Airlines To Routinely Monitor Cockpit Voice Recordings?

[flipster]

Buffalo Crash Sparks Debate Over Use of Cockpit Recordings

By ANDY PASZTOR

The Feb. 12 fatal crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 has sparked a novel labor-management dispute over appropriate uses of an essential safety tool: cockpit voice recordings.

Colgan Air Inc., which operated the flight, is proposing to download and analyze random cockpit recordings in the future as a means of enhancing safety and enforcing cockpit discipline. The union representing Colgan's roughly 480 pilots is dead set against it.

Federal investigators Tuesday are slated to release transcripts of the cockpit conversations that took place in the minutes before the twin-engine Bombardier Q400 plane stalled at below 3,000 feet, rolled violently and plummeted to the ground, killing 50 people.

According to people who have reviewed the transcripts, the crew engaged in a prolonged chit-chat as the plane descended from cruise altitude and then prepared to land. That violates basic aviation rules, which prohibit discussions of non-flying matters during certain phases of flight. Commercial pilots are prohibited by something called the "sterile cockpit rule" from engaging in extraneous conversations, particularly when maneuvering below 10,000 feet.

Firefighters surround the wreckage of Continental Connection Flight 3407 in February.
Colgan's management has approached local leaders of the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilot union, with the proposition that such spot checks of cockpit behavior would help supplement and improve existing safety initiatives. ALPA's leadership has responded with a resounding "no."

Not a single U.S. airline is believed to sample cockpit recordings in this fashion, and even general discussion of such a step is considered anathema by the pilot union. Pilots contend it would violate their privacy and demonstrate management's lack of trust in their professionalism. Individual pilots at Colgan and other carriers have criticized the airline's proposal, but so far ALPA leaders haven't made a public stink. An ALPA spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., decline to comment.

The National Transportation Safety Board hasn't been formally asked by either side to weigh in, but board members, staffers and outside air-safety advocates are likely to oppose the idea on the grounds that it could chill voluntary disclosures of safety lapses or mistakes.

Some safety experts fear the initiative could even backfire, encouraging certain pilots to try to deflect blame by possibly erasing cockpit conversations captured on the devices. Currently, such data is used exclusively in accident probes or as part of joint airline-union programs to investigate the causes of various types of close calls or dangerous incidents -- in the air as well as on the ground.

Captain's Training Faulted In Air Crash That Killed 50On Sunday, Colgan spokesman Joe Williams confirmed in an email that the carrier has proposed that recordings "be monitored for safety purposes by selected union and company pilots." He said the company believes such a step is the most effective way to obtain "an accurate view of pilot performance." Colgan believes the cockpit recordings "could become great accident prevention tools," he said

Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association, said Colgan's concept is the natural evolution of current safety practices. "If we are identifying cockpit discipline" as an important safety factor and "there is a random, non-punitive way" to sample data, according to Mr. Cohen, "why wouldn't we at least begin talking" about broader uses of cockpit recorders?

Pilot union officials are especially sensitive about the topic because they already face calls by the NTSB to install video-recording systems in many cockpits. Overseas, cockpit voice recordings have become embroiled in criminal proceedings after some high-profile crashes. And pilot representatives increasingly are wary of any proposals to further strip recorded conversations of confidentiality.
Buffalo Crash Sparks Debate Over Use of Cockpit Recordings - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124201244946205809.html)


Is this a good idea and should it be welcomed as an advance in safety standards, or should pilots and their unions fight it all the way as an invasion of privacy? Discuss.

Either way, it may follow that Airlines' execs' meetings should also be recorded and made available to their company's aircrew, just in case there are any safety implications?

Any further knowledge of this move out there in the ether?

[deltayankee]

Don't see how it could do much good. People would just shut up and use sign language. The problem with this kind of initiative is that it has the opposite effect of the one desired. Being aware that every word they say is being monitored might mean that everyone just says less, creating even more dangerous situations.

[E.Z. Flyer]

By comparison: MBTA Boston (Green Line)

...Yesterday, local and federal officials continued to investigate Friday's crash and to evaluate possible criminal charges against ..., the operator who authorities said told them he was text messaging ... The crash near Government Center Station sent nearly 50 people to the hospital with noncritical injuries and totaled three trolley cars.

[deltayankee]

By comparison: MBTA Boston (Green Line)

...Yesterday, local and federal officials continued to investigate Friday's crash and to evaluate possible criminal charges against ..., the operator who authorities said told them he was text messaging ... The crash near Government Center Station sent nearly 50 people to the hospital with noncritical injuries and totaled three trolley cars. Today 13:37

Sorry but dont see how this compares. If you are driving a train and you have your head down writing messages this is very different from saying some non work related comment during the descent.

[MungoP]

Don't see a problem with it myself... If you can't resist indulging in extraneous conversation during an approach (which I don't recommend) then just be sure not to have an accident... If you can't be sure of not having an accident then why indulge in extraneous conversation... it's time to get focused.

On the other hand I would love to hear transcripts of meetings involving management decisions relating to T's and C's of regional flight crews and their response to comments implying that the miserable terms offered are going to scare away all but the most desperate and least experienced applicants.

[Huck]

This is so symbolic of what's wrong in America today.

We can't seem to maintain professionalism, basic flying skills, situational awareness, and just plain old mental agility in our cockpits.

So we'll enforce sterile cockpit.

I flew commuter turboprops, and saw natural-born pilots who MASTERED their aircraft, who could make it walk and talk, who knew their airspeed, attitude and configuration with their eyes closed - and could tell you their latest joke or deer-hunting story while they were doing it.

But that's technique, not procedure. Hard to teach/evaluate one, but not the other.

Much like our financial industry, our education system, our government - we cannot hire bright, qualified, morally sound people in enough quantities - so we'll just put some more rules down on paper....

[E.Z. Flyer]

Sorry but dont see how this compares. If you are driving a train and you have your head down writing messages this is very different from saying some non work related comment during the descent.

I understand and in part agree with you. I want to pose the question of relating to the onboard commands and how those behavioral affects, effects ones sense when or where the sense of awareness is created artificially by the computer/digitally driven systems?

One point at PPR is there is always discourse when discussing how the "new pilot" wouldn't know a steam pressure gauge if it was handed to them. I expect some comments if this thread strays enough would lead the same to argue that “they” now want the steering wheel.

I've flown Colgan, I've observed the cockpit (B1900) and they are on it. I've flown the SAAB and the pilots thoroughly enjoy flying those planes.

