Video Cameras on the flight Deck

[desert_knight]

Why the strong reaction against cameras in the flight deck?

Will they not:

Help accident investigators see what happened, rather than have to guess from audio?

Clear Crews of blame for accidents or events that were not their fault?

Improve flight safety overall?

Interested to hear arguments for and against.

[eal401]

Invasion of privacy?

I'm sure there are other reasons, but feel compelled not to mention them.

[desert_knight]

What privacy? There are two of you in there, what are you up to??!:eek:

[eal401]

I'm only speculating, trying to remember what the arguments were against CVRs. Though that was many years before my time! ;)

[con-pilot]

Actually it has already been done, American Airlines had video cameras in the cockpits quite a few years ago. I remember riding on a DC-10 going into KLGA and watching a live feed from the cockpit. Wino probably knows the history of this video in the cockpit with AA. I don’t why they stopped.

[Rocco in Budapest]

What privacy? There are two of you in there, what are you up to??!
I can sum this question up in a short sentence..."None of your friggin business" is what we get up to in there! Sit still and eat your peanuts!

I say we ignore this thread. Obviously not a pilot or perhaps a wannabe this desert character.

Hard to believe they had live feeds from the cockpit at AA though! Something like that should never have happened with a union as strong as AA´s.

[ABO944]

I think Rocco from Budapest got out the wrong side of bed this morning!

[Anti-ice]

:D LOL can't be that interesting !

Besides , maybe they're worried about management using the evidence in that 'dodgy landing we won't tell anyone about' :}

[desert_knight]

Very well argued Rocco, very eloquent :yuk:

[Airbubba]

Video cameras in the cockpit will undoubtedly follow the same path as many of the other safety "innovations" originally opposed by the unions like cockpit voice recorders, locked cockpit doors and drug and alcohol testing.

First the union will say no way, never, it's not required. It won't help, it doesn't matter, it doesn't improve safety. It's an invasion of privacy, it challenges the pilot's command authority, it's not allowed under the contract etc., etc., etc. We'll have a national strike, we'll show 'em.

Then, a couple of years later the union will say it's a done deal, our hands are tied, there is nothing we can do about it...

>>I remember riding on a DC-10 going into KLGA and watching a live feed from the cockpit. Wino probably knows the history of this video in the cockpit with AA. I don’t why they stopped.<<

I believe American quit using the cockpit cameras a couple of years after the AA 191 DC-10 crash at ORD in 1979. Victims' family lawyers claimed that extra compensation was due since the pax saw the disaster unfolding on the screen in the seconds before the crash.

Of course, no mention of cockpit cameras at AA would be complete without the "gorilla hand" story. Here's one version from, appropriately, the archive of alt.folklore.urban:

_________________________________

Back in the early 80's, American Airlines experimented with video
cameras in the cockpit so the passengers could see the plane taking off and landing. The camera was situated behind the pilots' seats looking forward over the throttle quadrant.

One day, a 737 [did AA have them in the early '80's?] crew decided to have some fun. The co-pilot, who was due to fly the leg, obtained the arm from a gorilla outfit, and wore this over his left arm, so that all you could see on the camera was a huge hairy paw managing the throttles. What really upset the people, however, was that after they had landed, and were taxiing in to the ramp, the captain's hand is seen passing across a peeled banana, which the co-pilot's hand grabs.

American's management thought this was so funny, they gave the pilots 30-day suspensions without pay.

Interestingly, though, one hears rumours about black-market versionsof the video from time to time.

[fishtits]

I'm not a professional pilot, however I can see the objections that pilots would have to cameras on the flight deck especially if the management were able to access & store the digital information during or after each flight & use as a stick to beat the flight crew at evaluation time etc... (V1 rotate... zzzzzz... Captain? etc :E )

But, I can also see how useful this information would potentially be to crash investigators (ref sept 11)

Perhaps if the digital video information was stored in with the CVR and overwritten on each consecutive flight & only legally accessed on reporting of an incident it might be a way around the privacy issues?

Of course only my 2c...

