The Supreme Court of Canada handed down its highly anticipated decisions in five copyright cases today, which in effect scrapped some of the existing copyright fees and clarified the copyright rules for the Internet. It’s a rare day that the court releases so many decisions in one area of law on the same day.
Barry Sookman, a partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP and
co-chairman of the firm’s technology law group, says, “The court takes a very
pragmatic approach to looking at copyright and the Internet.”
The
Copyright Board had approved taxes for downloading but they were appealed by
large Canadian telecommunications companies like Rogers Communications, Bell
Canada, Telus Communications, and Shaw Cablesystems.
In Entertainment Software Association v. Society of Composers,
Authors and Music Publishers of Canada and Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors
and Music Publishers of Canada, the SCC was tasked with determining
what qualifies as a communication to the public.
In Rogers, the
court found that on-demand services have to pay for uses of music, says Sookman.
Rogers argued that it could have on-demand services like pay-per-view for free,
which was not considered communicating to the public.
“The court rejected
[Rogers’ argument], taking a very pragmatic approach, saying, ‘Look, in effect,
copies of music are being made available to the public and so it doesn’t make a
difference whether it’s one at a time or over time, significant works are made
available to the public and so that’s a communication which is to the
public,” he says.
On behalf of the majority in Rogers, Justice
Marshall Rothstein wrote: “In these circumstances, the transmission of any file
containing a musical work, starting with the first, from the online service’s
website to the customer’s computer, at the customer’s request, constitutes
‘communicat(ing)’ the work to the public by telecommunication.”
In
Entertainment Software Association, the court found that a download was
not a communication to the public.
“[The court] rejects an approach that
would treat the Internet in a completely different way than a traditional
distribution,” says Sookman.
SOCAN argued that buying a video game in a
store is not a communication to the public, but when sold over the Internet it
is considered as such.
“The court rejected this artificial distinction
based on the principle of technological neutrality,” he says.
In Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
v. Bell Canada, the court determined that music previews are considered
a fair dealing. As such, previews on iTunes, for instance, do not merit the
payment of royalties.
“Because of their short duration and degraded
quality, it can hardly be said that previews are in competition with downloads
of the work itself. And since the effect of previews is to increase the sale and
therefore the dissemination of copyrighted musical works thereby generating
remuneration to their creators, it cannot be said that they have a negative
impact on the work,” wrote Justice Rosalie Abella in the decision.
With
its ruling in Province of Alberta v. Canadian Copyright Licensing
Agency, which involved a dispute over copyright rules for photocopying
textbooks at schools, Sookman says the top court clarified the framework for
fair dealing.
“Under fair dealing, there has to be two steps. The first
step looks to see if it’s an allowable purpose and the second step looks to see
if the dealing is a fair one,” he says. “The court said you could look at the
purpose of the user rather than the purpose of the copier. . . . That is a
radical departure from previous cases.”
Now everything comes into the mix
when determining if a particular deal is fair or not, he adds. The SCC sent this
case back to the Copyright Board for further review.
Sookman says these
rulings have a wide-ranging impact.
“This goes beyond just music because
it applies to everything that contains music. . . . This is very significant
because it means that when the Internet is now used as a delivery mechanism —
whether it’s for e-books, movies, video games, or music — SOCAN doesn’t get
paid,” he says.
The songwriters still get paid under the reproduction
rights, but they won’t get paid twice as SOCAN was seeking to achieve, he says.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
France, Britain, Germany and Sweden called Monday on the United Nations to quickly draw up a comprehensive arms trade treaty
France, Britain, Germany and Sweden called Monday on the United Nations to quickly draw up a comprehensive arms trade treaty that will reduce what they called "a growing threat to humanity".
The appeal came as UN member states were set to launch talks later Monday in New York on drafting the first comprehensive arms trade treaty, which activists say is all the more necessary given the mounting bloodshed in Syria.
"There is a clear case for governments to act now," said Sweden's trade minister in a joint statement with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain.
"Every year, millions of people around the world suffer from the direct and indirect effects of the poorly regulated arms trade and the illicit trafficking of arms," they wrote in the statement published in European newspapers.
They said that hundreds of thousands of people were killed or injured, many were raped or forced to abandon their homes, while others lived their lives under a constant threat of violence.
"Coupled with a growth in the illicit trafficking of arms, we are facing a growing threat to humanity," they said, noting that as some of the largest exporters in Europe, their countries bore "a special responsibility in this matter".
The ministers wrote that the arms trade treaty should be legally binding, but nationally enforced.
"This will ensure the global consistency required to make the treaty effective, while maintaining state signatories' right to decide on arms transfers," they said.
The ministers also stated that they believed that the arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies.
"It is also of great importance that the treaty includes strong provisions on human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development," said their statement.
Russia and China are Syria's main allies at the UN Security Council, and have routinely opposed international efforts to slap sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad's regime in the wake of a crackdown on dissent that activists say has killed over 15,800 people since March 2011.