So, I'm not in complete agreement about any such comment regarding training, or that things are not as they should be at Colgan. Often enough the FAA will ride third seat...(?)

Things are changing and the DASH 8, with its avionics (potential) offers a newer and brighter aviation future when fully deployed. Yet, in order to create the change at hand. The system must first become virtual in the air and within the scope of ground control based technology. That’s how I read the failure and the breakdown of communication links that brought this plane down.

[Mark in CA]

I can't help being reminded of the stereotypical Hollywood operating room scene, where rock music is blaring in the background while there is considerable chatter among the surgeons as they're performing open heart surgery on some poor schmuck. Some people seem able to perform in this kind of environment, others not. I guess the real issue is being able to know which you are.

[lomapaseo]

It ain't gonna happen.

I've hear lots of non pertinent on CVRs and rarely is it a problem.

I certainly would not trust a non-safety professional to decide which while protecting privacy.

The way to get at this a problem is the public release of non-pertinent conversation that does interfere with a flight. After the fact yes, but it still has the desired effect on other pilots who want to clean up their act.

I dare say that they are lots of pilots out there who have made an occasional transgression of no consequence, but who will now tend to cut their chatter short in critical times just to avoid an embarassment in the future (there but for the grace of God go I)

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Is this a good idea and should it be welcomed as an advance in safety standards, or should pilots and their unions fight it all the way as an invasion of privacy? Discuss.

I think I can understand why an airline would want to do something like this. It's somewhat routine, unfortunately, for the 'sterile cockpit' issue to be raised after almost every accident, and it will often be simplistically reported in the media that the "crew failed to follow FAA rules" or some such. The airline then gets put in the dock (at least in media terms) for the "lax standards" in their cockpits. If you were being blamed for failing to enforce the sterile cockpit, wouldn't you cast around for a way to do so, and isn't this the obvious way to do so?
It's the same logic that encourages companies to monitor, for example, email/internet use at work - if you use the company IT equipment to, say, disseminate pornography, or hate literature, or whatever, the headlines won't be "Joe Schmuck caught ..." - it'll be "Megacorp employee Joe Schmuck caught ...".

I have a degree of scepticism as to the degree to which an absolutely sterile cockpit is actually causal in a number of the accidents in which it's become an issue, though. And there's obvious opportunity for abuse of such monitoring, too.

Either way, it may follow that Airlines' execs' meetings should also be recorded and made available to their company's aircrew, just in case there are any safety implications?

Now that's not really the same thing. I don't think anyone's going to claim that you need a "sterile boardroom", are they? (Indeed, if it's all deathly quiet there, that implies that they AREN'T doing their job, surely.)

[Algy]

May be pernickety, but I think the Colgan proposal is to delve into the CVR data as and when they believe it is merited under the FOQA rules of engagement. Still a lot of questions to be asked of course, but the description of it as routine monitoring is perhaps misleading???

The actual text is here (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/05/colgan-air-letter-to-alpa-re-u.html).

[The Real Slim Shady]

The solution is quite simple: the Union agrees to the company's proposal on the basis that all discussions / conversations in every company office are recorded 24/7 and the pilot's have the right to listen to and review ( and then act if necessary) on the content of the tapes.

[Airbubba]

The Sterile Cockpit Rule is nothing new in the U.S., it was imposed in 1981, I guess it takes a while to get the word out. The rule grew largely out of an NTSB recommendation after Eastern 212 crashed at Charlotte in 1974. The pilots were shuckin' and jivin' all the way down the VOR approach. Famously, they were talking about things like politics, used cars and women.

Where I work, we're pretty good about avoiding chitchat during critical phases of flight. I'll occasionally find myself blurting out a nonpertinent observation but I really do try to stick to shop talk when the situation dictates.

Still, it seems some crews nearly ignore the rule. In the 2006 Comair 191 crash at LEX the pilots had a running conversation about a lot of stuff including future employment while they were taxiing to the wrong runway. The NTSB concluded: "...Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s nonpertinent conversations during taxi, which resulted in a loss of positional awareness..."

It has long been suspected that some companies have harvested CVR data during times of labor unrest to glean tactical information. And, years ago, after Delta 1141 crashed in Dallas on a flaps up takeoff, I heard rumors of the crew talking about flight attendants and Jesse Jackson's presidential bid. This was long before the accident report came out and confirmed the conversations. It seems that the mechanics somehow pirated a tape of the CVR and were circulating it.

These days, the feds say they will pull the tape if they have reason to think that you have made an unstable approach to a landing. Some aircraft even send a text to headquarters if certain approach and landing parameters are exceeded. There is legal protection for privacy of the CVR but also a lot of legal excuses to listen to it sometimes.

I'm a lot more careful than I used to be in 'the good old days'.

[MungoP]

Could it be that those here who object to a sterile cockpit make up a large proportion of the crews that have to be called 3 times by approach and/or regularly respond with "Say Again"... :hmm:

[awblain]

A plausible, if cynical, explanation of the Colgan press release regarding sampling of CVR tapes, coming out on the day of seemingly damning NTSB information from the Buffalo crash?

A simple tactic to diffuse coverage away from the details of 3407.

Colgan headlines a safety-themed story, and implicitly lumps responsibility squarely away from oversight and training and onto the dead crew. They get to appear on regular media reports as a safety-oriented organization, trying to do their best, and in discussions amongst professionals they generate a new talking point to at least dilute coverage of events at Buffalo.

[goeasy]

All just another good reason to press the erase button after brakes on.:p
After all, thats what the button is there for....

OR if this was enacted there will be a lot of mysteriously 'popped' CB's. Flight safety will be the casualty.

[ChristiaanJ]

....recordings "be monitored for safety purposes by selected union and company pilots."
And who selects these "union and company pilots"?
Who determines whether they are even competent to judge, from listening to a sound track that even after a crash is often extremely difficult to transcribe properly?
Would we now have "selected union and company pilots" being paid to spend hundreds of hours to listen to cockpit sounds, trying to pick out the occasional drivel being talked?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who monitors those "monitors"?

As mentioned, if this imbecilic idea takes root, there'll be an awful lot of 'erase' buttons pressed, and an awful lot of CBs pulled....

CJ

[airmail]

Not being a professional pilot but speaking as someone who has seen companies spend vast amounts trying to pass the blame elsewhere, could this be Colgan and their Insurance company coming to an agreement to keep premiums down?

If CVR recordings are available for the company and Colgan act on any so called 'transgression' then they are in the clear insurance wise should any mishap happen after.