FT

[Vee One...Rotate]

I can understand the arguments for video cameras on the flight deck with the footage being used like the transcript from a CVR but, and I speak as a fledgling PPL pilot, I can't see any point in providing a live feed to the pax. I don't think it serves any real useful purpose and, in any line of work, would you want people able to transfix on images of you and watch EVERYTHING you did while at work? I'll be honest - I wouldn't.

This is just a personal opinion but I don't think I'd have a problem with a camera on the flight deck if, post-flight, the crew actively erased its contents. This would avoid any possible perceived abuse of the footage by the company and would still meet the safety requirement.

V1R

[ABird747]

Privacy? Get a life! What is the cockpit, your own private boudoir?

If the video is only stored as long as the data on the CVR then what's the problem?

[BigGreenPleasureMachine]

As has been said, arguments for and against, as there were for CVRs, which are now almost universally accepted as being as important as the FDR.

Can't see that a manually erasable recorder is a good idea. Presumably after someone makes a horlicks he'll 'accidentally' manually erase the record.


I feel that the current NTSB policy of making entire transcripts available (minus the expletives, bizarrely) is a bad one. The contents of the CVR should remain private and available to only those who need it for investigative purposes, with only relevant excerpts being referred to if necessary in the accident report.

Right, I'll get down off the high horse now:*

[atse]

Boy oh boy. Some people just never learn. They are called airline pilots. Always so keen to believe that “air safety” and “security” are pure entities that will never be used by others in their “power plays” to the disadvantage of pilots. And, in the end, having surrendered access to our work place and decision making responsibilities we find it impossible to retreat and recover what was there before. And that is why in less than a generation the job will be worth buttons.

When voice recorders arrived we - or our predecessors - argued that the information would be misused. The “militant types” who made such arguments were assured by ICAO, various accident investigation agencies, aviation authorities, etc. that the contents of CVRs could “never be heard on the evening news”. Agreements were drawn up. Of course, in the end, because of local laws and other influences which had nothing to do with aviation it happened. It took a while, but it happened. In its final manifestation – in New Zealand – we had the police successfully claiming (and then defending assertively) an entitlement to confiscate the CVR after an accident, with a view to trawling through to the content in order to see if a crime had been committed (and this without prima facia evidence of crime). The deterioration took less than a career span.

With CRM – an excellent and important part of effective flight management – we invited psychologists into our workplace and found that there were some of them who did not have our interests at heart (this is being diplomatic). They got to build empires on our goodwill and came up with some quaint notions about what “hoops” we need to hop through, not to mention “assessment”. THEY decided what was good for us.

And then we have flight data recording and monitoring for “safety analysis purposes only”. Mindful of the previous debacles and pilots concerns we have protocols, agreements, ombudspersons, etc. and plenty of promises. But to make that work you need honourable people who recognise such agreements and will work with the local pilots’ association. In the absence of such agreements and intermediaries “they” can monitor your daily work almost in real time. It is, is it not, interesting that in a certain airline whose name can hardly be mentioned on PPRuNe - called RYANAIR - flight data is recorded but not protected by any agreement? Of course everyone knows that this very same airline would probably prefer to go into liquidation than recognise a pilots’ association (yes, I know they say you can, but you’d have to be seriously naïve to be fooled by that!). So who is going to protect this information or the pilot who falls foul of the system? And from there the disease will spread even to those areas where pilots say "that will never happen here" (as they turn their nose up at the very mention of Ryanair).

Just try getting surgeons to allow VCRs or video cameras into an operating theatre (where the level of risk is multiples of the level of risk in an aeroplane and the need for good ex poste analysis is acute). You’ll learn a few things about how to look after your interests from the reaction!

If I may say so, the person who started this thread and adds the odd cryptic comment is either young and innocent, or a fool, or just not a pilot (I suspect the latter). I do not intend this observation as an insult, but there is a need for everyone to get real about this kind of nonsense. As to the retort that these are matters of opinion, I suggest that the evidence of the past forty years makes them more an issue of fact than opinion.

Well, at least I feel better now.

[BlooMoo]

YOUR workplace atse ?

[plt_aeroeng]

I don't understand the strong reaction against cockpit video recorders. The CVR and digital data tell enough of the story that privacy can no longer be a concern.

