Frans wrote:
Mostly, if something happens, it ends up deadly, so why care? (Yes, that is reckless, but I know a few, how think and do so.)
Most accidents are not deadly! Indeed, the cases I know about in Sweden were revealed by non-fatal accidents.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Most accidents are not deadly!Sure, I don’t doubt that at all. The two PPL pilots I know, who earn money from scenic flights (more than just cost price) justify their actions with such ideas. One of them has even almost 2000 hours…
That’s good because UK tax office gets plenty of data from Swiss banks (employees stealing it and selling it) And it gets shared with much of Europe.Absolutely correct! Swiss banks have to share their data for foreign citizens with all countries how signed the share-agreement. Therefore, Swiss tax offices get also information of bank accounts from Swiss residents in the UK or EU. It’s just that Swiss tax offices don’t get any data from Swiss banks. Bank secrecy within Switzerland is still fully in place. That’s also one of the reasons why Swiss banks often only offer bank accounts for Swiss residents, so they don’t have to share any data through the international system. Hint: If you manage to open a Swiss bank account on a Swiss address, your account won’t be shared with other countries.
Frans wrote:
Agreed. Even the most grumpy German CAA officer doesn’t bother about any YT video, which contains illegal ATC recordings. OK, this ATC secrecy thing might be a dead German rule, but also microlight pilots how fly illegally into countries without permits, don’t get punished. And if a pilot flies intended VFR into IMC, it seems nobody wants to prosecute as well.
Sorry, I have to point out that I was approached by the Bezirksregierung because of a video I posted on Youtube. I was flying past EDDG, on their frequency, with a GoPro recording and overheard an exchange which started:
EDDG Tower: N1234 are you on frequency?
N1234: Ah, yes, ah N1…. uh…. 2…. ummmm 3…. err…. 4 yes we read you
EDDG Tower: Good, I thought I’d best say hello as you’ve established yourself on a 4 mile final….
It continued with lots more muppetry in evidence including backtracking on the runway, causing another aircraft to need to go around, getting lost on the airport and admitting that it was a student and instructor….
I was told, in no uncertain terms, to take the video down OR I would face prosecution. This was in 2014 and was, according to the person writing to me, because of the Fernmeldegeheimnis and included radio exchanges that the public are not privy to. I first thought it was a wind-up so I actually contacted the person by phone to check they were who they said they were – and they were. Perhaps he knew the instructor or the student, who knows. Either way, the video is hidden from the public. But it showed that at that point in time, they didn’t want me recording an exchange between two different 3rd parties. Whether it’s different when recording yourself and the tower or FIS, I don’t know….
Interesting. I reckon you upset somebody who was well connected.
Recording ATC thread.
The UK has a similar reg but it seems that audio between you and ATC is not covered by that. So when I do my flying videos and leave ATC in there, I cut away 3rd party audio. Well, usually 
This has long been a debate in the music and television industries. It had also been the subject of several court cases but no outcome was definitive enough to set a precedent.
But it now seems anything broadcast can now be recorded. Otherwise video recorders, tape and mp3 recorders etc would be pretty useless and would deprive a person of the ability to time shift, something freely available.
However, it is what you do with those recordings which is subject to a case by case outcome.
So, if someone got permission from NATS for example to put their flight and comms on YT, that would be ok. That then begs the question “is there a blanket acceptance that communication between yourself and AN OTHER or others is free for publication by one of the parties?”
That tends to be country specific.
The second question to ask is “whether the publication of the recording could do harm”
Again some countries take more of a dim view (ie bigger penalties) of this than others.
Thirdly “Is it in the public (intended audience’s) interest?”
The mix of these factors are the things to bear in mind when deciding whether or not to publish and how to do it. Eg do you need to blur faces or distort the sound track so that the person speaking or being seen or heard can not be identified if permission has not been granted.
The harm factor is the biggest factor for broadcast. Whereas for non broadcast it might be whether or not you have been illegally eavesdropping.
