In investigating an aeroplane crash, the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) obtained the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and made a transcript. The accident report contained excerpts from the transcript and, annexed to it, was an edited transcript. The transcript did not include anything said by the pilots which did not relate to piloting the aeroplane.

The union representing the pilots complained to me about the disclosure of the transcript. The union said the pilots had agreed to use the CVR on the basis that its contents would be used only for accident investigation. It submitted that annexing the edited transcript to the report was a further and different use not connected with that purpose.

This complaint raised an issue under information privacy principle 11(a), which provides that personal information shall not be disclosed unless the agency disclosing it believes, on reasonable grounds:

that the disclosure of the information is one of the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained or is directly related to the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained.

I had to consider the purposes for which TAIC obtained the CVR and its contents and whether that included annexing a transcript of the contents to the accident report. TAIC's principal function under s 4 of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act 1990 is to investigate accidents and incidents and to:

determine the circumstances and causes of accidents and incidents with a view to avoiding similar accidents in the future, rather than to ascribe the blame to any person.

Other functions include preparing and publishing findings and recommendations in respect of investigations (TAIC Act 1990, s 8).

The CVR and its contents were obtained by TAIC for the purpose of accident investigation. Because TAIC has a function of publishing its findings, I accepted that the preparation and publication of those findings was one of the purposes in connection with which the CVR's contents were obtained.

The union suggested that the transcript was not a finding, but was simply evidence, so annexing the report was not connected with TAIC's function of publishing its findings. I noted that determining circumstances and causes normally requires consideration of the factual evidence ascertained during the investigation, so the findings of an investigative body would normally include the evidential basis in support of those findings.

I was persuaded on this issue by the observations made by Justice Panckhurst in The Attorney-General (NZ Police) v The Transport Accident Investigation Commission and others (CP 164/96, HC, Wellington):

Findings of an investigative body, to be intelligible and of value, require the support of the reasons which prompted them. In relation to an air accident, reference to the relevant facts is essential. So in this case the transcript is an aspect of the factual basis advanced in support of the essential findings. In that sense it is a finding.

For these reasons, I accepted that TAIC had obtained the CVR's contents as part of its investigation and that the transcript was part of its findings. This was clearly one of the purposes for which the information had been obtained, so I formed the opinion that the disclosure of the transcript in the report was allowed by principle 11(a). In my opinion the complaint did not therefore have substance.

January 1998

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information - Transport Accident Investigation Commission - Transcript from cockpit voice recorder attached to accident report - Purposes in obtaining transcript - Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act 1990, ss 4, 8 - Information privacy principle 11(a)