Originally Posted by
Thruster763
My view on this, incase its not clear, is that cockpit video should (would) be treated the same way as CVR / FDR recordings.
The more correct statement, in my opinion, is: "cockpit video
must be treated the same way as CVR".
Looking at the EAFR's, that already today have the (unused) capability to store video recording, there is a big difference in the accessibility of the FDR and the CV²R data (V²= voice&video). FDR can be ("routinely") downloaded using the dedicated maintenance laptop. CV²R requires the EAFR to be dismounted/removed, which is not a routinely executed task.
I think it will be only a matter of (much) time before the most advanced (network-centered avionics) airliners will have the option to retrofit/replace the CAM on the overhead panel, with a CAMV: Microphone + (birds-eye) Video-camera. Given network and storage limitations, it will probably be in moderate resolution and low frame-rate (ex. 4fps to stay in line with the FDR's 4Hz sampling rate of some parameters??).
So no faces, angry or smiling to be found on the recording. No close-ups, no peeking in the smartphone texting after landing. Only, which body-parts (and objects) moved when/where.
For me it's hard to understand, that a birds-eye video-camera would be potentially more damaging to the crew, than what is actually said/recorded on the flight deck during cruise (let's exclude the boobs-flashing french stewardess...and they recorded themselves in HD-quality)
And the next unsolved mystery of a major accident involving a state-of-the-art airliner with recovered recordings (but without the Video option installed) might become the driving force for the optional retrofit, to become a mandatory retrofit (in a decade or so).