Workplace privacy, whether in the cockpit or in a Dilbert cubicle, has been largely eliminated. Many corporations, for example, now monitor workers internet activity and even have the capability to watch users primary applications usage. The latter is done, in theory, to allow on-line support but could as well be used for snooping.

Rather than fight against cockpit video, which will be a losing argument, fight instead for responsible use and proper safeguarding of access to data. While we may all dislike the publication of CVR transcripts post events, it is a reality.

In any case, in my early days I found in discussion with colleagues that even in the era of no recorded data, some of our actions during stressful times were motivated by the refrain going through our heads "And the board found that ....". This refrain tended to be particularly loud when we had started out doing something stupid.

With regard to AA, I once was self loading cargo on an AA DC-10 going in to ORD. The view on the cabin screen was not of an approaching runway, but rather an infield. About 300' up, the scene slewed rapidly over to the runway for an uneventful landing. The captain, post landing, announced that he had been trying out the auto-land on a clear day so that he could monitor it well. (Don't know if that is true, or just an FO off his game). The real point, however, is that the picture showed only the edge of the PIC and FO shoulders, and no instruments. It might be of value in coordinating terrain path post event, but that's all.

Finally, you are surely all aware that most single seat fighters now are equipped with a HUD camera which reocrds HUD data and out of cockpit view. If the mega-ego fighter jocks can live with such a recording, surely a more rational airline crew can.:D

[Self Loading Freight]

I think they should install cockpit video cameras just as soon as they put the same equipment in the CEO's office and the boardroom.

R

[Norwegian wood]

Very good,atse, very good....

[dallas dude]

Airbubba,

AA's early eighties B737's were courtesy of the Air Cal acquisition.

You're right about the ORD AA DC-10 that lost (literally) an engine at Vr and subsequently rolled on it's back when one wing's slats retracted at V2. Happened in May, 1979. Up until that point, there was a view through the windshield for the pax.

As far as the general discussion re: "safety", if the government really wants to be pro-active and save lives, hospital operating rooms would be a good start. Allegedly, 200,000 people in the US died unnecessarily in 2003, due to operating theatre errors!

Check this out...recently, procedures have been adapted from the airline industry in the hope that surgeons' will be more inclined to carry out the correct surgery on a patient. They have instituted a pilot type checklist in the hope this will reduce mistakes.

Wow, what a leap forward!

As another poster mentions, the medical industry (which obviously has room for immediate improvement) would lobby furiously against such additional "oversight".

DD.

[maxalt]

Cockpit video feeds in the cabin are a clear security risk. They would tip off potential hijackers as to when the cockpit door is being opened or about to open, when a pilot leaves the flight deck for a call of nature, when a CCM is serving drinks or meals, and any other weakness in cockpit security you can imagine.

All for what? Passenger entertainment?
The risk outweighs the return.

[desert_knight]

I don't think there was any suggestion hat these feeds would be sent to the cabin if introduced now. The use would be for...

1. Accident investigation as with CVR.

2. Possible secure ground link to verify Hijack in progress

[TR4A]

What if the media gets a hold of it. "Film at Eleven" Just what we need is the last minutes of the flight on the evening news. You say it can't happen. What about AA at Cali?

[toon]

No because 'its against my human rights' !

[brakedwell]

Surely there are enough parameters being recorded by the FDR and CVR to make the installation of a flight deck camera unnecessary. It could be argued that a camera watching your every move for ten hours or so is intrusive and adds to fatigue. If cameras are fitted I wonder how many pilots start chewing gum!

[normal_nigel]

Its worked well in the galley.

As well as seeing when my food is ready you can watch the birds fixing their suspender belts.

NN

[Mac the Knife]

atse - "Just try getting surgeons to allow VCRs or video cameras into an operating theatre (where the level of risk is multiples of the level of risk in an aeroplane and the need for good ex poste analysis is acute). You’ll learn a few things about how to look after your interests from the reaction!"

Let's get it right.

"1999 report "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System" from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. The report from the private institute, an advisory body to the U.S. government, estimates that 44,000 to 98,000 deaths occur each year in hospitals alone as the result of medical mistakes."

Not, you may note, confined to surgical errors....

