Ottawa riot cops who answered a midnight call and raced to make it to Toronto by Sunday morning each billed $2,079.99 for a single day’s work.
Three police officers from the tiny township of Stirling-Rawdon made more than $25,997.66 in overtime pay alone.
One Hamilton cop earned $31,590.27 in six weeks.
These are three examples of the premium payouts the RCMP made to out-of-town police officers to patrol last summer’s G8/G20 summits in Huntsville and Toronto.
The Mounties’ contracts with “partner” police agencies, obtained by the CBC through Freedom of Information laws and published Monday, detail how hundreds of police officers from outside the GTA drew lucrative contracts laden with overtime and vacation bonuses.
More than half the hours worked by out-of-town cops were paid at one-and-a-half or double-time rates.
All of the 278 Montreal police officers, for instance, were paid double-time for all their work during the summit, earning a total of $3,342,578, almost half the $7 million cost to hire 657 officers from 17 Canadian police forces.
“It’s as though no one was paying attention to the money,” said John Sewell, former Toronto mayor who heads the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition. “If any other public servant spent money this way, people would be beside themselves; but for some reason we don’t hold police to the same level of accountability as other civil servants.”
The RCMP say they had no choice but to compensate the officers as per their respective collective agreements, which were non-negotiable.
Spokeswoman Julie Gagnon said in an emailed statement the agency still came in $4 million under budget: The RCMP had forecast paying $11 million to “partners” for supplemental policing needs.
Gagnon said there was no cap on overtime expenses, all overtime hours had to be approved by supervisors and the RCMP “maximized efficiencies to minimize overtime.”
The Eastern Ontario township of Stirling-Rawdon, with a police force of only 10 officers, including police Chief Brian Foley, sent two sergeants and a constable to Toronto for about 10 days to police the summit.
Sgt. Colin Cook, Sgt. Jim Orr and Const. Trevor MacLean did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The RCMP paid the officers $38,048.96, two-thirds of which was overtime pay. One officer earned $11,419.46 in overtime and more than $14,000 in total.
Ottawa police Insp. Mark Ford was part of the team that raced along Highway 401 in the middle of the night after getting an emergency call from the RCMP for last-minute reinforcements after a chaotic day of rioting downtown.
All the officers were paid time and a half, Ford said, because they were called in on days off. He said the more than $2,000 paid to each officer was fair, because when you include travel time “the officers worked 37 hours straight.”
Roughly half the 10,000 police officers who patrolled the summits were from outside Toronto, with most coming from the RCMP or other forces within the GTA. About 2,000 had to be flown in, and all of them, including Toronto police officers who live outside the city, were put up in hotels such as the Hyatt, Marriott and Delta Chelsea, at a time when the hotels had inflated rates.
The Toronto Police Service’s own G20 costs were $124 million, which the police board has said ballooned because of the tight timeline to meet security demands. Security costs for the G8/G20 totaled at least $676 million.
High costs for out-of-town cops
• Five of the 16 Vancouver police officers sent to Toronto each made more than $9,000 for a week’s work.
• Eight Barrie police officers were hired on paid duty to patrol the Integrated Security Unit’s headquarters — where there was no protest activity — around-the-clock for 13 days. They each walked away with an average of $8,495.
• North Bay’s eight police officers were paid their overtime rate for more than three-quarters of their total hours, each earning an average of $5,742.70.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Dozens of pages from a decades-old intelligence file on socialist icon Tommy Douglas have mysteriously disappeared.
Dozens of pages from a decades-old intelligence file on socialist icon Tommy Douglas have mysteriously disappeared.
The disappearance came to light during a lengthy court battle over the federal government's refusal to fully disclose the RCMP dossier on the former Saskatchewan premier and one-time federal NDP leader.
Library and Archives Canada, which currently holds the 1,142-page dossier, initially released just over 450 heavily censored pages in response to a request by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
But the government partially lifted the shroud of secrecy a week before a court hearing into the matter began in February, releasing almost 400 additional pages under a new, more relaxed policy governing the release of historically significant documents.
It was only then, with fuller access to the file, that Paul Champ, lawyer for The Canadian Press, realized about four dozen pages were missing.
What disappoints him is that no one at the archives nor in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service — which had supposedly thoroughly reviewed and vetted the original documents — appears to have noticed.
"It's just disappointing that at the end it seems like this important file was not reviewed with the thoroughness we would expect," he said in an interview.
"It does seem like no one really seemed to care that pages were missing."
After Champ notified Federal Court, Judge Simon Noel ordered the government to look for the lost pages. The search didn't turn up any of the missing pages identified by Champ but it found seven other additional pages of material in the original Douglas file, which somehow hadn't made it into the digitally scanned copy used in responding to the access request.
In a written submission to the court earlier this month, the government insisted "there is no evidence of a lack of good faith" in its handling of the Douglas dossier.
"The respondent has been candid, direct and forthcoming with the court when dealing with discrepancies in the records."
The government said the missing pages identified by Champ were not in the original file transferred to Library and Archives in 2000 from CSIS, which had taken over the dossier from the now-defunct RCMP security service in 1984.
The archives "does not take steps to confirm the completeness of the records received from a government institution" and CSIS did not retain a copy.
Pages haven't been found
The government assured the court "no actions were taken" to remove pages before responding to the access request. And it concluded there is no remedy "because the pages can not be found in the existing file."
Champ said he finds it surprising that Library and Archives would take such a lackadaisical approach to historical documents.
"They do have some kind of legal duty as the primary institution responsible for our cultural heritage to ensure that historically important files are maintained and are kept intact and are preserved," he said.
"They're responsible for protecting Canada's documentary heritage and their handling of this file makes me question whether they're discharging all of their responsibilities in that regard."
PMO following case
There is at least one arm of government that is not treating the Douglas files cavalierly: the Prime Minister's Office.
Documents released under a separate access-to-information request show that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office has been kept informed about the progress of the court case.