They are set to join other governments, like Iran, that are friendly with Syria in opposing plans for the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to set criteria to halt the transfer of arms and other equipment that can be used against civilians or to stoke a conflict.
The United States - which produces six billion bullets a year - wants to exclude munitions from the treaty, while China does not want it to cover small arms, which it exports en masse to developing countries.
According to a UN working draft, India - the world's biggest arms importer - Japan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia insist they must be free to equip their armed forces at will.
China, Russia and Arab countries say the accord's criteria are subjective and politically motivated, while South Korea does not want to hinder technology transfers.
Brian Wood, Amnesty International's arms control chief, said diplomats face an "enormous task" as they try to wrap up the accord by the end of July, and said the final text could be watered down in the interest of consensus.
If all goes well, he said the treaty could come into force in late 2013, after some three dozen countries ratify the document.
The appeal came as UN member states were set to launch talks later Monday in New York on drafting the first comprehensive arms trade treaty, which activists say is all the more necessary given the mounting bloodshed in Syria.
"There is a clear case for governments to act now," said Sweden's trade minister in a joint statement with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain.
"Every year, millions of people around the world suffer from the direct and indirect effects of the poorly regulated arms trade and the illicit trafficking of arms," they wrote in the statement published in European newspapers.
They said that hundreds of thousands of people were killed or injured, many were raped or forced to abandon their homes, while others lived their lives under a constant threat of violence.
"Coupled with a growth in the illicit trafficking of arms, we are facing a growing threat to humanity," they said, noting that as some of the largest exporters in Europe, their countries bore "a special responsibility in this matter".
The ministers wrote that the arms trade treaty should be legally binding, but nationally enforced.
"This will ensure the global consistency required to make the treaty effective, while maintaining state signatories' right to decide on arms transfers," they said.
The ministers also stated that they believed that the arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies.
"It is also of great importance that the treaty includes strong provisions on human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development," said their statement.
Russia and China are Syria's main allies at the UN Security Council, and have routinely opposed international efforts to slap sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad's regime in the wake of a crackdown on dissent that activists say has killed over 15,800 people since March 2011.
They are set to join other governments, like Iran, that are friendly with Syria in opposing plans for the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to set criteria to halt the transfer of arms and other equipment that can be used against civilians or to stoke a conflict.
The United States - which produces six billion bullets a year - wants to exclude munitions from the treaty, while China does not want it to cover small arms, which it exports en masse to developing countries.
According to a UN working draft, India - the world's biggest arms importer - Japan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia insist they must be free to equip their armed forces at will.
China, Russia and Arab countries say the accord's criteria are subjective and politically motivated, while South Korea does not want to hinder technology transfers.
Brian Wood, Amnesty International's arms control chief, said diplomats face an "enormous task" as they try to wrap up the accord by the end of July, and said the final text could be watered down in the interest of consensus.
If all goes well, he said the treaty could come into force in late 2013, after some three dozen countries ratify the document.
Monday, July 9, 2012
The Federal Court of Canada
The Federal Court is a Canadian trial court that hears cases arising under certain areas of federal law. The Federal Court is a superior court with nationwide jurisdiction. The court was created on July 2, 2003 by the Courts Administration Service Act when it and the Federal Court of Appeal were split from their predecessor, the Federal Court of Canada.
On October 24, 2008, the Federal Court was given its own Armorial bearings by the Governor General, the third court in Canada to be given its own Coat of Arms - after the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and Ontario Superior Court of Justice.[1]
The Federal Court consists of a Chief Justice and thirty-two other judges. Currently, there are 28 full-time judges (leaving five vacancies in the Court), along with four supernumerary judges, six deputy judges, and six prothonotaries.
Law Clerks are hired for one-year terms to help the judges research and prepare decisions. They are generally assigned to a particular judge.
The salary of judges are determined annually by the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Chief Justice receives $254,600 while other judges receives $232,300 annually.[2]
Jurisdiction The Federal Court cannot hear any case unless a federal statute confers jurisdiction on the Court to hear cases of that type.
Some examples of the sort of cases heard by the Federal Court are:
judicial review of immigration decisions,
intellectual property disputes,
cases involving admiralty (maritime) law,
various aboriginal law matters, and
claims against the Queen in Right of Canada. These instances of jurisdiction may either be exclusive or concurrent with provincial superior courts, depending on the statute. The Court has the authority to judicially review decisions made by most federal boards, commissions, and administrative tribunals, and to resolve lawsuits by or against the federal government.
Decisions of the Federal Court may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. Because it is a superior court of national jurisdiction, judgments are enforceable across Canada without the need for certification by the courts of a specific province.