Or am I cynical?

[Oriana]

On the positive side of things, companies won't have to waste money on 'staff engagement' surveys.:E

[411A]

Airlines To Routinely Monitor Cockpit Voice Recordings?

Been done for years at some airlines.
I attended a cocktail party years ago at the behest of the new DirFltOps of an asian airline, and CVR recordings were being reviewed...all night long.

Nothing new.:}

[Ace Springbok]

Ah so neh 411A; yep, routinely done by some Asian airlines. Strayed into an auditorium in Korean OCC one day and , holy cow! What've we here? , a bunch of Korean pilots and ground staff was listening to playback of CVR recordings as part of their " safety " seminar. Guess what, I said goodbye to KAL shortly after that!

[anawanahuanana]

Just playing Devils advocate here (in other words, please don't take this as my opinion, just putting it out there so don't flame me...).

Presumably most people here go into shops and the like, where we know we will be recorded on CCTV. We chose to do so knowing this is necessary in the owners eyes to prevent theft by customers and staff, in the most part. So, how exactly is it different if the company who owns the expensive aircraft and has their name and therefore reputation plastered down the side wants to know how it is being treated by it's employees? Do you not think that the owner/operator of the aircraft has any right to know if it's crews are engaging in things outside the SOPs they are employed to work to?

In other words, the flight deck is not your car. You do not own it. It is a work premises and as such the company have a right to monitor it. Discuss.......:uhoh:

Personally, I think that this will eventually happen worldwide. The feeling against it will eventually be replaced with ambivalence, just like the CCTV cameras we find ourselves on every day now. As an aside, I find the idea of a "professional" flight crew disabling, by the pulling of a C.B, a hugely important piece of accident investigation equipment offensive in the extreme. Some things are worth more that your conversations about the inane details of everyday life or the new contract offer on the table.:(

[CargoOne]

I'm failing to understand why CVR monitoring is objected so much while FDR monitoring is not? It is mandatory in EU for quite a few years to run Flight Data Monitoring Programme on aircraft bigger than certain size (basically any big turboprop, regional jet and bigger), procedures are in place and no one seem to complain.
You can apply most of the arguments against CVR monitoring to FDR monitoring as well.

[lomapaseo]

I'm failing to understand why CVR monitoring is objected so much while FDR monitoring is not? It is mandatory in EU for quite a few years to run Flight Data Monitoring Programme on aircraft bigger than certain size (basically any big turboprop, regional jet and bigger), procedures are in place and no one seem to complain.
You can apply most of the arguments against CVR monitoring to FDR monitoring as well.

One is a sin of thought while the other is an actual deed.

[qwertyuiop]

CargoOne.
If you can't see the difference you are a bloody fool. The FDR is there to monitor the way I fly the aircraft. I fly it in accordance with the SOPs and Airbus limitations and expect the F/O to do the same.
I DO NOT expect to have all conversations I have monitored by management.
If I or my F/O want to discuss any aspect of the company in the cruise, or any other matter, I think it is reasonable. If I want to discuss any aspect of the flight I dont believe it is anybody's business except the crew's.
Like SO MANY ideas that todays idiots (sorry politicians/bosses) have, it will actually have the opposite effect.
Increase saftey? Yea course it will. CVR C/B Off!!

[ChristiaanJ]

CVR C/B Off!!
As others said, I would disagree with that. The CVR serves a purpose...

What I would agree with, is pressing the 'erase' button once the aircraft is on the stand, the landing was a good one, and "the aircraft can be used again".

CJ

[captjns]

CVR C/B Off!!


In the words of Sting. “Every move you make, I’ll be watching you.”

If Weird Al Yankovick were singing the song he would change the lyrics… “Every move you make OFDM will be watching you.”

[goeasy]

For all those who see nothing wrong with CVR monitoring; you imagine carrying a live mic/recorder with you on your whole work day. It wont be just the company monitoring it, but government/authorities too. Once the CVR recording is off the aircraft, it is open to all who think they have the right to listen in. Think of all the divorce lawyers who would be interested in cockpit conversations!!

This is why there was a lot of resistance to CVR when it was implemented, and why it was guaranteed (Chicago Convention) that recordings must be erasable if no incident had occurred. It is also why CB's have been reluctantly pulled in the past when this confidentiality has been breached, by police warrant or other legal requisition.

Pilots are the first to agree that it is a huge flight safety tool, and support its use for flight safety. FLIGHT SAFETY ONLY. Not snippy managers looking for gossip in confidential conversations.

[CargoOne]

Still your logic is not consistent.
You flying aircraft according to SOPs and doing everything right? Then why company runs flight data monitoring? Are they not trusting you?

Same thing about CVR monitoring. Now we know for sure that not all crews are following rules and this contributed to many accidents, so why it is treated differently from flight data monitoring then? How airline knows you following sterile cockpit unless it can run CVR monitoring?

By the way, flight data monitoring system has its own procedures to keep data anonymous and there are separate procedures how it can be reversed in case serious incident was discovered after analysis, this involves crew representative to attend as well. I don't see any problems if similar procedure is applied to CVR monitoring. For example, cruise records can be checked only if some event recovered from FDR, climb/descent/taxi/startup can be monitored in full as chit-chat is not supposed to be there anyway.

[Northbeach]

Perhaps the day has arrived for CVRs and FDRs to go away. The LOAs negotiated as a foundation to their implementation has been eroded and the information misused. If you don’t understand the abbreviations then I’m not interested in your opinion on these matters-you are entitled to them in a free society I’m just not interested in them. Parking brake: set, erase button: pushed-“shutdown checklist complete”.

Unfortunately it won’t be that simple as this is going to have to be defeated in the public arena. It’s time to record all conversations in government and the halls of corporate power during business hours, including telephone, email and text, and release them to the legal profession and to the public for scrutiny-oh wait there are law(s) against that. Why would that be? Isn’t it in the public’s interest to ensure all our elected/appointed leaders and business titans are at all times adhering to every policy statement and law on professional conduct? Certainly the decisions made directly impact hundreds, thousands and in some case millions of lives. I want to know what’s going on, and I have the background to understand the context. I can listen and form my own opinions.

[wilsr]

The same sort of over-reaction as those who say that one mph over a speed limit on the freeway is a capital offence!

There's a huge difference between the odd casual remark such as "what a beautiful sunset" and the protracted bantering and out-the-window sightseeing that has preceded one or two crashes in the past.