A February "memorandum for the prime minister" detailed the new policy regarding release of historically significant intelligence records and advised that the release of additional material from the Douglas dossier "is going to attract media attention as these documents will disclose, for the first time, some of Mr. Douglas's private communications with other parliamentarians."
From Champ's perspective, however, the additional material released in February simply raised questions as to why the government had refused to disclose it in the first place. Among other things, the new information suggested the RCMP treated black U.S. army deserters differently than white deserters, picking them up and escorting them back across the border.
"Was this embarrassing revelation one of the reasons why CSIS wanted the memo withheld?"
The material released to date shows that the RCMP Security Service shadowed Douglas for more than three decades, attending his speeches, analysing his writings and eavesdropping on private conversations. His links to the peace movement and Communist party members were of particular interest.
The government maintains full disclosure of the Douglas file would jeopardize the country's ability to detect, prevent or suppress "subversive or hostile activities" and could give away secrets of the spy trade.
Jim Bronskill, a reporter for The Canadian Press, launched a court challenge in 2009 after the federal information commissioner agreed with the government that most of the dossier should be kept under wraps.
The disappearance came to light during a lengthy court battle over the federal government's refusal to fully disclose the RCMP dossier on the former Saskatchewan premier and one-time federal NDP leader.
Library and Archives Canada, which currently holds the 1,142-page dossier, initially released just over 450 heavily censored pages in response to a request by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
But the government partially lifted the shroud of secrecy a week before a court hearing into the matter began in February, releasing almost 400 additional pages under a new, more relaxed policy governing the release of historically significant documents.
It was only then, with fuller access to the file, that Paul Champ, lawyer for The Canadian Press, realized about four dozen pages were missing.
What disappoints him is that no one at the archives nor in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service — which had supposedly thoroughly reviewed and vetted the original documents — appears to have noticed.
"It's just disappointing that at the end it seems like this important file was not reviewed with the thoroughness we would expect," he said in an interview.
"It does seem like no one really seemed to care that pages were missing."
After Champ notified Federal Court, Judge Simon Noel ordered the government to look for the lost pages. The search didn't turn up any of the missing pages identified by Champ but it found seven other additional pages of material in the original Douglas file, which somehow hadn't made it into the digitally scanned copy used in responding to the access request.
In a written submission to the court earlier this month, the government insisted "there is no evidence of a lack of good faith" in its handling of the Douglas dossier.
"The respondent has been candid, direct and forthcoming with the court when dealing with discrepancies in the records."
The government said the missing pages identified by Champ were not in the original file transferred to Library and Archives in 2000 from CSIS, which had taken over the dossier from the now-defunct RCMP security service in 1984.
The archives "does not take steps to confirm the completeness of the records received from a government institution" and CSIS did not retain a copy.
Pages haven't been found
The government assured the court "no actions were taken" to remove pages before responding to the access request. And it concluded there is no remedy "because the pages can not be found in the existing file."
Champ said he finds it surprising that Library and Archives would take such a lackadaisical approach to historical documents.
"They do have some kind of legal duty as the primary institution responsible for our cultural heritage to ensure that historically important files are maintained and are kept intact and are preserved," he said.
"They're responsible for protecting Canada's documentary heritage and their handling of this file makes me question whether they're discharging all of their responsibilities in that regard."
PMO following case
There is at least one arm of government that is not treating the Douglas files cavalierly: the Prime Minister's Office.
Documents released under a separate access-to-information request show that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office has been kept informed about the progress of the court case.
A February "memorandum for the prime minister" detailed the new policy regarding release of historically significant intelligence records and advised that the release of additional material from the Douglas dossier "is going to attract media attention as these documents will disclose, for the first time, some of Mr. Douglas's private communications with other parliamentarians."
From Champ's perspective, however, the additional material released in February simply raised questions as to why the government had refused to disclose it in the first place. Among other things, the new information suggested the RCMP treated black U.S. army deserters differently than white deserters, picking them up and escorting them back across the border.
"Was this embarrassing revelation one of the reasons why CSIS wanted the memo withheld?"
The material released to date shows that the RCMP Security Service shadowed Douglas for more than three decades, attending his speeches, analysing his writings and eavesdropping on private conversations. His links to the peace movement and Communist party members were of particular interest.
The government maintains full disclosure of the Douglas file would jeopardize the country's ability to detect, prevent or suppress "subversive or hostile activities" and could give away secrets of the spy trade.
Jim Bronskill, a reporter for The Canadian Press, launched a court challenge in 2009 after the federal information commissioner agreed with the government that most of the dossier should be kept under wraps.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Analysis Supreme Court decision on sexual consent : What the ruling means for sexual assault law in Canada
Friday's Supreme Court of Canada decision, which strikes down the notion that a person can give advance consent to sexual activity that takes place while that person is unconscious, does not radically alter the existing laws on sexual assault.
Still, legal experts say it is an important reaffirmation and clarification of those laws.
"It clears up any misapprehension that there is such a thing as implied consent, advance consent or continuous consent, particularly in the context of spousal or other intimate relationships," says Melanie Randall, who teaches law at the University of Western Ontario in London. "The Supreme Court is really unambiguous that there is no special exemptions or exceptions in these contexts."
Such exceptions did exist not that long ago, adds Randall. Up until 1983, when the Criminal Code was revised, a women's consent to sex was not required but assumed in marriage, for example.
"It's taken a long time for people to realize that even in intimate relationships, women have a right to say no to sex, that men must ensure that there is consent to sexual contact, that consent does not exist in advance of or prior to sexual contact," Randall said.
The May 27 ruling was a split 6-3 decision by the nine judges of the Supreme Court, who are: front row, left to right, Marie Deschamps, William Binnie, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Louis LeBel and Morris Fish; back row, left to right. Marshall Rothstien, Rosalie Silberman Abella, Louise Charron and Thomas Cromwell. Binnie, LeBel and Fish were the dissenting judges. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Randall worked on drafting legal arguments for one of the interveners in this case, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), which argued that a person who is unconscious is not capable of consenting to sexual activity and that consent must be active, voluntary, ongoing, contemporaneous with the activity in question and revocable at any time.