Judges and prothonotaries
NameAppointedNominated byPosition Prior to Appointment
Paul S. Crampton (Chief Justice) 2009
2011 (as Chief Justice) Harper Lawyer at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Yvon Pinard, P.C.(Supernumerary) 1984 Trudeau Member of Parliament for Drummond
Government House Leader
Sandra J. Simpson (Supernumerary) 1993 Mulroney Lawyer at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer (Supernumerary) 1993 Mulroney Lawyer at the Department of Justice
Douglas R. Campbell (Supernumerary) 1995 Chretien Provincial Court of British Columbia
Allan Lutfy (Supernumerary) 1996 Chretien Lawyer at Lavery, de Billy LLP
François Lemieux (Supernumerary) 1999 Chretien Lawyer at Herridge, Tolmie, Gray, Coyne and Blair LLP
John A. O'Keefe 1999 Chretien Lawyer at Foster O'Keefe LLP
Elizabeth Heneghan 1999 Chretien Lawyer (Sole Practitioner)
Dolores Hansen 1999 Chretien Provincial Court of Alberta
Edmond P. Blanchard 2000 Chretien New Brunswick Minister of Finance
Michael A. Kelen 2001 Chretien Lawyer
Michel Beaudry (Supernumerary) 2002 Chretien Lawyer at Beaudry, Bertrand
Luc Martineau 2002 Chretien Lawyer (Sole Practitioner)
Simon Noël 2002 Chretien Lawyer at Noël & Associates
Judith A. Snider 2002 Chretien Vice Chair of the National Energy Board
James Russell 2002 Chretien Lawyer at McDougall, Gauley LLP
James O'Reilly 2002 Chretien Executive Legal Office of the Supreme Court of Canada
Sean J. Harrington 2003 Chretien Lawyer at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Richard Mosley 2003 Chretien Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law and Social Policy
Michel M.J. Shore 2003 Chretien Immigration and Refugee Board
Michael L. Phelan 2003 Chretien Lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP
Anne L. Mactavish 2003 Chretien Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Yves de Montigny 2004 Martin Chief of Staff to the Minister of Justice
Roger T. Hughes 2005 Martin Lawyer at Sim & McBurney LLP
Robert L. Barnes 2006 Martin Lawyer at Burchell, Hayman, Parish
Leonard S. Mandamin 2007 Harper Provincial Court of Alberta
Russel Zinn 2008 Harper Lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP
David Near 2009 Harper Senior Counsel at Environment Canada
Richard Boivin 2009 Harper Associate Senior General Counsel with Aboriginal Affairs
Marie-Josée Bédard 2010 Harper Vice Chair of the Public Service Labour Relations Board
André F.J. Scott 2010 Harper Chair of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Donald J. Rennie 2010 Harper Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Litigation)
Mary J.L. Gleason 2011 Harper Lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP
Jocelyne Gagné 2012 Harper Lawyer at Lavery, de Billy LLP
Catherine Kane 2012 Harper Department of Justice Senior General Counsel
The prothonotaries of the court by seniority are:
Richard Morneau
Roza Aronovitch
Roger Lafrenière
Mireille Tabib
Martha Milczynski
Kevin R. Aalto
Former judges Chief Justice
Allan Lutfy: July 3, 2003 – September 30, 2011[3] Puisine judges
Paul U.C. Rouleau: July 3, 2003 – July 25, 2007[4]
Max M. Teitlebaum: July 3, 2003 – January 27, 2007[5]
W. Andrew MacKay: July 3, 2003 – March 20, 2004[6]
Frederick E. Gibson: July 3, 2003 – August 30, 2008[7]
James K. Hugessen: July 3, 2003 – July 26, 2008[8]
Pierre Blais, P.C.: July 3, 2003 – February 19, 2008[9]
Eleanor Dawson: July 3, 2003 – December 26, 2009[10]
Carolyn Layden-Stevenson: July 3, 2003 – December 12, 2008[11]
Johanne Gauthier: July 3, 2003 – October 21, 2011[12]
Konrad W. von Finckenstein: August 14, 2003 – January 25, 2007
Robert M. Mainville: June 16, 2009 – June 18, 2010
References
^ Media Release
^ Section 10 of the Judges Act
^ Lutfy was Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada from December 8, 1999, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from August 5, 1982, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from October 29, 1985, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from September 2, 1988, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from April 1, 1993, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from June 23, 1998, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from June 23, 1998, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from December 8, 1999, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from January 25, 2002, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from December 11, 2002, until the reorganisation.
[edit] External links
Federal Court website
On October 24, 2008, the Federal Court was given its own Armorial bearings by the Governor General, the third court in Canada to be given its own Coat of Arms - after the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and Ontario Superior Court of Justice.[1]
The Federal Court consists of a Chief Justice and thirty-two other judges. Currently, there are 28 full-time judges (leaving five vacancies in the Court), along with four supernumerary judges, six deputy judges, and six prothonotaries.
Law Clerks are hired for one-year terms to help the judges research and prepare decisions. They are generally assigned to a particular judge.