Yes, keep your mind on the job but the odd casual comment isn't the end of the world.

[SR71]

If in doubt, collect some data...

[Clandestino]

De-identifying the CVR? Now there's good one. Reminder to myself: must breathe some helium before flying so no one can recognize my voice.

Methinks that CVR are not enough, what we need is cockpit cameras with laws providing that anyone using camera records for anything else than incident/accident investigation gets jailed. As chances of this actually happening are nil, we have to stick with what we have and oppose routine CVR downloading. Just to prevent some posters from playing dumb: objection is not against the increased safety but rather against using the recordings for non-aviation safety related purposes. We don't talk just sunsets, flowers & children in cruise. CEO's new Lexus may draw some attention, especially if it's purchased after pilots' pay cut.

But then airline Mgmt are top-class professionals who would never do anything illegal or unethical, would they?

[Wiley]

Many years ago now, one of the bosses at the old Ansett was a bloke called Dusty L***. Dusty was often to be seen at the end of the day heading towards one or more of the company aircraft that finsihed its day at head office, headset in hand, to sample what the troops were saying in the last half hour of their final sector for the day. It got to the point where many pilots would end their checklist with a cheery "Good night Dusty!"

The Kiwis have for once lead the world in this in their use of a CVR to prosecute a crew after an accident. Unfortunately, its use, once established, is a bit like nuclear weapons - once used in one instance, all the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to put the cat back in the bag. Lawyers will, one way or another, get their way if the investigation reveals something useable to gain their clients - and them - some cash in court.

For those who say "hit the erase button", there's no such beast on many of the more modern aircraft, and that "last 30 minutes", whether officially acknowledged or not, has stretched quite considerably on some aircraft in recent years.

[divinehover]

Does this mean I can't say F**K in the cockpit anymore?

[lomapaseo]

I see that ALPA has come out against the use of CVR recordings in an operator based review in a FOQA fashion.

In my mind it's inappropriate crew response that is the safety related concern either as the failure to take action or taking the wrong action in the conduct of the flight. DFDR recorders do a good job at gathering this data to be discerned by experts. Yes, in some cases what is being said at the time often helps rationalize the state of the crew's mind based on experience, but that is the job of the incident/accident investigator not an airline management task.

To me, what is being said is no more than verbalizing your thoughts and you can't stop the brain from thoughts. The concern is when your brain farts interfere with your expected actions and that can best be discerned via the data recorders on the aircraft which brings us back to the safety professionals and out of the hands of management (FOQA) etc.

[noullet]

Say whatever you want, but say what is critical to the flight only below 10,000 ft. and keep the non-essential flight data to yourself. Enough said..

Regards,
jack

[criss]

Our company (ATC agency) tapes everything we say (not only on radio and by phone), and routinely checks it. And somehow we can live with it.

[CargoOne]

Clandestino

1. Managment knows what pilots saying about them. It is not a rocket science and doesn't matter what airline - pilots are never happy. 2. Managment don't care about what pilots saying about them, because all pilots are the same, you will achieve nothing by firing one and employing other.

So nothing will change with CVR monitoring.

[Clandestino]

1. One thing is not being happy with T&Cs in general. Other is commenting e.g. that last change of them gets into legally gray area and exploits local CAA/courts of law inertia.

2. There is financial incentive to replace more expensive employees with cheaper ones. Provided that there's defined bonus for length of service with the company and management doesn't give a sternmost part of rattus norvegicus, bar tail, about experience of their pilot as long as they meet legal minima, that's what they'll try to do.

Keep playing, you're doing well.

[Obie]

Hey, criss!...I think you need a brain transplant, Mate!?? :ok::ok:

I mean, you're not for real surely?? :ok::ok:

Go on, tell us your joking! :ok::ok:

[TeachMe]

Perhaps a different context give a fresh perspective...

I am a teacher trainer and former language teacher myself. My job is to teach Asian public school teachers how to teach English. The biggest problem we have are teachers who take a teaching course and then go back to their classrooms and do exactly the same wrong things they did before the course. As an example, many Asian teachers have students memorize dialogs. During the course we show them that research results indicate that this type of language teaching (audio-lingual) is not effective, and that a communicative approach is better.

So, what often happens? Teachers go back to their classrooms and have students memorize dialogs and then call it communicative language teaching. In other words they have not changed at all.

I can go into a classroom and observe a teacher, but they will be on their best behavior and not really show me what they normally do - which I can often find out by asking the students if the lesson I observed was normal. So, I would love to have a camera / audio recording of a class that I could randomly review to help fix such bad habits.

Yet when I was only a language teacher myself I fought very hard with a school that installed cameras in the classrooms because it was an invasion of my privacy, not to mention that we all make mistakes and I did not want to be called on small mistakes.

So, should your childrens' teachers be constantly and randomly monitored so that your children get the best education possible, or should they be given the privacy and freedom to run their own classroom the way they feel is best?

They only solution I could see for either pilots or teachers would be to have the recordings made and then double blind reviewed (teacher or pilot does not know and is not known by reviewer) and the results given back to the teacher or pilot privatly without anyone else knowing the results of the review. As a teacher trainer, I sometimes say things I regret in class, and I would not even want my best friend at my school to know that I said it. Thus, even reviews by peers (other pilots or teachers known to the person) would be uncomfortable and I feel counter productive.

The only problem with this is that for the less professional, it would then be too easy to ignore the feedback. Perhpas some flagging of results such that if a person was to have many negative reviews over a period of time, the general nature of those reviews, but not the specifics, could be opened to some sort of review committee.

Now, is it practicle......

TME

[FAStoat]

Try making deliberate discussions revolving around a particular Rumour,that only a certain number of Crew are involved in.You will see it spreads like wildfire,if Cockpit Voice Recorders are being pulled.Management dont like Crew Room Rumour Network,so all sorts of deviousness can be used to prove whether Management are really doing this or not.There may be more of this than you realise.Similar happened at Britannia in the 80s.90s,with mutual reporting of Fos and Capts to Fleet Captain,as to what was going on and being said on the Flightdeck.

[Obie]

TeachMe... you're out of your depth here, Mate!

You'll get killed in this forum!

Do yourself a favour and just go away and teach the kids English, which is what you went to Seoul for! And I do wonder why, because they speak both languages pretty well :ok:

[TeachMe]

Obie,

You make some incorrect assumptions and do not see the point.

Teachers and pilots are both professionals working away from direct supervision. Sure, the consequences of a mistake may be higher in the airline world, but the basic working situation has parallels. There are both good professional teachers and pilots, and ones who are less so.