In German case mentioned above, it could be argued that the publication of the recording might cause harm to the instructor or student or ATSO. Asked to take it down @Steve6443 did. So no harm no foul. If he had refused to take it down it would be up to someone to take the matter to court. But who would take the matter to court and face the costs involved? Even if judgment went against @Steve6443 the likely outcome would have been that the recording should be taken down and possibly an apology made. He could, however, be asked to delete any parts of the recording that could possibly identify the recorded parties in such a way that might make them risible or otherwise do harm.
Lawyers make a fortune out of the fact that there are no specific laws laid down, internationally to cover such publication.
Interesting story @Steve6443. I guess, the student of that particular aircraft or even more his flight instructor saw your video and reported it to the Bezirksregierung. They have of course to do something with it and asked you (hopefully politely?) to take it down. I think it’s a fair way to deal with it.
There are tons of videos on YT with just regular German ATC recordings, even sometimes in TV shows. I know from the main German ATC organization (DFS), that they don’t bother about recordings in general and the Bundesnetzagentur doesn’t bother either if the PIC performs recordings. I think it’s a grey area and as long as you just publish regular radio calls, nobody would have something against it.
There are a lot of people who read forums (and other social media) without participation, for the sole purpose of spotting something which they think somebody else would be “interested in” and they go and tell that very specific person. I am damn sure the UK CAA has somebody doing that, for example.
On a related topic, I am continually amazed at how many students video their lessons, clearly with the permission of their instructor. If I was an FI I would never allow that, and when I used to do mentoring (which I stopped due to the crazy UK CAA no prisoners policy), likewise. Especially some videos (mostly from the US) where the lady student is, shall we say, dressed for effect and the instructor looks somewhat embarrassed.
Peter wrote:
I reckon you upset somebody who was well connected.
I think that’s true too.
If I messed up badly and someone recorded it, I don’t think I’d contact the National Aviation Authority to ask them to get it removed. That would only bring their attention to my messing up. Instead I think I’d contact the publisher directly.
The fact that they went straight to the authority, suggests that they knew that they’d get a friendly hearing.
dublinpilot wrote:
If I messed up badly and someone recorded it, I don’t think I’d contact the National Aviation Authority to ask them to get it removed. That would only bring their attention to my messing up. Instead I think I’d contact the publisher directly.
It’s not that they messed up once but numerous times – first they entered into Class D airspace without contacting the tower. The established themselves on a 4 mile final. Again without contacting the tower. Then they were asked to expedite leaving the runway because of other traffic, so what did they do? Yes, backtracked down the runway, causing the following aircraft to be sent around. Then the PIC said that they didn’t need fuel, all they needed was a toilet break, then they would continue their training – thus confirming it was a student and instructor on board. Then they got lost, missing their turn off, requiring a “follow me” car to be sent.The tower controller was extremely frustrated by it all.
It wasn’t, however, the last time I had contact what that particular member of the BR – a few years later, I was on short final to land when another aircraft wandered through my final approach course, without any radio contact – at least until the Flugleiter called him up by radio with his call sign – climbing from 300ft AGL to around 700ft AGL. His actions caused his flight path to cross my path with maybe 15 feet horizontal and zero feet vertical separation at the closest. Both the Flugleiter and I reported the incident to BR, however this same person who had told me – rather bluntly and forcibly – to take the video down, said that he had no proof that anything untoward had happened.
I explained that over Hamm there are altitude limits for flying over the city unless landing or departing, that the conflicting traffic was doing neither, that he had endangered my life and his own with his recklessness & stupidity but the BR employee said that they had only word of mouth from myself and the Flugleiter. I pointed out that the only reason I knew traffic was out there was because of my Zaon MRX and it was warning me of a transponder nearby – that meant that the other aircraft’s transponder was being interrogated by Dortmund Radar. I asked him to request the recordings for that day but he refused.
Since then I have zero respect for the BR as it appears it’s more a question of dodgy handshakes than anything else.
PS: If anyone wants to listen to the ATC controller getting more and more frustrated, send me a PM, I’ll send you the link. Incredible that such an instructor is still allowed to train…..
Steve6443 wrote:
Since then I have zero respect for the BR as it appears it’s more a question of dodgy handshakes than anything else.Oh dear, I can imagine that after reading this entire story! Maybe you could have escalated it to the head of CAA in Münster, or even LBA? Or send a report through the EASA channel?
