CVR Bill in Congress. NOT GOOD !!
11-23-2009 | 08:28 AM
#61
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
I have very little doubt that if Clowngress passes this, ALPA will authorize another SOS - and more pilots would be on board this time. I think (and I would hope) that this garbage would cause an uproar within the industry.
I'm getting sick of these people pretending to know things...just say, "You know what, screw it, you fly the damn airplane, Congressman. Let me know when you hit the ground..err, I mean land."
I'm getting sick of these people pretending to know things...just say, "You know what, screw it, you fly the damn airplane, Congressman. Let me know when you hit the ground..err, I mean land."
Regardless if your a regional/major pilot affiliated with ALPA, SWAPA, APA, IPA, Teamsters, ect....This is a movement that can have negitive ramifications on any pilot group in the worst possible way. What do WE have to gain from this Bill?? NOTHING but doom. This effort needs to be a collective effort by all groups regardless of Union name.
I agree with you on ALPA walking the 'political' line on this topic. If there are enough 'line flying' pilots from the membership's majority of ALPA (UAL, DAL, CAL, FedEx, ALA, EGL ect) who stand up and say "HECK NO" on this legislation, the Union best heed the collective voices of it's membeship. Last time I checked, T-Props, RJ's, Boeing, Airbus all have CVR's, thus any of us in the Part 121 would be liable to this bill's wrath.
I would tend to believe (or hope) that Union Leadership would have no choice but to go with the majority in telling the government absolutely NOT on this Bill, not in ANY FORM. Plain and simple, doing anything short of that would assist ALPA (and other unions) in loosing further credibility amongst the membership in selling out the group to the 'governmental machine'.
In the end, the Union Leadership's ultimate responsibility is to represent the 'good' of the pilots who are part of their Union, not rub the backs of the "clowns on the Hill".
There are times and places to pick your fights, and this is the time.
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 11-23-2009 at 08:49 AM.
11-23-2009 | 11:51 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
ALPA's position paper on this issue
I just logged in to ALPA's website, and I must admit I found nothing on this issue on the front page.
I have, however, found a position paper written by ALPA for the "INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TRANSPORTATION RECORDERS" that occurred May 3-5, 1999."
In it, ALPA discusses the agreement that allowed CVR's and DRDR technology into the flight deck:
It is important to note the following (highlighting is my own):
In short, that is ALPA's position.
I encourage all pilots to read the entire report and contact their elected reps regarding this proposed legislation.
I have, however, found a position paper written by ALPA for the "INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TRANSPORTATION RECORDERS" that occurred May 3-5, 1999."
In it, ALPA discusses the agreement that allowed CVR's and DRDR technology into the flight deck:
From an airline pilot's perspective, the cockpit voice recorder issue is probably the most sensitive. It has certainly been the most controversial. When CVRs were first installed, it was with the understanding that pilots would be sacrificing their rights to privacy to help advance air safety by accommodating a tool that was useful in accident investigation. The quid pro quo was that the recorded information be of a specific duration (30 minutes), be erasable by the flight crew on the ground, and be used only for its intended purpose, that is, accident investigation.
Thus there was a balance between a flight crew's individual right to privacy and the collective benefits for aviation safety. Over time certain of these constraints have become blurred, and the balance has tilted. Some of the newer CVRs - quite legal, and certainly more capable Technologically - have no erase feature, and up to 2 hours of voice data is recorded. Abuses of CVR information, including inappropriate release of the recorded information, and inclusion in transcripts of non-pertinent conversation, have been viewed by many airline pilots as violating the original compact.
Thus there was a balance between a flight crew's individual right to privacy and the collective benefits for aviation safety. Over time certain of these constraints have become blurred, and the balance has tilted. Some of the newer CVRs - quite legal, and certainly more capable Technologically - have no erase feature, and up to 2 hours of voice data is recorded. Abuses of CVR information, including inappropriate release of the recorded information, and inclusion in transcripts of non-pertinent conversation, have been viewed by many airline pilots as violating the original compact.
In 1980 the ALPA Board of Directors (BOD) authorized a suspension of service as an expression of opposition to FAA plans to monitor cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder tapes for the purpose of human factors research. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was stillborn, but the ALPA policy letter remains in place.
I encourage all pilots to read the entire report and contact their elected reps regarding this proposed legislation.
11-23-2009 | 12:03 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
I think this is aimed at addressing the bill, which is still in its very early form, and at the same time focusing on the current bills that ALPA supports.
11-27-2009 | 02:49 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 0
From: Left Seat
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
B727DRVR
Cargo
14
08-22-2008 02:23 PM
