History & Future
The issue with recording cockpit video and also external aircraft video goes a long way back...and was initiated by the UK AAIB...after the Kegworth accident....we're back in the early 80's here.
Whilst there had been experimental installations run at Cranfield in the late 70's these were not true engineering/operational trials. The first such funded trial was run by the CAA using a BA B747 and the installation was done with Boeing oversight and involvement. External camera's were fitted, and an onboard video recorder fitted in the upper deck pax seat area. The system ran on revenue flights for several months.
During this time, and as a result of AAIB lobbying to CAA, both Airbus and Boeing took a passing interest in the concept of video systems on board. Two main themes were studied and discussed to death....
A) video recording of the cockpit instruments/panel & pedestal area, as recording of the whole cockpit and crew was immediately considered a non-starter.....
B) video display of external views of the aircraft to the crew and recording of such views.
To paraphrase several reports and many months of work from multiple groups, that even included an RFP issue from Airbus....
A) was deemed to be not so useful without crew being shown and their actions and interactions synced to the CVR and FDR. Also making a crash survivable video recorder (pre the digital age, when all was on tape) was not considered economically feasible at the time....
B) the display of external views of the aircraft (and get this as to me it seemed crazy at the time) was deemed unsafe because the images were believed to be too comanding and attention making for the crew...and there could be ambiguity between the image and primary flight instruments or alarms..and this could cause CRM issues.
Remember these studies started after Kegworth, where essentially crew switched off a good engine due to faulty fire warning and left the real burning engine running...the pax knew the crew had screwed up, as they could see which engine was burning....
There was also a Manchester (If I recall correctly) ground evacuation incident when pax where crew turned aircraft off active runway with an engine fire, but did not realise wind blew flame over the fuselage...and pax ushered out via exit door into the flames....!!
So the idea crew seeing a burning left engine on the video would then have a quandary which engine to switch off if the warning indications said the right engine was on fire, was a reason given to NOT install the video system for crew external inspection of airframe in flight/on ground....seemed silly to me at the time and still does.
Also the video is a 'fail-safe' warning as it cannot give a false warning. If there is no image..then simple..the system is not working. If there is an image, then the system is working...unlike a warning indicator where bulbs can burn out or wires can short.... Also you can hardly show an image of the right engine burning if it is the left engine...even if you get the wires mixed up.....!!
Following on from the trials several companies gradually began to market external video for 'entertainment' purposes...and we gradually arrive at modern times......
A) is still a highly emotive and contentious subject
but B) is a system whose time has come I would say, and should seriously be considered, including crash survivable digital store units.
Last edited by HyFlyer; 9th Oct 2012 at 02:55.