Oh, and if you think they speak good English here, you have never spent time in East Asia away from airports or hotels!! :ok:

[SDFlyer]

qwerty ....
"If you can't see the difference you are a bloody fool. The FDR is there to monitor the way I fly the aircraft. I fly it in accordance with the SOPs and Airbus limitations and expect the F/O to do the same."
If you chit chat on the approach then you aren't flying in accordance with SOPs and should have your a*s kicked before you do in a planeload.

qwerty ....
"I DO NOT expect to have all conversations I have monitored by management."
Not now, but perhaps your expectations will change in the future. If you can't handle that, go find another line of work.

qwerty ....
"If I or my F/O want to discuss any aspect of the company in the cruise, or any other matter, I think it is reasonable."
You seem to have forgotten what it is that we are discussing here. Very sad.

qwerty .....
"Increase saftey? Yea course it will. CVR C/B Off!!"
Followed soon I would hope by,
"Here's a list of potential alternative employers - good luck to you, and don't forget to take your flight bag with you on the way out."

[John Farley]

Teach me

Your post 46 shows remarkable restraint - totally to be expected given your interesting and well argued post 43.

My background in some development flying in Indonesia where all my cockpit actions were videoed as well as recorded in traditional ways, made me feel very secure that in the event the aircraft (or those in any way responsible for it) let ME down then I had the evidence to show it was not my fault.

In my view the weaker and less competent the airline management (and the more there is an adversarial attitude between crews and company) the more useful it is to have full and open recording of events in order to protect a competent crew.

JF

[SDFlyer]

..... and the weaker and less competent the flight crew, the more resistant one expects them to be to the idea of monitoring their cockpit performance in critical phases of flight.

Some posts on this thread tell me all I need to know about the attitude of some towards enhanced safety measures in the cockpit. Yes, I feel strongly about this issue. For one, 49 people died in Lexington because those bozos acted like a couple of kids on a joyride. Quite apart from their total disregard for the regs relating to cockpit behavior, they didn't even have the wit to speak to tower about the surprising spectacle in front of them. One of them is still alive and blaming everyone else for his criminal lack of professionalism. People like this should be detected by any means possible and given their marching orders. IMO the more we know about what's going on in the cockpit the better. What do pilots of integrity have to fear?

Well posted Farley.

[Huck]

If you don't know the difference between conversation in the chocks and conversation while in motion you don't belong on this board.

Yes, they screwed up. But your description is an insane exaggeration.

[Huck]

I went back and looked - for all to read, here is the sum total of the non-pertinent conversation that took place in Lexington after the aircraft was moving under its own power:

06:03:16.4 HOT-2 yeah, I know three guys at Kennedy. actually two guys uh.... @@ he went but he didn't get past the sim.

06:03:26.7 HOT-1 oh, really.

06:03:29.1 HOT-2 and then um, a First Officer from Cinci....

06:03:35.1 HOT-2 got through the second part....

06:03:37.2 HOT-2 what do you do the uh, these tests.... and he didn't, and that's as far as he got.

06:03:49.3 HOT-2 and then @@ he actually got offered the position.

06:03:54.5 HOT-1 did he take it or....

06:03:55.5 HOT-2 yeah.

06:03:56.1 HOT-1 ah, okay.


And it's entirely possible they were sitting still while this conversation took place......

[SDFlyer]

Insane exaggeration? So you are suggesting that conversation in the chocks in preparation for a flight is irrelevant to flight safety? An interesting theory, I hope your employers are aware of your attitude. By implication you are defending the behavior of our two heroes on that night takeoff attempt (wrong runway). IIRC one of them fired up the wrong bird at first. I'd love to see the bit of videotape showing his reaction when he was told by ground staff that he was in the wrong plane - the tapes would start as soon as your a** was putting pressure on the seat btw.

OK, so not ALL professionals pilots are the sharpest knives in the drawer, but I would hope that many can see the safety advantages of continuous cockpit recordings, audio and video, as a tool to more thoroughly investigate accidents after the fact as well as near-accidents and major deviations revealed by data we already have. Not to mention to randomly sample pilots, the vast majority of whom I'm confident are doing a splendid and highly professional job. To criticize this as a "violation of privacy rights" or some such rubbish reveals much about the mentality behind that particular yoke.

I've only ever had responsibility for three passengers' lives as a pilot but I can tell you that I'd never behave in the manner that certain pilots appear to be comfortable with in preparing for an ILS approach. I tell my pax to STFU if I need to, perhaps a few of you guys need to learn to do the same with your colleagues up front.

This is an excellent thread, revealing as it does the opinions of some. Naturally one wonders how many others.

[Huck]

You're out of your depth. BUF and LEX are apples and oranges.

No excuse for the behavior in BUF. But LEX was a different animal, and dismissing the crew as clowns throws away the very real safety gains to be made from the lessons of that accident.

I flew RJ's into Lexington at a previous carrier. I trained with/knew many Comair guys. Trust me, if a mistake like LEX can happen to Comair it can happen to anyone.

And firing up the wrong aircraft? You think they did that by accident? Tail swaps happen all the time.

I'll spare you any chest beating but trust me, my employers know my opinions all too well - a function of my position, you see....

[SDFlyer]

Fair enough, and I'm not equating the two as closely as all that. My point is of course that audio + video recordings in that instance would reveal much more than what we know now about the condition of those two pilots, who are not clowns exactly but rather mass killers of their trusting passengers. Are you familiar with the legal concept of criminal negligence? They violated numerous cockpit procedures as I'm sure you know, and I for one would like to see and hear it all. More so were I a relative or friend of one of the dead. RIP.

I agree with you that we need to learn as much as possible from each tragedy. That's why I'm arguing for continuous recordings, responsibly monitored of course. I understand your concerns about inappropriate monitoring but that's a separate issue and one that the unions can rightly focus on after the installation.

Think of it this way: how much more would we know about what was going on in that cockpit (Buffalo) if we could view a continuous video of events chock-to-explosion? I suspect at least some of the mystery would be solved, particularly with respect to fatigue which is a major issue in current discussion.

hmmm, I'm thinking maybe two cameras, one aimed left and one aimed right. Don't forget to tighten the knot on your tie before entering, and keep a comb in your top pocket at all times ....... :)

[Huck]

A video addition to CVR data would not be a bad idea.

As long as the "privacy" rules of CVR's apply.

And there is never, never any chance of the footage going public.