"[The decision] has confirmed what is already clear in the Criminal Code and what, in our view, also should be common sense, which is that when a woman is unconscious, she's not sexually available," said LEAF's legal director, Joanna L. Birenbaum.
Randall sees the decision as important for clarifying what Canadian law on sexual assault requires when it comes to arguing that a complainant consented to a sexual act.
"It's a strong and clear judgment that consent requires a conscious operating mind and that you can't either actively consent or revoke your consent in the absence of that. So, it's impossible to consent in advance to sexual contact when you're unconscious," she said.
Prior consent no longer valid defence
The Criminal Code does not directly address the notion of advance consent or the question of whether a person is conscious or unconscious, the two key factors in the case that went before the Supreme Court. The Code does define sexual assault in terms of the absence of "voluntary agreement" to engage in sexual activity and refers to instances when a person is "incapable" of giving such agreement.
Existing Criminal Code provisions already made it clear that if a person is unconscious, they are incapable of giving voluntary agreement. But prior to Friday's decision, the Code was not explicit about the idea of giving consent in advance, said Martha Shaffer, a law professor at the University of Toronto
"Now, the law is clear: The notion that you give prior consent is not recognized in Canadian law," Shaffer said.
The case is the first to go before the Supreme Court involving advance consent to unconscious sex, Shaffer said, but is consistent with both Criminal Code provisions and past court decisions on sexual assault. Rather than looking in detail at the facts of the case, as had been done in the two earlier stages — in provincial court and the Ontario Court of Appeal — the Supreme Court judges focused on the points of law involved.
"I don't think the facts were really driving this decision," Shaffer said. "What was driving this decision was concern about recognition of the idea that you can give consent in advance to the activity that occurred and what that would mean for women who are intoxicated — either voluntarily or involuntarily."
'This case was argued purely as a question of law: is it legal to give this kind of advance consent?'
— Martha Shaffer, University of Toronto Faculty of LawFrom that perspective, questions around whether the female complainant in the original case gave her consent to the sexual activity that her common-law partner performed on her while she was unconscious or why she recanted her original accusation of sexual assault were irrelevant at the Supreme Court stage.
"This case was argued purely as a question of law: Is it legal to give this kind of advance consent — can you do it?" said Shaffer. "And the court said, 'No, you can't.' So, even if she thought she could, what the court has said is, 'Too bad, you can't do it; it is not valid consent as a matter of Canadian law.'"
Constitutional challenge possible
Also not considered at this stage were the dozens of past criminal convictions the defendant had, which included domestic violence against the complainant as well as against a former girlfriend, or the original trial judge's finding that the woman's conflicting testimony was "typical... of a recanting complainant in a domestic matter."
But for LEAF, the context of the particular case as well as the broader issues of violence perpetuated against women who are incapacitated, whether because of drugs, alcohol or physical disability, which, Birenbaum says, is a risk that is real and pervasive, are as valid as the points of law.
'I see all of these arguments as kind of red herrings – same as the concern that spouses who kiss their sleeping partners are suddenly going to be criminalized.'
— Melanie Randall, University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law"Part of what LEAF's role is is to situate the legal issues that come before the court within the factual context of the reality of women's lives," said Birenbaum.
Concerns that the decision will curtail people's freedom to engage in risky, unconventional forms of sex are unwarranted, says Randall.
"I see all of these arguments as kind of red herrings – same as the concern that spouses who kiss their sleeping partners are suddenly going to be criminalized," she said. "We don't really have massive social problems around these issues, but we do have a massive social problem around sexual assault and getting a good criminal justice response to sex assault."
She says that although the Supreme Court decision could be appealed by way of a constitutional challenge, she hopes that won't happen.
"I hope that no one wastes their effort on that, because it doesn't seem to be an important social issue right now," she said.
Still, legal experts say it is an important reaffirmation and clarification of those laws.
"It clears up any misapprehension that there is such a thing as implied consent, advance consent or continuous consent, particularly in the context of spousal or other intimate relationships," says Melanie Randall, who teaches law at the University of Western Ontario in London. "The Supreme Court is really unambiguous that there is no special exemptions or exceptions in these contexts."
Such exceptions did exist not that long ago, adds Randall. Up until 1983, when the Criminal Code was revised, a women's consent to sex was not required but assumed in marriage, for example.
"It's taken a long time for people to realize that even in intimate relationships, women have a right to say no to sex, that men must ensure that there is consent to sexual contact, that consent does not exist in advance of or prior to sexual contact," Randall said.
The May 27 ruling was a split 6-3 decision by the nine judges of the Supreme Court, who are: front row, left to right, Marie Deschamps, William Binnie, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Louis LeBel and Morris Fish; back row, left to right. Marshall Rothstien, Rosalie Silberman Abella, Louise Charron and Thomas Cromwell. Binnie, LeBel and Fish were the dissenting judges. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Randall worked on drafting legal arguments for one of the interveners in this case, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), which argued that a person who is unconscious is not capable of consenting to sexual activity and that consent must be active, voluntary, ongoing, contemporaneous with the activity in question and revocable at any time.
"[The decision] has confirmed what is already clear in the Criminal Code and what, in our view, also should be common sense, which is that when a woman is unconscious, she's not sexually available," said LEAF's legal director, Joanna L. Birenbaum.
Randall sees the decision as important for clarifying what Canadian law on sexual assault requires when it comes to arguing that a complainant consented to a sexual act.
"It's a strong and clear judgment that consent requires a conscious operating mind and that you can't either actively consent or revoke your consent in the absence of that. So, it's impossible to consent in advance to sexual contact when you're unconscious," she said.