I wouldn't mind if I thought that it really would reduce M & M. Gotta doubt it though. Surgeons would certainly tell less jokes (usually worse than those in JB) and become more fed up (just like pilots).

[atse]

Thanks Mac the Knife. The choice of the operating theatre was only an effort to draw an analogy, not a suggestion that surgeons are more prone to error than other group of physicians, or pilots, or nuclear power plant engineers, or whomever. By virtue of being human we are all operating to the same general error rate ....

The paradox is, of course, that all forms of recording that permit us to reconstuct what happened are very useful, regardless of profession or workplace. (The bad jokes, comments about management, etc. are peripheral, if sometimes embarassing!).

The difference, I would posit, is that physicians are perhaps too defensive of their professional space while pilots are insufficiently so.

What is common to all is the need to use the information obtained in an appropriate manner. I am merely asserting that all the available evidence suggests that protections tend to be overcome (frequently for unanticipated reasons) and that what starts off as a constructive and well-intentioned contribution to safety becomes a nightmare for some practitioners in the following years. The New Zealand example I cited was but one such outcome. It was a nightmare and took serious international action to even get the attention of the government.

I was reacting to the innocence of some of he contributions, not the desireability of information in a perfect world. It's just that we don't live in a perfect world and you need to look after your interests.

In that particular regard, pilots manifestly have a lot to learn from physicians. All of which was really my original argument ...

[LGB]

Several solutions are discussed here, including live cockpit video feed to pax, which has nothing to do with post accident investigation.

I am in favour of video recordings in the cockpit, encrypted in a form so only the authorities can access them, and kept in a secure manner like CVR/FDR. Erasing should not be an option for the crew nor company.

If a am dead anyway, then let the world see how many times I picked my nose, and where I put the bogers, if they so want! As long as investigators can see that I am not reciting the Koran instead of appropriate checklists, or taking of my shoes because I think I am about to die, instead of performing recall items!





Please distinguish between company surveillance and post crash accident investigation!

[jetjockey737]

I agree with the posts earlier that there is more than adequate info for the aaib and the likes from FDR and CVR. If they were to introduce a camera into the F/D then I agree that the video ought to be erasable once on the ground. Just like the CVR!!!

If a video of us in the F/D makes it onto TV do we get an appearance fee????

[Germstone]

dont think it would take the crews long to figure out which c/b to pull..... :-)

[satis 5]

hows about cameras on the outside of planes, to aid safety, first.

i'm sure having the ability to see each engine and flying control surface, would have been appreciated by the swiss crew with their poorly rj reciently.

how long ago was it that trials were carried out?
how much has camera technology and miniturisation progressed!


ref. cb pulling - you'll be on camera!

[Shake]

I am very suspicious of any intrusion into the flight deck which can so obviously be abused.

To say that they would be used only in conjunction with the CVR in case of an incident or assist in the case of hijack is a bit naieve to say the least.

How would they have helped in the 911 investigation or any other come to think of it, other than to provide graphic images of violence & murder? If hijackers can make it into a flight deck and fly a plane, they can surely disable a camera or two. And how long before the images make it onto some voyeristic web site or 'crash investigation' documentary with the excuse that the 'public need to see this' ?

This is another measure using 911 as an excuse to sell more unecessary equipment when the money should be spent on other areas such as training crews to deal with a hijack.

We have already been presented with a 'new secure door' and CCTV with no specific training on their use or what to expect now we've changed the rules on hijacker 'compliance' ie: comply but don't let them in the flight deck despite what you hear or see on the new CCTV.

The problem is still being left entirely with the flight crews and it doesn't matter how many cameras you install it will not replace adequate training.

[desert_knight]

A secure ground feed would possibly be useful in the decision to shoot down a hijacked plane approaching any urban areas.

I hear the Pentagon is very keen on the idea!

Not much use on 9/11 as it would seem the airforce were nowhere to be found.

[Wino]

An excellent place to hang my hat.

Judging by how carefully CVR's have been protected (now its a crime to erase them, so much for fully eraseable, if you made it to the gate, it used to be your to erase) I will hang my hat on the camera.

I have no desire to have my son watch my death over and over on TV should my aircraft crash, and no matter how much it is claimed this will never happen, we all know it will eventually.