The salary of judges are determined annually by the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Chief Justice receives $254,600 while other judges receives $232,300 annually.[2]
Jurisdiction The Federal Court cannot hear any case unless a federal statute confers jurisdiction on the Court to hear cases of that type.
Some examples of the sort of cases heard by the Federal Court are:
judicial review of immigration decisions,
intellectual property disputes,
cases involving admiralty (maritime) law,
various aboriginal law matters, and
claims against the Queen in Right of Canada. These instances of jurisdiction may either be exclusive or concurrent with provincial superior courts, depending on the statute. The Court has the authority to judicially review decisions made by most federal boards, commissions, and administrative tribunals, and to resolve lawsuits by or against the federal government.
Decisions of the Federal Court may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. Because it is a superior court of national jurisdiction, judgments are enforceable across Canada without the need for certification by the courts of a specific province.
Judges and prothonotaries
NameAppointedNominated byPosition Prior to Appointment
Paul S. Crampton (Chief Justice) 2009
2011 (as Chief Justice) Harper Lawyer at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Yvon Pinard, P.C.(Supernumerary) 1984 Trudeau Member of Parliament for Drummond
Government House Leader
Sandra J. Simpson (Supernumerary) 1993 Mulroney Lawyer at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer (Supernumerary) 1993 Mulroney Lawyer at the Department of Justice
Douglas R. Campbell (Supernumerary) 1995 Chretien Provincial Court of British Columbia
Allan Lutfy (Supernumerary) 1996 Chretien Lawyer at Lavery, de Billy LLP
François Lemieux (Supernumerary) 1999 Chretien Lawyer at Herridge, Tolmie, Gray, Coyne and Blair LLP
John A. O'Keefe 1999 Chretien Lawyer at Foster O'Keefe LLP
Elizabeth Heneghan 1999 Chretien Lawyer (Sole Practitioner)
Dolores Hansen 1999 Chretien Provincial Court of Alberta
Edmond P. Blanchard 2000 Chretien New Brunswick Minister of Finance
Michael A. Kelen 2001 Chretien Lawyer
Michel Beaudry (Supernumerary) 2002 Chretien Lawyer at Beaudry, Bertrand
Luc Martineau 2002 Chretien Lawyer (Sole Practitioner)
Simon Noël 2002 Chretien Lawyer at Noël & Associates
Judith A. Snider 2002 Chretien Vice Chair of the National Energy Board
James Russell 2002 Chretien Lawyer at McDougall, Gauley LLP
James O'Reilly 2002 Chretien Executive Legal Office of the Supreme Court of Canada
Sean J. Harrington 2003 Chretien Lawyer at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Richard Mosley 2003 Chretien Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law and Social Policy
Michel M.J. Shore 2003 Chretien Immigration and Refugee Board
Michael L. Phelan 2003 Chretien Lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP
Anne L. Mactavish 2003 Chretien Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Yves de Montigny 2004 Martin Chief of Staff to the Minister of Justice
Roger T. Hughes 2005 Martin Lawyer at Sim & McBurney LLP
Robert L. Barnes 2006 Martin Lawyer at Burchell, Hayman, Parish
Leonard S. Mandamin 2007 Harper Provincial Court of Alberta
Russel Zinn 2008 Harper Lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP
David Near 2009 Harper Senior Counsel at Environment Canada
Richard Boivin 2009 Harper Associate Senior General Counsel with Aboriginal Affairs
Marie-Josée Bédard 2010 Harper Vice Chair of the Public Service Labour Relations Board
André F.J. Scott 2010 Harper Chair of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Donald J. Rennie 2010 Harper Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Litigation)
Mary J.L. Gleason 2011 Harper Lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP
Jocelyne Gagné 2012 Harper Lawyer at Lavery, de Billy LLP
Catherine Kane 2012 Harper Department of Justice Senior General Counsel
The prothonotaries of the court by seniority are:
Richard Morneau
Roza Aronovitch
Roger Lafrenière
Mireille Tabib
Martha Milczynski
Kevin R. Aalto
Former judges Chief Justice
Allan Lutfy: July 3, 2003 – September 30, 2011[3] Puisine judges
Paul U.C. Rouleau: July 3, 2003 – July 25, 2007[4]
Max M. Teitlebaum: July 3, 2003 – January 27, 2007[5]
W. Andrew MacKay: July 3, 2003 – March 20, 2004[6]
Frederick E. Gibson: July 3, 2003 – August 30, 2008[7]
James K. Hugessen: July 3, 2003 – July 26, 2008[8]
Pierre Blais, P.C.: July 3, 2003 – February 19, 2008[9]
Eleanor Dawson: July 3, 2003 – December 26, 2009[10]
Carolyn Layden-Stevenson: July 3, 2003 – December 12, 2008[11]
Johanne Gauthier: July 3, 2003 – October 21, 2011[12]
Konrad W. von Finckenstein: August 14, 2003 – January 25, 2007
Robert M. Mainville: June 16, 2009 – June 18, 2010
References
^ Media Release
^ Section 10 of the Judges Act
^ Lutfy was Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada from December 8, 1999, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from August 5, 1982, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from October 29, 1985, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from September 2, 1988, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from April 1, 1993, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from June 23, 1998, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from June 23, 1998, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from December 8, 1999, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from January 25, 2002, until the reorganisation.