Prior consent no longer valid defence
The Criminal Code does not directly address the notion of advance consent or the question of whether a person is conscious or unconscious, the two key factors in the case that went before the Supreme Court. The Code does define sexual assault in terms of the absence of "voluntary agreement" to engage in sexual activity and refers to instances when a person is "incapable" of giving such agreement.
Existing Criminal Code provisions already made it clear that if a person is unconscious, they are incapable of giving voluntary agreement. But prior to Friday's decision, the Code was not explicit about the idea of giving consent in advance, said Martha Shaffer, a law professor at the University of Toronto
"Now, the law is clear: The notion that you give prior consent is not recognized in Canadian law," Shaffer said.
The case is the first to go before the Supreme Court involving advance consent to unconscious sex, Shaffer said, but is consistent with both Criminal Code provisions and past court decisions on sexual assault. Rather than looking in detail at the facts of the case, as had been done in the two earlier stages — in provincial court and the Ontario Court of Appeal — the Supreme Court judges focused on the points of law involved.
"I don't think the facts were really driving this decision," Shaffer said. "What was driving this decision was concern about recognition of the idea that you can give consent in advance to the activity that occurred and what that would mean for women who are intoxicated — either voluntarily or involuntarily."
'This case was argued purely as a question of law: is it legal to give this kind of advance consent?'
— Martha Shaffer, University of Toronto Faculty of LawFrom that perspective, questions around whether the female complainant in the original case gave her consent to the sexual activity that her common-law partner performed on her while she was unconscious or why she recanted her original accusation of sexual assault were irrelevant at the Supreme Court stage.
"This case was argued purely as a question of law: Is it legal to give this kind of advance consent — can you do it?" said Shaffer. "And the court said, 'No, you can't.' So, even if she thought she could, what the court has said is, 'Too bad, you can't do it; it is not valid consent as a matter of Canadian law.'"
Constitutional challenge possible
Also not considered at this stage were the dozens of past criminal convictions the defendant had, which included domestic violence against the complainant as well as against a former girlfriend, or the original trial judge's finding that the woman's conflicting testimony was "typical... of a recanting complainant in a domestic matter."
But for LEAF, the context of the particular case as well as the broader issues of violence perpetuated against women who are incapacitated, whether because of drugs, alcohol or physical disability, which, Birenbaum says, is a risk that is real and pervasive, are as valid as the points of law.
'I see all of these arguments as kind of red herrings – same as the concern that spouses who kiss their sleeping partners are suddenly going to be criminalized.'
— Melanie Randall, University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law"Part of what LEAF's role is is to situate the legal issues that come before the court within the factual context of the reality of women's lives," said Birenbaum.
Concerns that the decision will curtail people's freedom to engage in risky, unconventional forms of sex are unwarranted, says Randall.
"I see all of these arguments as kind of red herrings – same as the concern that spouses who kiss their sleeping partners are suddenly going to be criminalized," she said. "We don't really have massive social problems around these issues, but we do have a massive social problem around sexual assault and getting a good criminal justice response to sex assault."
She says that although the Supreme Court decision could be appealed by way of a constitutional challenge, she hopes that won't happen.
"I hope that no one wastes their effort on that, because it doesn't seem to be an important social issue right now," she said.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
AF447 stalled but crew maintained nose-up attitude : flight AF447 maintained nose-up inputs to the aircraft even after the Airbus A330 entered a stall.
French investigators have disclosed that the crew of Air France flight AF447 maintained nose-up inputs to the aircraft even after the Airbus A330 entered a stall.
The inquiry has also revealed that the pilots set engine thrust variously to go-around power and idle as they battled to rescue the jet.
In an update to the loss of the A330 over the South Atlantic two years ago the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses has detailed the last few minutes of the flight. BEA said the aircraft climbed from its cruise altitude of 35,000ft towards 38,000ft and stalled, but added that the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs" to the controls.
BEA confirms that the captain had left the cockpit to rest, about eight minutes before the emergency on 1 June 2009, having discussed with the relief crew possible turbulence ahead of the aircraft.
The pilots altered course slightly, about 12° to the left, and as turbulence increased they opted to reduce speed to Mach 0.8.
About 2min later the aircraft's autopilot and autothrust disengaged, and remained so for the rest of the flight. This would have put the jet into 'alternate' law, meaning it lost its angle-of-attack protection.
The aircraft began to roll to the right, and as the pilot made a nose-up left input, the A330's stall warning sounded twice - an indication that the aircraft had exceeded a critical angle-of-attack threshold.
The primary flight display on the captain's side showed a "sharp fall" in speed from 275kt to 60kt, and the aircraft's angle of attack "increased progressively" beyond 10°.
While the jet had initially been cruising at 35,000ft, investigators stated that the aircraft climbed, with a vertical speed of 7,000ft/min, heading towards 38,000ft.
The pilot made nose-down inputs as well as inputs for left and right roll. The vertical speed fell back to 700ft/min, the displayed speed "increased sharply" to 215kt, and the angle of attack reduced to 4°.
In its update the BEA said the non-flying pilot "tried several times to call the captain back".
There was another stall warning and the BEA said the stall warning sounded again. The thrust levers were positioned for take-off/go-around power but the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs".
Angle of attack continued to increase, it added, and the trimmable horizontal stabiliser increased from a 3° nose-up position to 13° nose-up - where it stayed for the rest of the flight.
The aircraft reached 38,000ft - its maximum altitude - with its angle of attack having increased to 16°.
AF447's captain returned to the cockpit - just 90s after the autopilot had disengaged - by which time the aircraft had started its fatal descent.
As it passed through 35,000ft the angle of attack increased to more than 40° and the A330 was descending at 10,000ft/min. Its pitch did not exceed 15°, its engine power was close to 100% of N1, and the jet oscillated with rolls of up to 40°.
"The [flying pilot] made an input on the sidestick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30s," said the BEA.
Just 20s after the captain returned to the cockpit, said the BEA, the thrust levers were set to the 'idle' position, with the engines delivering 55% of N1.