For what it's worth I was torn up over the Lexington crash. I am horrified by the fact that I can see something like happening - just a little bit of complacency / overfamiliarity, combined with the stress of your company going bankrupt, your family (with small children) in your hotel room during a layover, some taxi closures and changes.... I cannot demonize that crew. Plenty of us could have at least travelled partway down that path.

As for Buffalo, if a shaker makes you pull hard on the yoke, you probably shouldn't have been typed....

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

SDFlyer - "Methinks he doth protest too much". I am always a little alarmed by people who feel so strongly on a particular issue that they want to threaten people with being fired for disagreeing with them. You have not grasped the issues here - you are proposing a fundamental shift in the way things are done, which is radically different from current practice. There are all sorts of things discussed behind flight deck doors that should remain private conversations. The current arrangement is totally adequate - we have allowed CVR conversations to be made available in the event of an accident. We simply cannot have our private conversations made available to management because they want to know what we are talking about. No employer would insist on private conversations between employees in a factory or office being randomly sampled to see if they were working correctly or talking about last night's football game. It would rightly be considered an infringement of their civil liberties. Unless there is an overwhelming need to review those conversations following an incident or accident, there can be no real justification for hearing them routinely.

Also, John Farley's view is not one I can endorse. You cannot compare the test flying world (in which I spent several years myself), where specific testing and analysis is taking place, with a day-to-day working environment that people spend 30+ years of their lives in. The routine monitoring of conversations "just in case" is simply not acceptable in a free society and there can be no justification for it. We should not even entertain such a possibility - simply because there are such people as SDFlyer out there who are so zealous in their pursuit of 'lesser' pilots than himself. Well done ALPA.

[SDFlyer]

"Zealot", this thread gets more entertaining by the minute.

No, I do not consider myself a more accomplished pilot than you guys, far from it. Not my chosen profession. You have clearly badly missed my point, and my motivation.

But you had better hope I'm not chit-chatting with my pal when I get the (VFR) clearance from the tower at CRQ (south of the localizer, RWY heading), "make left 270, number 2 behind the Brazilia on 4 mile final, cleared to land RWY 24, caution wake turbulence". Sometimes there's a Citation or a Lear east of ESCON at that time as well. You're mixin' with me, like it or not:E ..:)

btw, I don't consider the off-topic talk to be a major factor in THIS accident, but I think we're agreed it has been one in others, are we not?

[Max Angle]

Nicely said Norman :ok:

[Romeo India Xray]

CVR monitoring, I am totally FOR it.

CVR monitoring by any level of airline managment, I am totally AGAINST it.

CVR monitoring by an indipendent 3rd party who is able to contact the crew concerned and bring big violations to their attention, I am totally FOR it.

Lets say the 3rd party is an indipendent union safety rep possibly afiliated with a different carrier.

Lets say that union rep also has a steadfast system in place to shield the identity of any crews he speaks to.

Lets say that airline management may only be informed when a crew has repeatedly violated the sterile cockpit rule (say 3 times) in a big way.

Lets say that our monitoring union guy is only able to action any single CVR "event" if it is considerable (I too agree that a very small number of verbal "prods" can serve as a check on the other guy who is up there with you), thus protecting the crew from a b*****ing for simply slating "the ATC F**kers here for giving us a RW change AGAIN!!!".

Yes, if it were to work like this then I am totally FOR CVR monitoring. Why would anyone not be?

RIX

[goeasy]

Fear.... That all you discussed in the cruise or otherwise, may be reported in full detail in tomorrow mornings newspaper! So you could never discuss anything confidential, or marginally illegal, without it possibly becoming public knowledge.

All the safety theories here are perfectly sensible, except the one fact, that once the recording is off the aircraft, it is available to be leaked to all and sundry! Or subpoenaed by the tax department, to disclose that foreign investment you forgot to mention. :=

And from a practicality point of view, just how many 'investigators' would have to be employed to listen to all these hours of conversations? Never happen. No airline will pay that much for any little increase in safety.

[SDFlyer]

Why not restrict your talk of foreign investments, personal dalliances, union politics and the like to times when you aren't in the cockpit or otherwise in front of a mike?

Is that so difficult?

To compensate for the appalling loss of privacy involved (ahem ..), IIWY I'd insist that all airlines provide a guaranteed unbugged, soundproof space for their staff to chat in.
hehehehehehehe
[OK, now I'm just playing with y'all....:)]

RIX: some sensible suggestions IMO, and clearly access to the data should be very rigorously controlled.

[llondel]

How many total flight-hours are there by US carriers each day? How many people would you need to employ to monitor all of that? If you're only going to sample the recordings then chances are that most will be happily erased and never listened to, although it does make it easier to single out a particular pilot and monitor tapes from all flights performed by that pilot.

It's a bit like the security services wanting to monitor every single email sent, just not practical to actually do it but it makes it easier for them to monitor particular individuals.

However, no system is ever going to be perfect - if an electronic record has been made, whether it be CVR, picture or email, it is trivial to leak, and once leaked, is unstoppable (unless it's so tedious that people can't be bothered to forward it).

[goeasy]

SD Flyer, you live in a dream world if you think this quantity of data could be rigorously controlled. It cant, and that is exactly why this will never be allowed to occur.

[MU3001A]

I'm in favor of government CVR audits to catch tax cheats discussing their offshore investments during those endless long haul excursions, but for no other purpose. Maybe weeding out the Limbaugh listeners too, but then the age 65 rule should take care of the majority of those.:)

[SDFlyer]

As I said before, most revealing of where some pilots' priorities lie. I don't have to live with your management, I do understand that.
:ugh:

Lest it not be self-evident, noone that I've read has proposed that ALL recordings should be actively monitored by someone ALL of the time. That is a straw man, and of course wouldn't be necessary to curb unprofessional behavior by the (likely very small) proportion of pilots involved. A relatively small sample will do nicely IMO as a strong disincentive - unless a pilot has little interest in continued employment in the industry of course.
*flame suit check - ON*

[One Outsider]

There is a grating disdainful tone to every post by SDFlyer. Why that is one can only guess, but as it so eloquently is pointed out at the bottom of the page, not all motives are what they purport to be.

[SDFlyer]

I take it you think my motives are not of the purest. Not much that I can do to convince you otherwise, is there? Perhaps if you read more carefully what it is that I've been writing .....

Never mind, I shall leave the field to those who seem to be in complete agreement that everything in the garden is rosy.