^ Served on the Federal Court of Canada–Trial Division from December 11, 2002, until the reorganisation.
[edit] External links
Federal Court website
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Sweden came in second place after Switzerland, with Singapore taking third – the same top three as last year’s index.
Sweden came in second place after Switzerland, with Singapore taking third – the same top three as last year’s index.
The report, published by INSEAD, the leading international business school, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the United Nations ranks 141 countries/economies on the basis of their innovation capabilities and results.
“The GII is a timely reminder that policies to promote innovation are critical to the debate on spurring sustainable economic growth,” WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said Tuesday in a statement.
“The downward pressure on investment in innovation exerted by the current crisis must be resisted. Otherwise we risk durable damage to countries’ productive capacities. This is the time for forward-looking policies to lay the foundations for future prosperity.”
The top ten countries remain almost unchanged since the 2011 index, with only Canada dropping out of the exclusive first ten.
The other countries to grace the top of the list include Finland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Hong Kong (China), with Ireland and the United States of America taking ninth and tenth.
Soumitra Dutta, Roland Berger Professor of Business and Technology at INSEAD and the founder of the GII explained how the innovation was ranked.
“The GII seeks to update and improve the way innovation is measured. Today’s definitions must capture an environment which is context-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary. The 2012 variables were broadened in an effort to find the right mix which captures innovation as it happens today.”
The report, published by INSEAD, the leading international business school, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the United Nations ranks 141 countries/economies on the basis of their innovation capabilities and results.
“The GII is a timely reminder that policies to promote innovation are critical to the debate on spurring sustainable economic growth,” WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said Tuesday in a statement.
“The downward pressure on investment in innovation exerted by the current crisis must be resisted. Otherwise we risk durable damage to countries’ productive capacities. This is the time for forward-looking policies to lay the foundations for future prosperity.”
The top ten countries remain almost unchanged since the 2011 index, with only Canada dropping out of the exclusive first ten.
The other countries to grace the top of the list include Finland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Hong Kong (China), with Ireland and the United States of America taking ninth and tenth.
Soumitra Dutta, Roland Berger Professor of Business and Technology at INSEAD and the founder of the GII explained how the innovation was ranked.
“The GII seeks to update and improve the way innovation is measured. Today’s definitions must capture an environment which is context-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary. The 2012 variables were broadened in an effort to find the right mix which captures innovation as it happens today.”
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Final Report On the accident on 1st June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203 registered F-GZCP operated by Air France flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro - Paris Published July 2012
Final Report
On the accident on 1st June 2009
to the Airbus A330-203
registered F-GZCP
operated by Air France
flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro - Paris
-GZCP - 1
st June 2009 3
Table of Contents
SAFETY INVESTIGATIONS 1 TABLE OF FIGURES 7
GLOSSARY 11
SYNOPSIS 17
ORGANISATION OF THE INVESTIGATION 19
1 - FACTUAL INFORMATION 21
1.1 History of Flight 21
1.2 Killed and Injured 24
1.3 Damage to Aircraft 24
1.4 Other Damage 24
1.5 Personnel Information 24
1.5.1 Flight crew 24
1.5.2 Cabin crew 29
1.6 Aircraft Information 30
1.6.1 Airframe 30
1.6.2 Engines 30
1.6.3 Weight and balance 30
1.6.4 Condition of the aircraft before departure 31
1.6.5 Maintenance operations follow-up 31
1.6.6 Information on the airspeed measuring system 31
1.6.7 Checks and maintenance of the Pitot probes 33
1.6.8 Radio communications system 34
1.6.9 Systems function 35
1.6.10 Specific points on overspeed 42
1.6.11 Angle of attack protection and stall warning 43
1.6.12 REC MAX and OPTI flight levels 45
1.6.13 Onboard weather radar 45
1.7 Meteorological Conditions 46
1.7.1 Meteorological situation 46
1.7.2 Forecast charts 46
1.7.3 Meteorological analyses 47
1.8 Aids to Navigation 48
1.9 Telecommunications 48