Measured angle of attack values, the BEA pointed out, are only considered valid when the measured speed is above 60kt. It said that the angle of attack, when valid, always remained above 35°.
AF447's had turned almost a three-quarter circle to the right during the emergency, and - having descended for 3min 30s - it struck the ocean surface with a ground speed of just 107kt, a nose-up pitch attitude of 16.2°, with a heading of 270°.
BEA stated that the aircraft stalled but that the inputs from the flying pilot were "mainly nose-up". It added that the engines "were operating and always responded to crew commands".
The inquiry has also revealed that the pilots set engine thrust variously to go-around power and idle as they battled to rescue the jet.
In an update to the loss of the A330 over the South Atlantic two years ago the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses has detailed the last few minutes of the flight. BEA said the aircraft climbed from its cruise altitude of 35,000ft towards 38,000ft and stalled, but added that the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs" to the controls.
BEA confirms that the captain had left the cockpit to rest, about eight minutes before the emergency on 1 June 2009, having discussed with the relief crew possible turbulence ahead of the aircraft.
The pilots altered course slightly, about 12° to the left, and as turbulence increased they opted to reduce speed to Mach 0.8.
About 2min later the aircraft's autopilot and autothrust disengaged, and remained so for the rest of the flight. This would have put the jet into 'alternate' law, meaning it lost its angle-of-attack protection.
The aircraft began to roll to the right, and as the pilot made a nose-up left input, the A330's stall warning sounded twice - an indication that the aircraft had exceeded a critical angle-of-attack threshold.
The primary flight display on the captain's side showed a "sharp fall" in speed from 275kt to 60kt, and the aircraft's angle of attack "increased progressively" beyond 10°.
While the jet had initially been cruising at 35,000ft, investigators stated that the aircraft climbed, with a vertical speed of 7,000ft/min, heading towards 38,000ft.
The pilot made nose-down inputs as well as inputs for left and right roll. The vertical speed fell back to 700ft/min, the displayed speed "increased sharply" to 215kt, and the angle of attack reduced to 4°.
In its update the BEA said the non-flying pilot "tried several times to call the captain back".
There was another stall warning and the BEA said the stall warning sounded again. The thrust levers were positioned for take-off/go-around power but the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs".
Angle of attack continued to increase, it added, and the trimmable horizontal stabiliser increased from a 3° nose-up position to 13° nose-up - where it stayed for the rest of the flight.
The aircraft reached 38,000ft - its maximum altitude - with its angle of attack having increased to 16°.
AF447's captain returned to the cockpit - just 90s after the autopilot had disengaged - by which time the aircraft had started its fatal descent.
As it passed through 35,000ft the angle of attack increased to more than 40° and the A330 was descending at 10,000ft/min. Its pitch did not exceed 15°, its engine power was close to 100% of N1, and the jet oscillated with rolls of up to 40°.
"The [flying pilot] made an input on the sidestick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30s," said the BEA.
Just 20s after the captain returned to the cockpit, said the BEA, the thrust levers were set to the 'idle' position, with the engines delivering 55% of N1.
Measured angle of attack values, the BEA pointed out, are only considered valid when the measured speed is above 60kt. It said that the angle of attack, when valid, always remained above 35°.
AF447's had turned almost a three-quarter circle to the right during the emergency, and - having descended for 3min 30s - it struck the ocean surface with a ground speed of just 107kt, a nose-up pitch attitude of 16.2°, with a heading of 270°.
BEA stated that the aircraft stalled but that the inputs from the flying pilot were "mainly nose-up". It added that the engines "were operating and always responded to crew commands".
Friday, May 27, 2011
policing black eye isn’t fading away: The one-year anniversary of the G20 Summit policing fiasco will shortly be upon us.
The one-year anniversary of the G20 Summit policing fiasco will shortly be upon us.
Yet none of the half dozen internal and external inquiries into what went so disastrously wrong last June has been tabled yet. A police board inquiry won’t even start its hearings until next week.
Only a narrow investigation by Ontario ombudsman André Marin that looked at the misapplication of an obscure security enhancement regulation under the Public Works Protection Act has seen the light of day.
And just one from among the many bullying, bushwhacking officers who assaulted peaceful protesters has been charged.
In cop lingo, the clearance rate is dismal.
Unless, of course, the intention was always to clear cops of wrongdoing by burying the G20 autopsies under a heap of paper-chase bureaucracy. But however much Premier Dalton McGuinty and Chief Bill Blair might wish it, this law-and-order shiner isn’t going to fade away.
On Thursday, the Special Investigations Unit announced it has reopened a probe — for the third time — into one specific complaint of alleged police brutality, the beating of Dorian Barton.
SIU director Ian Scott does not score big points for that.
The pissing match between Scott and police spokesman Mark Pugash has been entertaining to watch. It’s almost like the old days when police board chair Susan Eng went mano-a-mano with then-chief Bill McCormack. McCormack, though, had no problem speaking for himself, if in tortuous McCormack-ese, and was always available to reporters. Blair, by comparison, has largely delegated the push-back to his communications pitbull. Who is actually running that asylum?
Somebody at the cop shop is — how shall I put this delicately? — lying. Actually, a whole bunch of officers would appear to be prevaricating over the no-see-um insistence on what happened to Barton in the incident wherein he was tackled to the ground, suffering a broken right arm, black eye, swollen limbs and bruised back.
Eleven witness officers — count ’em — have told the SIU they were unable to identify the culprit in their midst, though eight were in the immediate vicinity of the incident and photographic evidence clearly shows a recognizable individual through his face shield. Further, as the Star’s Dan Robson exclusively reported Thursday, Scott has learned that one from among the Group of Eleven was the suspect officer’s G20 roommate and two others were supervisors who presumably knew the names of those under their command.
This isn’t a whodunit mystery.
