plt_aeroeng;
There have been several posters in this thread objecting to cockpit video on privacy grounds.
That is nonsense.
Airline pilots are in a monitored environment. There is no justification for suggesting that the cockpit is a private place.
Perhaps I am one such poster, not sure, but I posted the following:
We in Canada have long made it illegal to access the CVR information by other than trained investigors of the TSB; even that has been breached by the courts in a recent case. We have attempted to make access to the DFDR and FOQA QARs also illegal but so far have been unsuccessful. Pilots have every right to such privacy with the obvious exception of investigations of incidents and accidents but that's it.
For the purposes of the discussion and for accuracy I want to be sure we're talking about the same thing only because I think some may make the mistake that there are two distinct views being expressed here.
My view on the privacy of the cockpit
in terms of the invasive nature of the recorded environment is the same as yours I suspect: that it is the nature of the job to have in-depth recording on board and that pilots cannot expect not to have such recordings in their work environment. I fully agree with that view if that's the one you're expressing and that any other expectation is indeed nonsense.
The "right to privacy" statement I make refers to keeping all that recorded safety data away from the media, the lawyers and the politicians. That is the expectation pilots have a right to; - In fact, I hope that is the same expectation that the Minister and the Accountable Executive of every carrier in Canada has! That is certainly the agreement implied in any tacit pilot association acceptance, at least in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, of the invasive nature of on-board recording equipment.
In Germany, according to my friends doing FODA work at Lufthansa, this expectation is expressed in German law - the data is the pilot's alone and may not be used for any other purpose than investigation.
That law best expresses my own view and wish for the protection of flight data in Canada. I trust we are on the same page here - my fault for not fully expressing my view very clearly.
All this said, re:
Concern for inappropriate use of such video could well be addressed in the context of collective agreement negotiations when cameras are introduced.
Would that it were that easy! Unfortunately I disagree.
First, collective agreements do not have the force of law, at least in Canada and clearly not in the US. I am unsure of the legal status of CA's in the aforementioned states but almost certainly other laws have higher status and can, and have, intervened even when the CVR is required by the courts under demands for the production of information in either a civil or criminal proceeding - in other words, "the public interest", which force is presently incorporated in the Aeronautics Act in Canada.
Second, the protection of all flight data belongs well beyond the reach of all but trained safety investigators and those for whom access to such information is necessary to build safety programs and validate data, etc. Corporate willingness to "re-interpret" collective agreements in their favour may not stop at the industrial aspects of any such agreements. I have seen this take place where there have been past violations, albethey rare, of these very clauses - perhaps innocent enough and without result but "ignorance" of the CA notwithstanding, the CA cannot ultimately protect flight data from such error or willing violations as the law can. Some, perhaps most, airlines have the ability to at least read CVR and DFDR equipment and do so for certification requirements.
That said, there are also certainly strong corporate motivations for the privacy of flight data.
All modern fighter pilots have cockpit video recording. Generally, it is just a HUD and front window view, but can give clues to pilot actions. Ask any fighter pilot whether any of his/her actions are influenced by knowledge of the recording going on - you will find that they are not.
Admittedly, in the old days I have had friends who stuck by an ailing bird and said that the refrain that repeated in their minds was "... and the board found that..", but those same friends did not object when the HUD camera came along.
It's nowhere near the same environment but I accept your point as far as acknowledging that such recordings provide good investigative information.
A reasonably high definition cockpit video camera could well be useful in incident analysis. We should not be afraid of reasonable post-incident assessment of our actions, at least in North America/U.K. where the safety culture still is supportive of pilots.
For the same reason, I curiously agree with you - cockpit video "properly" installed can do the same thing, but then again, I don't think the pure safety/utility/investigative aspect of the technology is in dispute.
Using today's tiny, very sophisticated video monitoring technology the ideal installation is not one mounting but multiple camera mountings throughout the cockpit - on the instrument panel in several locations, facing the crew, on both sides to monitor the stick/bag storage area, from the rear bulkhead both high up and low down, from the forward overhead panel down and slightly rearwards to capture hand/arm motions especially at the pedestal and even in the rudder pedal areas, although such movements are already captured by DFDRs (and all sophisticated variations of recorders) - you get the idea. It's like setting up a very tight security system in a sensitive area; the limit is not technology, obviously and some will observe that it may take just a bit more vaseline and a bit more time during the cockpit check...
The key once again is strictly-controlled data. Achieving such a heavily protected legal environment in a democracy is very difficult but it has been done with the CVR in Canada and
is done in the US under the FAA's laws governing FOQA data. Even as you may say that the North American and UK safety cultures in general support crews in this, (a view with which, in comparison with the way Asian crews are treated, I agree), that same safety culture does not, with perhaps the exception of the US law cited, extend to legal protection and is instead, to a greater or lesser degree, at the will of the courts and "the public interest", (which is nothing short of protection of the Minister at the expense of the publication of data were it to come down to two competing priorities). The Act to amend the Aeronautics Act in Canada (Now
Bill C7,) may or may not survive the present 40th parliament but the amendments which were proposed to protect flight data have been dropped.
Despite the high utility, the great value to flight safety, the acceptance of the deep invasion into the cockpit and the notion that pilots must expect this invasion as part of the tacit agreement when they go to work for an airline, such programs in the aforementioned states proceed with the blessing of pilot associations.
The moment that the trust, which I refer to as "the pilot's right to privacy", is broken and the signal is sent that such information is no longer the sole domain of the investigators and of those who run safety programs such as FOQA/FDA/FODA and that through some legal, ethical or industrial quirk the data is at risk of public, legal and media exposure, SMS and all safety programs are finished in Canada and, I suspect, in any state where similar circumstances obtain.
Now THAT would be a problem for the Minister as well as the Accountable Executives of all carriers in Canada.