They failed to protect the sanctity of the CVR, so under no circumstances should anything else be granted. Fix the CVR privacy problems, give us back the right to erase them when we make it to the gate and I will think about cameras.

Cheers
Wino

[jettesen]

If they have cameras in the cabin, then why not in the flightdeck? You pilots think you are so high and mighty, and that you think you deserve preferential traetment. why don't you come down of cloud nine and join the rest of us???? What about everyone who has cctv watching them alll day everyday in their jobs on the ground I don't hear them complain. Get a grip guys

[dudduddud]

Excellent point Wino. The type i fly is not required to carry any audio or data recorder so maybe im not qualified to opine and you (we) need assurance that the footage is not going to wind up on 'americas most wanted' but...

If one follow procedures... what is the worry?

Sorry to dredge up the past but in the aforementioned New Zealand incident:

A couple of casual factors in the incident were the Captain not ensuring the aircraft intercepted and maintained the approach profile during the conduct of the non-precision instrument approach and the Captain's perseverance with his decision to get the undercarriage lowered without discontinuing the instrument approach.
What was wrong with conducting a go around and fixing the problem in a hold?

So it's not like the police were barking up the wrong tree with their manslaughter charge.

call me naive but if you are not up to the task at hand... you know the story.

I guess I am of a generation after the introduction of CVR's and FDR's so have come to expect/accept them. I sometimes wonder why they aren't fitted to smaller types.

You never know... a CVR or FDR may very well clear your good name in a court of law.

this smacks of the anti-speed-camera brigade.

[max_cont]

desert_knight, you sound like a man with some camera’s to sell…technology in search of a problem perhaps?:uhoh:

[safetypee]

Back to basics; why do we need a video recording of the flight deck?
I would fully support such a move, principally to replace those cabin / flt deck communications lost due to the locked door policy; so give the flt attendants a monitor. Do not cite security, if the hijacker is on the aircraft then its too late – its like photographing / finger printing everyone so that after the event you will know who did it and who to blame.

For safety reasons? What more could a video of the crew’s actions give accident investigators? Some insight to the crew’s interaction or haste? Possibly, but little more than that which is already available from the CVR and the latest, extensive FDR requirements; the greatest data deficiency is in the information displayed on CRTs (EFIS, ECAIS, FMS).

An internal recording of each CRT display is viable; the military have been doing this for decades (WIWOL). This information together with sensor data and the FDR would enable a much-improved reconstruction of the state of the aircraft. Again, do not cite lack of recording space, how many film video/games are already stored on board.
What the industry would still be missing is the reasons why the crew did something. If the answers cannot be determined from CRT (system video) and enhanced CVR/FDR recording, then we will have to wait until brain scans and memory dumps are available on the flight deck.

[Wino]

Dududud,
Aviation is like any other over regulated endeavor.

Assuming you are british, I will give you are real life example parallel.

Have you practiced your archery at the village green this week? If not you are breaking the law. Well guess what, there are obscure and outdate regulations still on the books (nothing ever gets erased) that a well knowleged but lacking in total common sense prosecutor could use against the crew of any flight. Captain cuts off a prosecutor from drinking on the plane, doesn't let him upgrade etc, prosecutor starts filing motions and subpeoning tapes etc...c

Nope, no protections no cameras. And by protections I mean fix the CVR protections first.


I can see PLENTY of scenarios where I might do the MOST legal thing rather than the most safe thing once you start inserting prosecutions into the mix. (Start with a diversion, did you go to the closest field or the safest? You went one mile further to the one without the 40 mph crosswind with blowsnow. Into Jail with you!)


Safety was not gained by the prosecution. Instead what has happened is that accident investigations become cover your ass, wait till my lawyer gets here and MAYBE I will answer your questions, rather than what happened, can we do it safer excersizes. By prosecuting in that case EVERY accident investigation in the future was harmed. Safety in the future has been thrown out the window in the quest for "Vengence and justice."

The valujet prosecutions caused many of the same problems in all the accident investigations that followed. Did Sabre tech comit a crime? Yep. Should they have been prosecuted, only if you care about that 100 people that are already dead, and not the 1000s of living people that might come later that you might have saved. They could have put Saber tech out of business and imposed better oversite regulations without the prosecutions and mechanics wouldn't be calling their lawyers the second they hear a plane goes down.