Indeed, as Pugash told the Star a week ago, the Toronto Police Service has on three occasions since January given the suspect officer’s name to the SIU. The means by which he was ID’d, however, is a puzzle, insofar as that methodology is even relevant.
Pugash says the officer’s handle was obtained by zooming in on the badge number and name in the photograph. Scott counters that he was unable to duplicate that feat, despite borrowing technology from the province’s revenue ministry. (Why the revenue ministry would even have such technology is another matter entirely.)
Barton’s father tried also, employing a software program downloaded from the Toronto Police Service website, but came up empty too. So what is Pugash talking about? That’s an issue which might be resolved now that the police have agreed to allow the SIU to interview the employee who performed the photo-identifying deed.
Yet this is a tangential diversion from the core of the matter: The SIU’s prolonged unwillingness to charge the suspect officer on evidence that would sure as hell be good enough for police to charge a civilian. If there exists, as many suspect, one law for cops and one for the rest of us, Scott is just as guilty of adhering to it.
The SIU director continues to insist that a positive identification of the officer, by name, is essential for a charge to stand up in court. The “loop’’, he posits, is insufficient to support a prosecution, though he’s got a witness, photographer Andrew Wallace, who saw Barton being struck by that officer and is willing to testify in court.
Believe me. If I took a swing at, oh, let’s say a traffic officer and someone standing by saw it, I’d be in handcuffs lickety-split.
In recent off-the-record discussions I’ve had with legal experts, including Crown attorneys and a senior judge, not one has been able to fathom Scott’s reasoning. It’s as if he wants this charge bubble-wrapped up in defence-proof binding.
Such a lofty standard is unfair to Barton and, frankly, further damages an agency that spends way too much time whining about what it can’t do. The truth is, what it chooses not to do.
This isn’t just about Barton anymore. It’s about the integrity of both the SIU and Toronto’s police department.
Leave it for a judge or jury to decide if the charge is supportable on the evidence. That’s not Scott’s job.
I want a prosecutor to call all 11 witness officers to the stand so they can be asked, under oath, if they recognize the defendant as the person who struck Barton. I want to hear them, one by one, deny it. I want their names on the public record.
With the shell game some cops are playing right now, that feels even more vital than a conviction.
In the court of public opinion, let them be judged.
Yet none of the half dozen internal and external inquiries into what went so disastrously wrong last June has been tabled yet. A police board inquiry won’t even start its hearings until next week.
Only a narrow investigation by Ontario ombudsman André Marin that looked at the misapplication of an obscure security enhancement regulation under the Public Works Protection Act has seen the light of day.
And just one from among the many bullying, bushwhacking officers who assaulted peaceful protesters has been charged.
In cop lingo, the clearance rate is dismal.
Unless, of course, the intention was always to clear cops of wrongdoing by burying the G20 autopsies under a heap of paper-chase bureaucracy. But however much Premier Dalton McGuinty and Chief Bill Blair might wish it, this law-and-order shiner isn’t going to fade away.
On Thursday, the Special Investigations Unit announced it has reopened a probe — for the third time — into one specific complaint of alleged police brutality, the beating of Dorian Barton.
SIU director Ian Scott does not score big points for that.
The pissing match between Scott and police spokesman Mark Pugash has been entertaining to watch. It’s almost like the old days when police board chair Susan Eng went mano-a-mano with then-chief Bill McCormack. McCormack, though, had no problem speaking for himself, if in tortuous McCormack-ese, and was always available to reporters. Blair, by comparison, has largely delegated the push-back to his communications pitbull. Who is actually running that asylum?
Somebody at the cop shop is — how shall I put this delicately? — lying. Actually, a whole bunch of officers would appear to be prevaricating over the no-see-um insistence on what happened to Barton in the incident wherein he was tackled to the ground, suffering a broken right arm, black eye, swollen limbs and bruised back.
Eleven witness officers — count ’em — have told the SIU they were unable to identify the culprit in their midst, though eight were in the immediate vicinity of the incident and photographic evidence clearly shows a recognizable individual through his face shield. Further, as the Star’s Dan Robson exclusively reported Thursday, Scott has learned that one from among the Group of Eleven was the suspect officer’s G20 roommate and two others were supervisors who presumably knew the names of those under their command.
This isn’t a whodunit mystery.
Indeed, as Pugash told the Star a week ago, the Toronto Police Service has on three occasions since January given the suspect officer’s name to the SIU. The means by which he was ID’d, however, is a puzzle, insofar as that methodology is even relevant.
Pugash says the officer’s handle was obtained by zooming in on the badge number and name in the photograph. Scott counters that he was unable to duplicate that feat, despite borrowing technology from the province’s revenue ministry. (Why the revenue ministry would even have such technology is another matter entirely.)
Barton’s father tried also, employing a software program downloaded from the Toronto Police Service website, but came up empty too. So what is Pugash talking about? That’s an issue which might be resolved now that the police have agreed to allow the SIU to interview the employee who performed the photo-identifying deed.
Yet this is a tangential diversion from the core of the matter: The SIU’s prolonged unwillingness to charge the suspect officer on evidence that would sure as hell be good enough for police to charge a civilian. If there exists, as many suspect, one law for cops and one for the rest of us, Scott is just as guilty of adhering to it.
The SIU director continues to insist that a positive identification of the officer, by name, is essential for a charge to stand up in court. The “loop’’, he posits, is insufficient to support a prosecution, though he’s got a witness, photographer Andrew Wallace, who saw Barton being struck by that officer and is willing to testify in court.
Believe me. If I took a swing at, oh, let’s say a traffic officer and someone standing by saw it, I’d be in handcuffs lickety-split.
In recent off-the-record discussions I’ve had with legal experts, including Crown attorneys and a senior judge, not one has been able to fathom Scott’s reasoning. It’s as if he wants this charge bubble-wrapped up in defence-proof binding.
Such a lofty standard is unfair to Barton and, frankly, further damages an agency that spends way too much time whining about what it can’t do. The truth is, what it chooses not to do.