1.9.1 Communications between the aeroplane and the ATC centres 48
1.9.2 Means of monitoring used by air traffic control services 49
1.9.3 Coordination between the control centres 52
1.10 Aerodrome Information 53
1.11 Flight Recorders 53
1.11.1 Flight recorder opening operations and read-out 54
1.11.2 Analysis of the flight recorder data 57
1.11.3 Analysis of computers 62
4
F-GZCP - 1
st June 2009
1.12 Wreckage and Impact Information 64
1.12.1 Localisation of the floating debris and the wreckage site 64
1.12.2 Work performed on floating debris 66
1.12.3 Examination of the wreckage 77
1.12.4 Summary 81
1.13 Medical and Pathological Information 81
1.14 Fire 81
1.15 Survival Aspects and SAR 81
1.16 Tests and Research 83
1.16.1 Underwater search and recovery operations 83
1.16.2 Study of unreliable indicated airspeed events
(temporary loss or anomalies) occurring in cruise on Airbus A330/A340 85
1.16.3 Analysis of functioning of systems 88
1.16.4 Analysis of aircraft performance 90
1.16.5 Reconstruction of the information available to the crew 93
1.16.6 Simulation of flight AF 447 in the Eurocat system 99
1.16.7 Aspects relating to fatigue 100
1.16.8 Work on Human Factors 101
1.16.9 Examination of the cockpit seats 106
1.17 Information on Organisations and Management 110
1.17.1 Organisation of Air France 110
1.17.2 Organisation of oversight of the operator by the DGAC 126
1.17.3 Air traffic services for a trans-oceanic flight 129
1.17.4 Search and Rescue (SAR) 130
1.18 Additional Information 136
1.18.1 Type Certification and continuing airworthiness 136
1.18.2 Information supplied to flight crews on the unreliable IAS situation 147
1.18.3 Information on the Stall 150
1.18.4 Simulator fidelity 154
1.18.5 Testimony 157
1.18.6 Previous Accidents and Recommendations 159
1.19 Useful or Effective Investigation Techniques 162
1.19.1 Resources used for phase 4 162
1.19.2 Resources used for phase 5 166
2.1 Accident Scenario 167
2.1.1 From the beginning of the CVR recording until
the autopilot disconnection 167
2.1.2 From the autopilot disconnection to triggering of the STALL 2 warning 171
2.1.3 From the triggering of the STALL 2 warning until the end of the flight 178
2.2 Pilot Training and Recurrent Training 182
2.2.1 Manual aeroplane handling and functional representation of flight 183
2.2.2 CRM training and exercises 184
2.2.3 Augmented crews 184
2.2.4 Flight simulators 185
2.2.5 Aeroplane behaviour in reconfiguration laws 186
2.3 Ergonomics 187
2.3.1 ECAM 187
2.3.2 Operation of the flight directors 188
2.3.3 Stall warning (operation and identification) 189
F-GZCP - 1st June 2009 5
2.4 Operational and technical feedback 190
2.5 Oversight of the Operator by the national aviation safety
authority (DGAC/DSAC) 192
2.6 SAR operations 193
2.7 Radio-communications with control services 194
2.7.1 Controllers’ and crew’s planned actions 194
2.7.2 Limits on the use of the Eurocat system in Senegal 194
2.7.3 Alert service provision 195
2.8 Lessons learnt from the search for the wreckage of flight AF 447 195
3.1 Findings 197
3.2 Causes of the Accident 199
4.1 Recommendations from Interim Report n°2 203
4.1.1 Flight Recorders 203
4.1.2 Certification 204
4.2 Recommendations from Interim Report n°3 204
4.2.1 Recommendations on Operations 204
4.2.2 Recommendation relating to Certification 205
4.2.3 Recommendations relating to Flight Recorders 205
4.2.4 Recommendations relating to Transmission of Flight Data 206
4.3 New Recommendations 207
4.3.1 SAR coordination plans over maritime and remote areas 207
4.3.2 Training of SAR operators 207
4.3.3 Organisation of SAR in France 208
4.3.4 Air Traffic Control 208
4.3.5 Initial and recurrent training of pilots 208
4.3.6 Improving flight simulators and exercises 210
4.3.7 Ergonomics 210
4.3.8 Operational and Technical Feedback 212
4.3.9 Oversight of the Operator 212
4.3.10 Release of Drift Measuring Buoys 213
5.1 Air France 215
5.1.1 Aeroplane maintenance and equipment 215
5.1.2 Modifications to reference systems 215
5.1.3 Crew training 215
5.2 Airbus 216
5.3 EASA 216
5.3.1 Certification measures to improve aviation safety 216
5.3.2 Rulemaking actions from EASA to improve aviation safety: 216
5.4 Aviation industry actions 217
Table of figures
Figure 1: Flight profile 23
Figure 2: Position of the Pitot probes on the Airbus A330 32
Figure 3: Pitot probe (with protection caps) 32
Figure 4: Diagram of the speed measurement system architecture 33
Figure 5: FCU display 37
Figure 6: PFD in normal law 39
Figure 7: PFD in alternate 2 law 39
Figure 8: Pitot probe diagram 40
Figure 9: Overview 41
Figure 10: Effect of a drop in total measured pressure on standard altitude
and vertical speed 42
Figure 11: Evolution of stall warning threshold in relation to Mach 44
Figure 12: Example of a "PROG" page from FMS 45
Figure 13: TEMSI chart overlaid with infrarouge image at 0 h 00 47
Figure 14: Strip filled out by ATLANTICO controller 49