As to the need.
The stated need is the lack of "witness marks" on instruments now with CRT displays. (For those that have never participated in an accident investigation, witness marks are the scars or marks made on the glass of an oldfashioned gauge like a VSI or Airspeed indicator that is caused by the impact. Usually the glass will get a mark where the pointer was pointing when the instruments were subjected to the horrific stresses of the impact. Those marks will tell you what the gauge was reading at impact) Well that is really a load of crap. It would be MORE usefull and more precise to simply record the CRTs as someone suggested.

Cheers
Wino

[dudduddud]

Well thats just the thing:

Start with a diversion, did you go to the closest field or the safest? You went one mile further to the one without the 40 mph crosswind with blowsnow. Into Jail with you!)

If one ran out of gas as a consequence of wanting to avoid a crosswind and low viz, what would one expect?
If ones calculations say one wont make the further out airfield, why is it a consideration? am i over-simplifying it?

What's wrong with being able to stand behind the decisions?

[Wino]

And what if you don't run out of fuel because you went one mile further (completely unlikely btw) but suppose you blew a tire on landing and someone was hurt, or more damage to the aircraft occured. or the accident was going to end in pain anyway (like sioux city) but you went somewhere safer at the time you made your decision.

You do have to stand behind the decisions. But people then get to second guess you with YEARS to think about a decision you had seconds to make.

Yes you are very much oversimplifying it because you will not be judged by PILOTS with similar skills to you. You will be judged by prosecutors, who the only thing they know about airplanes are what they learned from hollywood.

More importantly, do you want to fix a safety problem that could harm other crews and people in the future, or do you want to extract vengence (which will do NOTHING to fix the injuries or resurect the dead)? That is the choice. You don't get to do both. Once people have to start couching their actions with regard to a possible prosecution, then an accident investigation becomes a process of self protection rather than Safety improvement.

What is the point of the prosecution? Are you telling me that the prosecution of those pilots in Australia made aviation safer? Have speed camera's made driving safer? Most pilots don't know anything about the prosecution of those pilots. What they DO know is that they better be carefull what they say if there is an incident.

Cheers
Wino

[CJ Driver]

Something not mentioned on this thread - or as far as I know in the original proposals - is what you expect to see on the camera.

We have cameras in the simulator for training, and the astonishing thing is how little it shows. Explode an engine at V1, set off a few other bells and alarms, and watch the crew sweat? Umm, actually, we appear to be sitting there like statues! OK, so you can sometimes see something obvious, like pressing a big flashing red fire switch. Anything else, forget it. Hands quietly reach to switches and move back out of sight. Hardly a muscle seems to move. Is this thing even running? Did he just press a button, and if so, which one was it?

The only thing I learned from the video is why I get stiff on a long day of flying - I get more exercise watching television!

Seriously though - anyone who is familiar with the difficulty crash investigators have in deciphering the audio track from a CVR has very little to fear from the cockpit video. In order to have sufficient resolution to accurately distinguish individual switches on a typical flight deck panel, and confirm when they were operated and in which way (on/off) would take many cameras focussed on individual areas. If the motivation was on crash investigation, they'd do better to add more tracks to the FDR for all the ancilliary switches. If the motivation is CRM, then there's not much to see on the film, since on a well-flown sector the crew look completely inert.

I suppose if the Captain were beating the F/O about the head with a blunt instrument, that would tell you something, but like an earlier post on this thread, I always cover the camera before assaulting my F/O, and I suggest you do likewise. :)

[Notso Fantastic]

The video results I see in the simulator are totally useless! As the last posting says, they tell you nothing. And that may be from someone 'high & mighty', Mr. Jettesen (back off Buster- your presence here is more to yell abuse at pilots than make any point!), but it is true. A wasted effort- there is already a CVR and that is all that is needed.

[leardrivr]

Weather cameras will add to safety or just help investagators blame the crew for a mishap is not for me to determine. I just don't want anyone to catch me picking my nose while the pnf is sleeping.