Originally Posted by
TheInquisitor
A lot of calls going up for video surveillance.
The simple truth is that video surveillance would add very little in 99.99% of investigations. Investigators can derive a remarkable amount of information from audio recordings. FD mikes are incredibly sensitive, and all other connected mikes (boom mikes on headsets etc) are usually recorded too on most modern types. And multiple mics allow for an impressive amount of conclusions to be drawn - such as exactly where on the FD sounds are coming from. Different switches, levers, controls all make slightly different noises - these can be examined in great detail and firm conclusions drawn in most cases.
To include video recording would require significant modifications - the recorders would need a huge capacity increase, likely needing a redesign, or the installation of an additional recorder. And a cheapo solution like a GoPro would be useless - the recorders are built the way they are, and installed where they are, for a purpose - crashworthiness - and assuring that purpose is NOT cheap.
Neither is the re-certification of ALL the aircraft so modified, to ensure that the mod hasn't introduced new problems with the rest of the carefully-designed aircraft systems.
In short, it will be a significant cost - for probably very little real benefit - even before we get into privacy issues.
A FAR CHEAPER option would be to hire more pilots - to take the pressure off already over-worked and stressed crews. And train them properly. And pay them better. And.... And...
And it would have done nothing to prevent what happened on this flight - and likely shed very little additional light on the eventual happenings.
The cockpit is a very simple environment for video software to compress. Only those pixels that are altered need to be sent. Therefore, for most of the time there is very little for the video to send. The compression of even moving areas is extremely efficient. Just imagine that there had been video recording of this GW incident on the same CVR memory. There would be none of this hamsterwheel debate. Now imagine if that recording had been compressed and sent as soon as ATC felt that there was a problem or the aircraft automatics felt there was a problem - say an EGPWS warning. Already ATC can tell the aircraft to send them information over ADS-C and the pilot is unaware that the contract has changed. The same could easily be done with uplink of CVR/DFDR information without the crew being aware and without them able to stop it. A compressed transmission of a few minutes of DVDR/CVR may only take seconds.
It is unfortunate, but the actions of a few have reduced the trust of the paying passengers and could result in a far more detailed recording of what is happening in the cockpit. I have no doubt that the air carrier's insurance will be interested in this level of recording too, as a self inflicted hull loss may not be insured. It may become a case of if you want aircraft operator insurance you must have this specific level of recording equipment operating in the cockpit.