Cockpit Video Recorders to become mandatory

[Earl of Rochester]

Received an email yesterday from a friend who works with the FAA in which he says the NTSB are drawing up a submission to the US government to request that Cockpit Video Recorders become mandatory on all US registered airliners by 1st Jan 2014.

Any confirmation of this from someone in the NTSB?

NTSB wants Cockpit Cameras installed ASAP - and gives reasons why (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/dfdr-cvr/cockpit_cameras.html)

[Hell Man]

Nothing a well placed piece of chewing gum can't solve! ;)

[sitigeltfel]

Video players would also make long boring sectors more fun ;)

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Video players would also make long boring sectors more fun
Except I think this has to do with video recorders.

However, there is nothing to prevent you from setting-up your iPad somewhere on the panel and watching a movie if you have a particularly long and boring flight!

[Airbubba]

EGYPTAIR – On 31st October 1999, 217 people were killed when an Egyptair Boeing 767 crashed into the Atlantic 60 miles off the US coast. Although there has been much speculation concerning activity in the cockpit shortly before the plane came down, the cause of the crash is still unknown.

The 59 year-old FO Gameel El-Batouti was caught exposing himself to underaged females in the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York. He was facing a termination hearing. The SU990 NTSB report leaves little doubt as to the cause of the crash. :ugh:

[lomapaseo]

We have discussed this to death (sic) before on this forum (threads should be merged to avoid duplication) :)

The interest is in the timing of anything new.

The NTSB want stuff because it sounds good re: investigative tools

Those on the pointy end don't like the 100% invasion of privacy while only picking their nose (gut feeling that it may show up on U-twoob)

The pro-active safety professionals have their wants as well but this is not on their short list.

[Machinbird]

The interest is in the timing of anything new.
Well, there is the BEA recommendation for cockpit video of the instrument panels from the 3rd AF447 report.

[Sqwak7700]

I would like to see cameras in the cargo compartment first. How many fires recently could have been spotted a bit earlier, and how many questions could have been answered in recent accidents with a few cameras well placed in the cargo holds.

[caber]

While the NTSB is free to recommend to their heart's content, it's another thing entirely for the FAA to adopt the idea. The NTSB has had many many recommendations sit there with no action for years.

This rule seems destined to sit as well, as airlines won't want to pay to install cameras and pilots won't want to be filmed. With countries all over the world deciding to use voice recorders as evidence in criminal prosecutions, I for one have no faith in any guarantee that video would be used solely for accident investigations.

[ZOOKER]

"NTSB says video black-box will help solve plane crashes".
Amazing!
Surely, the best way to "solve plane crashes" is to prevent them happening in the first place.
But this would probably involve the NTSB, Airline management, Pilots, Engineers, ATCOs and Human Factors/Resources (oh, and other 'interested stake-holders'), sitting around a table and having meaningful and constructive 'conversations'. :E

[FLCH]

The NTSB or any other entity knows what we say, what keystrokes are inputted to the computer, what control we touch, and even know what's in our overnight and flight bags.

What good would a video recorder do, other than provide goulish entertainment to You Tube right before the aircraft impacted terra firma ??

[Herod]

Being retired gets better every day. :ok:

[GlueBall]

"Those on the pointy end don't like the 100% invasion of privacy. . ."

The same was said 40 years ago about CVRs; did it stop pilots from talking **** in the cockpit?

Fact is, today's sophisticated minature cams can be focused on instrument panels, overhead and pedestal switch positions, NOT on seat occupants. :ooh:

[lomapaseo]

Fact is, today's sophisticated minature cams can be focused on instrument panels, overhead and pedestal switch positions, NOT on seat occupants

Nobody recently argued that it was impossible to do

The current issue is should it be placed in front of other more productive tasks.

[DC-ATE]

Herod-
Being retired gets better every day.

You sure got THAT right !!!

[cockpitvisit]

Why does a pilot's job require more privacy than e.g. a flight attendant? There are lots of professionals (both on the low and high end of the pay scale) who have no privacy in their workplace at all - and not by accident, but by the nature of their jobs. In a similar fashion, a job requirement for pilots would be to be observed by a camera at all times while on the job.

Or is the workplace privacy guaranteed in the contract? In this case, the new policy would have to apply to new entrants first and old contracts would have to be negotiated.