Good day gentlemen, and I'll try not to scare you too much up there, like I may have done that poor chap in the Lear recently on the climbout from F70. I was approaching the field from the other side, just like I said I was .... :) Man but those suckers can climb, never actually saw him quit the area *sigh*

Fly safe.

[Obie]

...you mean, "elvis has left the building?"

thank goodness for that!!! :ok:

[HAWK21M]

Random CVR/FDR recordings analysized is normal procedure at 1month/3month intervals resp out here.
regds
MEL.

[Wake Turbulence]

Many investment houses tape (by law, house policy, or both) all telephone conversations on their dealing desks. Every employee who picks up those phones (or interphones) knows every word is taped and subject to review.

Observations:
1) This didn't save certain dealing houses from making bad trades which resulted in economic calamity (finance equivalent of crew-induced air crashes).
2) The taped employees know there are far too many hours of tapes for management to possibly review every hour and word. Thus, the odds of any personal conversations being exploited against the participants for non-safety-related reasons = low/approaching zero.
3) No labour law or union contract forbids this practise, based on disclosure and consent.

Yet there are benefits:
It deters certain behaviours and statements from being made during business hours, on company time. And ensures a record is available in the event of any "incident."

There's no inherent reason CVR taping and review should impair flight safety - on the contrary, it might deter off-topic behaviours and help with early detection of problematic tendencies. Panacea? No. Public interest in detecting violative/dangerous tendencies? Clearly. Cultural resistance to such practise? Understandable.

[llondel]

The difference with the investment house case is that if you pu the phone down, you can talk to the person next to you without it all being recorded. In an aircraft cockpit you're always being monitored. Of course, the 'too much information' point is valid, although as I said above, if the management is targetting a particular pilot it's easy enough to grab the relevant recordings.

[goeasy]

Exactly Llondell. No one, anywhere, has every word said at work recorded. Except those idiots on Big Brother, and you could hardly call that work! But it is a great example of how that sort of recording can be used/misused. :ooh:

[Huck]

The sad thing is that we're debating this at all.

I remember my father's generation arguing over airline pilots simply walking through metal detectors....

[StickItUpYourYoke]

Zip it and stop whining, the lot of you. If you don't break the regulations, and don't engage in ignorant inflight bigotry, you have nothing to fear.

Or perhaps some of you are scared of admitting that extra-marital affair whilst on the flight deck?

[Airbus Girl]

Having seen before the "witch hunt" that can happen when an airline wishes to get rid of a pilot, I would absolutely NOT support the introduction of regular reviews of the CVR.

And for all those (who obviously don't fly airliners) who think that it is perfectly reasonable for all pilots to only speak SOPs whilst at work, can I say - have you ever tried doing that for 14 hours? Can you imagine the stress if you know your manager wants rid of you, or the company needs to make redundancies? They could just listen into the CVRs, find a couple of non-SOP moments or comments you make that aren't politically correct and sack you. We don't get breaks, we are "working" for the whole time. You non-airline pilots, would you like to have everything, from the moment you set foot on your company's premises, including everything you say in conversation, by email, by phone, or personally, and in both work time and your own time, for 14 hours straight, recorded and played back by management? Are you perfect 100% of the time? If you are not, then you should not be supporting the idea of having everything you say recorded whilst at work.

I completely agree that SOPs should be followed, and the sterile cockpit is a great idea. As someone else said, the odd sentence here and there usually enhances flight safety because it tells the other pilot that that person is alert and listening. And on a long tiring duty it helps keep you alert. Personally I have found the missed radio calls (that another poster mentioned) tends to be when I have done a very long duty and I am tired and the cockpit is quiet and therefore my alertness is at a low ebb - your brain switches off and it takes longer to realise ATC are calling you.

There is another way for airlines to monitor SOP adherence. The airline I work for has recently had a kind of audit of SOPs. A number of pilots (non-management!) were allocated to come on the jump seat of different flights. The information they recorded was completely anonymous, there were no details of crew or anything like that. They noted down which SOPs were not adhered to, or were called incorrectly, and this information was gathered together to find out which SOPs were working and which were not. The idea being that if most people in the company weren't using the SOP or finding it hard to adhere to, perhaps the SOP should be changed.

This is far better than routine recording/ playing of CVR tapes. It is pro-active. Because the "monitor" is "one of us" there is no extra pressure like there is in the sim. And it is known that there is absolutely no punitive measures, so the crew operate as "normal".

[Bullethead]

Nicely said ABG.

Regards,
BH. :ok:

[flipster]

AB girl

Its called a LOSA - Line Operations Safety Audit - they are being quite well received over here in UK and agree that this is a better way to do things for the very reasons to which you allude - inappropriate management interference - it does happen and CVR monitoring would be more easily abused.

http://www.icao.int/ANB/humanfactors/LUX2005/Info-Note-5-Doc9803alltext.en.pdf

[ray cosmic]

ABGirl, my thoughts indeed. Most people tend to think you enter the aircraft, get busy, fire up, taxi, fly approach, taxi and shutdown all in one go.
It simply is not that efficient.

Why shouldn't I be talking private issues while we are sitting out a 2 hour delay, or while we are in cruise? Of course, there are times you should keep all conversations purely professional, but since we don't have smokingrooms, canteens, bars etc on board our aircraft there is only a limited amount of areas where you can engage in social dialog. Certainly if you're only 2 on the flightdeck.

And why the paranoia against abuse by management? Because often they have proven to be ruthless beyond anyones imagination if they had someone on their hitlist.

[And that was that]

Food for thought ! The walls do have ears !

You get on board your flight with your F/O, 45 minutes prior to pusback, the amount of ensuing chatter, work-gossip, expletives (trying to find a dropped pen, books and charts), general day to day cockpit preflight dramas all being recorded from all and sundry coming into the flight deck, then follows the briefing , short-long, standard, non-standard or otherwise, then 3 minutes into the taxy, you ‘dent’ their aircraft, by having some set of stairs being incorrectly parked, that you couldn’t see, hit the wing tip…… its an incident! As with all companies, an incident usually means pulling of CVR and more than likely DFDR/QAR tapes = FOQA… this whole period was just under an hour or so of cockpit activity, yet digital CVR recorded the last 2 hours, now the company will have the benefit of listening to the previous in-bound crew’s chatter during Final Approach and taxying in, let alone the current crew’s own situation!

Likewise, you’ve landed, taxied in, good ship all went well, walk off to crew room to sign off, get into car and a buddy calls you, that the aircraft was involved in a bingle or drama of some sort!!!! Company will pull CVR, and have a good insight into your last half hour of cruise flying and half hour of descent and approach!!!