This isn’t just about Barton anymore. It’s about the integrity of both the SIU and Toronto’s police department.
Leave it for a judge or jury to decide if the charge is supportable on the evidence. That’s not Scott’s job.
I want a prosecutor to call all 11 witness officers to the stand so they can be asked, under oath, if they recognize the defendant as the person who struck Barton. I want to hear them, one by one, deny it. I want their names on the public record.
With the shell game some cops are playing right now, that feels even more vital than a conviction.
In the court of public opinion, let them be judged.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
2,000 Sony Ericsson customers from Canada whose personal data had been stolen and posted online for anyone to see.
TORONTO — David Campbell found out Wednesday morning that he was one of 2,000 Sony Ericsson customers from Canada whose personal data had been stolen and posted online for anyone to see.
He's been through a case of online fraud before and is resigned to the fact that information stored on the web is at risk. So he wasn't overly concerned to learn that his name and email were being shared by hackers.
But he doesn't appreciate that Sony didn't alert him to the latest security breach to hit the entertainment giant.
"I guess (the data breach) is disappointing but in this modern day you'd probably be a little foolish to think that anything's safe. If you're using a computer you've got to be aware that your information is vulnerable," said Campbell, who works with the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in southwestern Ontario.
"I think more disappointing would be that Sony didn't bother to contact any of their customers to let them know this had happened."
Sony has been hit with a number of hacker attacks in recent weeks, the most notable coming last month and affecting more than 100 million accounts of PlayStation Network and Qriocity users.
In that incident, data including names, birth dates, email addresses and log-in information was compromised. Sony also said encrypted credit card data from 10 million accounts may have been accessed.
The company said in a statement issued Wednesday that hackers on Sony Ericsson's Canadian site only accessed email addresses and encrypted passwords.
Sony did not immediately respond to questions about whether it attemped to contact affected consumers.
Campbell previously had a problem with fraudulent purchases being made with his credit card and that experience raised his level of caution when sharing information online.
But a few months ago, he needed a product from Sony and found he could only get it through the web. He took the risk.
"I wanted it, it was the only way to get it, so I did it," Campbell said.
"I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy online any more, even on secure websites. I think that's being pretty clearly established."
Scott Spence, a Winnipeg-based financial planner, said he, too, was disappointed to not hear from Sony about his name and email being obtained by hackers. But he expected little fallout from the incident.
"The information that has been breached really is nothing more than getting information out of a telephone book and ... the impact to me personally is going to be minute," Spence said.
"A decade ago, most individuals would be absolutely appalled, but in this digital age, most individuals are finding it's (just) an inconvenience."
Earlier this month, Canada's privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart called for the power to impose "attention-getting fines" when major corporations fail to protect personal information.
She also said she was "very disappointed" that Sony did not proactively notify her of the major breach in April.
On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Stoddart said her office was not notified about the most recent breach.
"We have contacted them with the purpose of better understanding what took place and what measures are being taken to manage the situation," said spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden.
He's been through a case of online fraud before and is resigned to the fact that information stored on the web is at risk. So he wasn't overly concerned to learn that his name and email were being shared by hackers.
But he doesn't appreciate that Sony didn't alert him to the latest security breach to hit the entertainment giant.
"I guess (the data breach) is disappointing but in this modern day you'd probably be a little foolish to think that anything's safe. If you're using a computer you've got to be aware that your information is vulnerable," said Campbell, who works with the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in southwestern Ontario.
"I think more disappointing would be that Sony didn't bother to contact any of their customers to let them know this had happened."
Sony has been hit with a number of hacker attacks in recent weeks, the most notable coming last month and affecting more than 100 million accounts of PlayStation Network and Qriocity users.
In that incident, data including names, birth dates, email addresses and log-in information was compromised. Sony also said encrypted credit card data from 10 million accounts may have been accessed.
The company said in a statement issued Wednesday that hackers on Sony Ericsson's Canadian site only accessed email addresses and encrypted passwords.
Sony did not immediately respond to questions about whether it attemped to contact affected consumers.
Campbell previously had a problem with fraudulent purchases being made with his credit card and that experience raised his level of caution when sharing information online.
But a few months ago, he needed a product from Sony and found he could only get it through the web. He took the risk.
"I wanted it, it was the only way to get it, so I did it," Campbell said.
"I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy online any more, even on secure websites. I think that's being pretty clearly established."
Scott Spence, a Winnipeg-based financial planner, said he, too, was disappointed to not hear from Sony about his name and email being obtained by hackers. But he expected little fallout from the incident.
"The information that has been breached really is nothing more than getting information out of a telephone book and ... the impact to me personally is going to be minute," Spence said.
"A decade ago, most individuals would be absolutely appalled, but in this digital age, most individuals are finding it's (just) an inconvenience."
Earlier this month, Canada's privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart called for the power to impose "attention-getting fines" when major corporations fail to protect personal information.
She also said she was "very disappointed" that Sony did not proactively notify her of the major breach in April.
On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Stoddart said her office was not notified about the most recent breach.
"We have contacted them with the purpose of better understanding what took place and what measures are being taken to manage the situation," said spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Top Tories dispute party's founding principles : A key principle that sealed the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance was never meant to be a permanent party rule, says one of the party's founding figures.
OTTAWA — A key principle that sealed the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance was never meant to be a permanent party rule, says one of the party's founding figures.
Ontario MP Scott Reid, one of the Alliance negotiators during merger talks in 2003, wrote to party members over the long weekend about a change he would like to see in the Conservative party constitution.
Such changes will be discussed at the party convention next month and could fuel a passionate rule fight on the floor, as it has in previous years.
Reid wants to alter the formula that gives all riding associations an equal say in a leadership vote, regardless of how many members they have. Reid would like to see larger associations get more clout — something Progressive Conservatives balked at in 2003 for fear that the mostly western-based Alliance would swamp the ballot.