Figure 15: Representation of air traffic by the Eurocat system 51
Figure 16: FDR 54
Figure 17: CVR 54
Figure 18: FDR CSMU after removal of cover 54
Figure 19: FDR memory board 55
Figure 20: Removal of internal protective layers 55
Figure 21: Opening of CVR CSMU 56
Figure 22: CVR memory board after removal of thermal protections 56
Figure 23: CVR memory boards before cleaning 56
Figure 24: Level of turbulence observed during flight 58
Figure 25: Position and detail of "AIR DATA" selector 59
Figure 26: Parameters from 2 h 10 min 04 to 2 h 10 min 26 60
Figure 27: Parameters from 2 h 10 min 26 to 2 h 10 min 50 61
Figure 28: Parameters from 2 h 10 min 50 to 2 h 11 min 46 62
Figure 29: Optical disk showing the location of the readable zones 63
Figure 30: Memory component from one of the FCDC 64
Figure 31: All of floating debris (found between 6 and 26 June), last known position
and wreckage site 65
Figure 32: Wreckage localisation 66
Figure 33: Position of the recovered parts (exterior and cargo) 66
Figure 34: Position of the cabin part debris recovered in relation to the aircraft layout 67
Figure 35: Part of Galley G3: downwards deformation at the level of the galley’s heavy parts 68
Figure 36: Luggage rack fitting deformed towards the front Toilet door (L54) 68
Figure 37: Metallic stiffeners deformed by buckling 68
Figure 38: Floor of the LDMCR: with bottom-upwards deformation 69
Figure 39: Ceiling of the LDMCR: with top-downwards deformation 69
Figure 40: Passenger oxygen container recovered closed: the deformations
on the cover matched those on the box 69
Figure 41: Passenger oxygen container recovered open: the three pins are in place 70F-GZCP - 1
st June 2009 8
Figure 42: Flap extension mechanism (or flap track) No. 3 in retracted position 70
Figure 43: Part of the No. 3 flap track fairing on the left wing 71
Figure 44: Fin – In the foreground the base of the fin with the central and forward
attachment lugs 71
Figure 45: Rib 2 bent upwards as a result of bottom-upwards compression loads 72
Figure 46: HF antenna support 72
Figure 47: Arm 36G, right view: failure of the rudder attachments 73
Figure 48: Frame 87: shearing of the frame and fuselage skin along the frame 74
Figure 49: Right-hand aft lug: shearing of the fuselage along main frames 86-87 74
Figure 50: Frames 84 to 87: S-shaped deformation of frame 87, with frames 84 and 85
pushed in backwards; failure of the horizontal stabiliser actuator supports
between frames 86 and 87 (red circle) 75
Figure 51: Fin centre and aft attachments 75
Figure 52: Rear view of the left-hand aft lug: there were marks showing a backwards
pivoting of frames 86 and 87 76
Figure 53: Tensile failure of the centre spar at the level of the attachment
of the lateral load pick-up rods 76
Figure 54: Compression failure of the aft spar at the level of the attachments
of the lateral load pick-up rods and failure of the left-hand rod by buckling 77
Figure 55: Sonar Images of the debris field 77
Figure 56: Parts of the fuselage 78
Figure 57: Left engine air intake 78
Figure 58: Engine pylon 79
Figure 59: Cartography of the parts subsequently brought to the surface 79
Figure 60: Front view of engine 80
Figure 61: Trimmable horizontal stabiliser screwjack after being raised on board 80
Figure 62: Evolutions of recorded angles of attack and of the stall warning trigger threshold 89
Figure 63: Comparison between the recorded positions of the elevator and THS
and the simulation 90
Figure 64: Comparison between altitudes of the aeroplane and the simulation (longitudinal axis) 91
Figure 65: Flight envelope 92
Figure 66: Evolution of normal acceleration recorded at the time of activation
of the stall warning 92
Figure 67: Speed displays on the PFD 93
Figure 68: Evolution of the 3 CAS 94
Figure 69: Evolution of FD crossbars 96
Figure 70: Position of the area where ECAM messages are displayed 97
Figure 71: ECAM displays at different moments (if no message has been erased) 97
Figure 72: Evolution of the REC MAX (simulation) Source Airbus 99
Figure 73: Source: Airbus FCOM supplied to Air France 103
Figure 74: Source FCOM Airbus 104
Figure 75: Source TU Air France 104
Figure 76: View of the cockpit seats 106
Figure 77: General view of the left seat 106
Figure 78: The seat’s horizontal position adjustment systems 107
Figure 79: Right seat armrest on the side-stick side 108
Figure 80: Roller marks on the guidance rail 108
Figure 81: Right side seat cushion 109F-GZCP - 1
st June 2009 9
Figure 82: Marks on the adjustment mechanism 109
Figure 83: Dial indicating armrest position 110
Figure 84: Malformation of the crotch belt fastening 110
Figure 85: A typical display on a flight logging interface 111
Figure 86: Strip created after coordination between ATLANTICO and DAKAR Océanic 129
Figure 87: Arrangement of the SRR in metropolitan France 133
Figure 88: Lift graph with high and low Mach 150
Figure 89: Flight envelope at high altitude 151
Figure 90: Alucia 163