Even worse scenario, you land walk away from a good flight, guy at bottom of stairs with tool box, says he’s here to shut down aircraft and pull CVR for “flight Operations purposes”… they now have 2 hours of all of your chatter, thoughts about various folk in the office and the way they do things to pilots etc…

Is the CVR used as a proper safety tool or as we’ve been seeing over the years, a weapon ?

If no incident, prior to each push back and after each landing, set park Brake, push the CVR button! You’ll feel a bit better next time the guy comes up the stairs with his tool box!

[OD100]

You're on company-time, flying company-owned equipment. The CVR belongs to the company. If they want to monitor it, have at it. No different than company-monitoring of any piece of equipment they are providing you (i.e., laptop, cell-phone, etc...).

Simple as that.

[CathyH]

You can say F*ck, --just as the wing comes off:D, after all, they can't fire you then, can they?

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I have sadly been in the rare position of listening to a CVR from an accident I was involved in. We sat with the AAIB and listened from the moment the unit was powered up (when P2 got into his seat) until impact, when the G switch stopped it. P2 was a senior management pilot and friend, some of the things we discussed would have made my mother blush (anybody who's met her would be surprised to know she could) and some things were about the company, and some things were intensly personal (divorce and all that goes with it) The key times (top of drop to impact) we had a sterile cockpit and the SOPs were followed to the letter. When the report came out we were in the clear, but if the company had heard the conversation I have no doubts unemployment would have come swiftly and with a lot of malice.

At the same company there was a rumour that the man who monitered CVRs for maintenance purposes had repeated parts of conversations. I do not know if it was true, but afterwards the erase button was always pressed.

I am totally against company monitoring of CVRs. We have to be trusted to do our jobs, as we trust those who maintain our aircraft and keep them apart in flight. If the book says "Sterile cockpit below ???" then trust us to do that. If at the court of enquiry we have not followed procedure then hang us out to dry. We have to learn from the mistakes of others, if we do then CVR monitoring is utterly unnecessary.

[einhverfr]

I think there is more fundamental reason not to have routine monitoring of CVRs even if privacy concerns could be addressed.

Employee monitoring, whatever the environment, is the same. While there are claims of various enhancements that come from these, I have yet to see ANY employee monitoring system deliver except when, in call centers, a manager is LISTENING (only!) to a phone call from the stand point of the customer and then providing feedback to the agent.

The issue is that empoyee monitoring changes the perception of the employee from management's perspective. The quest for more information leads to all sorts of other issues.

In the end this ALWAYS comes back to professionalism. If you want to have professional employees that do good quality work, you DO NOT monitor them any more than is necessary for training.

However, I think there is one exception-- safety research. I would like to see random samples from a million landings pulled by the NTSB and a baseline established for sterility in the cockpit. It would be interesting to know if the sterile cockpit rule works or not, whether it can be shown to improve safety, etc. Follow up on rules changes some time after issues in order to re-establish base-lines would be helpful in determining:

1) Are the rules helpful from a safety perspective?
2) Have the rules created a real difference in the cockpit?

So yes, there is an anti-incident role for these tapes, but I would not trust the airlines on this matter.

[Sober Lark]

In a posting Report on incident in DUB 2007

"With reference to the report 1.13.2 "Information contained on the CVR was not preserved by the flight crew and consequently was not available to the investigation."

Does this mean the flight crew can erase such recordings or does it mean the recording was automatically recorded over? What do they need to do to preserve a recording?"

Reply received -

"Erasing CVRs

data is recorded on a loop and starts to over-write when it gets back to the beginning of the loop. SOPs usually have provision for tripping the CB after an event to preserve the evidence. It's not unknown for crews to leave the CVR running so that critical conversations are over-written."


If the above can apply in the event of a serious incident why would anyone be worried about big brother listening when it appears to be so easy to erase the recording?

[seventhree]

When and if this happens my answer will be simple. The CVR breaker comes out, gets collared and stays that way.

If the trend towards prosecuting pilots continues I will pull the DFDR breakers as well.

[HAWK21M]

During an investigation.The CVR recordings/transcripts pertaining to the Incident/accident should be considered & not any personal talk many minutes prior.

Out here a regulatory Mandatory Modification has made the Erase button ineffective on all Local registered Aircraft to avoid deliberate erasure.

regds
MEL.

[SDFlyer]

OD100: "You're on company-time, flying company-owned equipment. The CVR belongs to the company. If they want to monitor it, have at it. No different than company-monitoring of any piece of equipment they are providing you (i.e., laptop, cell-phone, etc...).

Simple as that."

My thoughts exactly. Why is it that some pilots believe that their profession should be the exception? They have great responsibility for the lives of others, with which should come commensurate obligations and restrictions as well as benefits.

Of course it's a rhetorical question, enough pilots do not conceal their motives to leave any doubt. This thread teaches that industrial relations in the profession are even worse than one imagined, to the point that for some, distrust and hostility are driving the thinking. Very sad.

[mona lot]

Will airline managers also have to make recordings of all their meetings available for the flight crew to listen to?:D

I am with seventhree, pull the CB

[SDFlyer]

No, because airline managers are not directly and immediately responsible for the lives of hundreds of people, in any way that can reasonably be compared to professional pilots.

(thank heavens - I suspect we can agree on that at any rate.)

[max_cont]

IMHO routinely monitoring the CVR will not improve safety per se, and will in all likelihood reduce crew moral. That is more likely to have a negative impact on safety and therefore negate any imagined improvement they hope they gain. Although we all know they would not be doing it for safety, despite what they may claim.

Managers know the score; they need our co-operation to run the operation. The moment they start that kind of nonsense, the co-operation suddenly disappears.

This is how it goes.
Suddenly we all report on time instead of our usual twenty minutes early to get the pre fight planning done for an on time for departure.
Or oops we’re five minutes into discretion, time to land at the closest airport and let the company rescue the passengers, crew and aircraft.
Or no, I’m not prepared to accept that defect for this flight.
Or no, I can’t help you out and operate a flight on my day off.
Or I know the plog says we need 14500KG fuel, but I think we need 16000KG... there’s the outside chance we may have to hold at destination despite the fact that we are arriving at 03:00

Most company managers understand that an airlines success is due in no small part to the good will that the engineers, cabin crew and pilots routinely demonstrate. This is usually well beyond what our respective contracts stipulate.