Reid points to the text of the 2003 merger agreement between the parties that referred to a "one-time process for leadership selection" before the race that saw Stephen Harper elected.
"So a change to a new system is entirely in the spirit of the agreement signed by Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay and the issue of how the party would select its second and subsequent leaders was never a deal-breaker," Reid wrote in a letter obtained by The Canadian Press.
That directly contradicts Defence Minister Peter MacKay's letter to members written only a few days earlier.
"The equality of (riding associations) was a crucial, 'deal-breaker' issue in the merger of our legacy parties in 2003," wrote MacKay. "Equality . . . has allowed us to elect our leader with a cross-country base of support, develop as a truly national party, and this in turn has enabled us to form a truly national, majority government. . . .
"This is a divisive debate our party does not need to have again, having rejected similar proposals in our founding agreement and at two national conventions."
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal agreed and saluted Harper for defending the rule in the past.
"Retroactive efforts to change the core '03 agreement are not in the interest of a strong party, however well intentioned, the proposer may be," Segal said in an email to The Canadian Press.
"Smaller Tory riding associations in less populous parts of Canada, in rural areas, the Atlantic and Maritime regions, not to mention Quebec or the North, should not be discouraged or diminished as the proposed changes would make unavoidable.
"Fussing with an eight-year-old agreement every few years is counterproductive."
Some Quebec Tories who spoke to The Canadian Press said they were completely against changing the rule at a time when the party needs to rebuild in the province. Quebec riding associations generally do not have the same numbers of members as those in other parts of the country.
"I'm against it for the simple reason that fundamentally, if there is a riding that has 100,000 voters while another has 45,000 voters, the chances of having the same number of party members is completely unrealistic," said Jean-Nicolas Marchand, president of the Louis Saint-Laurent Conservative association.
"Right from the outset it's inequitable because all ridings in Canada don't have the same number of people."
Reid is not the only Conservative pushing for a change to the equality-of-ridings principle. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's Calgary riding has its own proposal, as do others from British Columbia.
Under the current system, riding associations have 100 points to allocate in a leadership vote. The points are awarded to each contender based on the percentage of party members in each riding who cast ballots for one person or another. A riding association with a few dozen members gets to send the same number of points to a leadership contestant as a riding with thousands of members.
Reid complained in his letter that a majority of party members could cast ballots for a particular candidate, but see someone else win because of the equality rule.
"And this is the whole point of suggesting a new leadership election formula," Reid said. "I think it's obvious that if Candidate A wins the leadership of a party when Candidate B has won twice as many votes, the victory will be seen as illegitimate and the party will be unable to function," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the notion that the party is "divided into factions based upon our prior partisan allegiances."
He did not return calls made to his office last week and on Tuesday.
Ontario MP Scott Reid, one of the Alliance negotiators during merger talks in 2003, wrote to party members over the long weekend about a change he would like to see in the Conservative party constitution.
Such changes will be discussed at the party convention next month and could fuel a passionate rule fight on the floor, as it has in previous years.
Reid wants to alter the formula that gives all riding associations an equal say in a leadership vote, regardless of how many members they have. Reid would like to see larger associations get more clout — something Progressive Conservatives balked at in 2003 for fear that the mostly western-based Alliance would swamp the ballot.
Reid points to the text of the 2003 merger agreement between the parties that referred to a "one-time process for leadership selection" before the race that saw Stephen Harper elected.
"So a change to a new system is entirely in the spirit of the agreement signed by Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay and the issue of how the party would select its second and subsequent leaders was never a deal-breaker," Reid wrote in a letter obtained by The Canadian Press.
That directly contradicts Defence Minister Peter MacKay's letter to members written only a few days earlier.
"The equality of (riding associations) was a crucial, 'deal-breaker' issue in the merger of our legacy parties in 2003," wrote MacKay. "Equality . . . has allowed us to elect our leader with a cross-country base of support, develop as a truly national party, and this in turn has enabled us to form a truly national, majority government. . . .
"This is a divisive debate our party does not need to have again, having rejected similar proposals in our founding agreement and at two national conventions."
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal agreed and saluted Harper for defending the rule in the past.
"Retroactive efforts to change the core '03 agreement are not in the interest of a strong party, however well intentioned, the proposer may be," Segal said in an email to The Canadian Press.
"Smaller Tory riding associations in less populous parts of Canada, in rural areas, the Atlantic and Maritime regions, not to mention Quebec or the North, should not be discouraged or diminished as the proposed changes would make unavoidable.
"Fussing with an eight-year-old agreement every few years is counterproductive."
Some Quebec Tories who spoke to The Canadian Press said they were completely against changing the rule at a time when the party needs to rebuild in the province. Quebec riding associations generally do not have the same numbers of members as those in other parts of the country.
"I'm against it for the simple reason that fundamentally, if there is a riding that has 100,000 voters while another has 45,000 voters, the chances of having the same number of party members is completely unrealistic," said Jean-Nicolas Marchand, president of the Louis Saint-Laurent Conservative association.
"Right from the outset it's inequitable because all ridings in Canada don't have the same number of people."
Reid is not the only Conservative pushing for a change to the equality-of-ridings principle. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's Calgary riding has its own proposal, as do others from British Columbia.
Under the current system, riding associations have 100 points to allocate in a leadership vote. The points are awarded to each contender based on the percentage of party members in each riding who cast ballots for one person or another. A riding association with a few dozen members gets to send the same number of points to a leadership contestant as a riding with thousands of members.
Reid complained in his letter that a majority of party members could cast ballots for a particular candidate, but see someone else win because of the equality rule.
"And this is the whole point of suggesting a new leadership election formula," Reid said. "I think it's obvious that if Candidate A wins the leadership of a party when Candidate B has won twice as many votes, the victory will be seen as illegitimate and the party will be unable to function," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the notion that the party is "divided into factions based upon our prior partisan allegiances."
He did not return calls made to his office last week and on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)