Figure 91: AUV REMUS 6000 163
Figure 92: General view using sonar imaging: 120 kHz, range of 700 m 163
Figure 93: Engine 164
Figure 94: Wing 164
Figure 95: Section of fuselage 164
Figure 96: Landing gear 165
Figure 97: Overlay of sonar images taken with various settings: 120 kHz,
700 m range scale - 410 kHz, 100 m range scale - 410 kHz, 50 m range scale 165
Figure 98: Visualisation of the photo mosaic obtained with REMUS AUV images
and the aeroplane debris identified by using the REMORA ROV 166F-GZCP - 1
st June 2009 11
Glossary
|
A/THR
|
Auto Thrust
|
|
AAIB
|
Air Accident Investigation Branch (UK)
|
|
AC
|
Advisory Circular
|
|
ACARS
|
Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System
|
|
ACC
|
Area Control Centre
|
|
ACJ
|
Advisory Circular Joint
|
|
ACP
|
Audio Control Panel
|
|
AD
|
Airworthiness Directive
|
|
AD
|
Airworthiness Directive
|
|
ADIRU
|
Air Data Inertial Reference Unit
|
|
ADM
|
Air Data Module
|
|
ADR
|
Air Data Reference
|
|
ADS-B
|
Automatic Dependant Surveillance-Broadcast
|
|
ADS-C
|
Automatic Dependant Surveillance-Contract
|
|
AIP
|
Aeronautical Information Publication
|
|
AIRAC
|
Aeronautical Information Regulation And Control
|
|
AMC
|
Acceptable Means of Compliance
|
|
AMU
|
Audio Management Unit
|
|
AOA
|
Angle Of Attack
|
|
AOC
|
Air Operator’s Certificate
|
|
AP
|
Autopilot
|
|
APU
|
Auxiliary Power Unit
|
|
ARCC
|
Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre
|
|
ARM
|
Airworthiness Review Meeting
|
|
ASR
|
Air Safety Report
|
|
ATC
|
Air Traffic Control
|
|
ATIMS
|
Air Traffic and Information Management System
|
|
ATL
|
Aircraft Technical Log
|
|
ATPL
|
Airline Transport Pilot Licence
|
|
ATSB
|
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
|
|
ATSU
|
Air Traffic Service Unit
|
|
AUV
|
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
|
|
BFU
|
Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung
(German investigation authority)
|
|
CAA
|
Civil Aviation Authority
|
|
CAS
|
Calibrated Air Speed
|
|
CAT
|
Clear Air Turbulence
|
|
CCQ
|
Cross Crew Qualification
|
|
CENIPA
|
Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes aeronãuticos
(Brazilian investigation authority)
|
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
New Transport Canada TAWS Terrain awareness and warning systems regulations
The Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, today announced new regulations to improve aviation safety in Canada. The new regulations require private turbine-powered and commercial airplanes with six or more passenger seats to be equipped with an alert system known as the “terrain awareness and warning system” (TAWS).
“While Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world, we are committed to the continuous improvement of aviation safety,” said Minister Lebel. “Terrain awareness and warning systems will help save lives.”
The system provides acoustic and visual alerts to flight crews when the path of their aircraft is likely to collide with terrain, water or obstacles — a situation that can happen when visibility is low or the weather is poor. This gives the flight crew enough time to take evasive action.
The new regulations will also significantly increase safety for small aircraft, which fly into remote wilderness or mountainous areas where the danger of flying into terrain is highest.
Under the new regulations, operators will have two years to equip their airplanes with TAWS.
The regulations comply with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s standards and bring Canadian regulations closer to those of other aviation authorities, including the United States and European Union. Canada’s Transportation Safety Board also recommends the wider use of TAWS to help pilots assess their proximity to terrain.
“While Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world, we are committed to the continuous improvement of aviation safety,” said Minister Lebel. “Terrain awareness and warning systems will help save lives.”
The system provides acoustic and visual alerts to flight crews when the path of their aircraft is likely to collide with terrain, water or obstacles — a situation that can happen when visibility is low or the weather is poor. This gives the flight crew enough time to take evasive action.
The new regulations will also significantly increase safety for small aircraft, which fly into remote wilderness or mountainous areas where the danger of flying into terrain is highest.
Under the new regulations, operators will have two years to equip their airplanes with TAWS.
The regulations comply with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s standards and bring Canadian regulations closer to those of other aviation authorities, including the United States and European Union. Canada’s Transportation Safety Board also recommends the wider use of TAWS to help pilots assess their proximity to terrain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)