maybe some other insiders, but ceratinly not the press.