Surely, the best way to "solve plane crashes" is to prevent them happening in the first place.
Sure, but the pilot community hasn't managed to do that, despite trying for over 100 years. Otherwise, we wouldn't have this discussion now. There isn't even a 100% understanding of what caused some past crashes. So some technical means to help understand past crashes and learn from them seems justified. Every cashier's office with a just few thousand bucks at stake is equipped with a camera recorder today, but a pilot's office with several hundred lives at stake isn't???

Wasn't the same (loss of privacy, no help against crashes) said about the CVR 40 years ago? And where would we be today without experience gained from past crashes using CVR? And how many CVR recordings (not actual crashes, but "pilots picking their noses") did leak to YouTube? There are some juicy recordings made from inadvertent radio transmissions or a stuck mic, but I think there are none extracted from the CVR. So this equipment offers some pretty good privacy.

In my opinion as a cowardly paying pax, pilots willing to sacrifice safety for a little bit of their own privacy simply don't belong in the cockpit.

[mickjoebill]

Not sure about the value of cameras showing pilot's actions in an emergency...

But Use of cameras to see if the inboard engine is still in one piece, check for fuel or hydrolic leaks, or if smoke is evident in the cargo hold seems to be a better use.

Also landing gear cameras could be used to check for fire following a hot and heavy emergency landing.

Would such good video "coverage" of the aircraft reduce the instances where slides are deployed as a precaution after a heavy landing, suspected hot wheel problem or suspected fire in hold?


The next step could be a smoke hood/mask with an option to display instruments. The system could also include a forward looking camera (physically protected from volcanic ash or hail damage until turned on) this camera could also have "night vision" sensor with its own roll and pitch sensor info overlaid as the last line of defence of smoke in the cockpit electrical failure at night. Such a camera could run independently on a small backup battery.


Does seem perverse that there are cameras for the punters to see whats going on but none specifically to help pilots.

Video can be encrypted so even engineers and managers can't view it.
However the public will wonder what pilots have to hide if too much of a fuss is made about privacy!

[Huck]

Every cashier's office with a just few thousand bucks at stake is equipped with a camera recorder today, but a pilot's office with several hundred lives at stake isn't???


They don't have a union, mate.

And those CVR's were only allowed after their use in discipline/enforcement was outlawed by statute. The reason they aren't on Youtube is because they are company property.

[Gretchenfrage]

But use of cameras to see if the inboard engine is still in one piece, check for fuel or hydrolic leaks, or if smoke is evident in the cargo hold seems to be a better use.

Your words in God's ear!!!

But no one is interested in actually helping pilots and eventually putting the blame on something outside of the holy "human error" saga.

Too costly for the other sides!

So we can all sit back and relax: The manufacturers themselves will oppose any video in the cockpit. The chances of having proof that the pilot's recount was right or that some system effectively screwed up is just too big!

[captjns]

I can see it now... by mail order... "PILOTS GONE WILD":} available on Blue Ray DVD:ok:

[HotDog]

A rather "delicate" incident recorded in a Cathay Pacific A330 flight deck resulted in the loss of the participant's livelyhood with that airline!:}

[ShotOne]

There are several camera angles which would be very useful to me as pic; wheels relative to taxiway edge, wingtip clearance, cargo hold to confirm or not smoke warning. Depressing to note that none of these are even under discussion while there's an unlimited budget to provide fodder for lawyers.

[cockpitvisit]

And those CVR's were only allowed after their use in discipline/enforcement was outlawed by statute.
So why can't a similar use of cockpit video recorders be outlawed too? This wouldn't impact the safety aspect of these cameras in post-crash investigations and would seem a sensible compromise. Even though I personally fail to see any reason for pilots to expect some super privacy. Isn't a cockpit camera (with discipline use allowed) similar to riding with a check pilot every time?

Paying passengers on some airlines are routinely observed by a video camera from the cockpit door - should I expect my nose picking onboard the plane to appear on youtube too? :eek:

[Shiny side down]

Only as stage 3 of a 3 stage process.

Stage one. HD recordings of HR department activities regarding treatment of crew.

Stage two. Ditto, for flight planning/crewing/maintenance

Stage three (budget stretched now). Low def video akin to petrol station (gas station in colonial parlance) monitoring. Super grainy pictures leaving much to the imagination.

[PAXboy]

SLF here.

I regret to observe that those who never leave the ranch (board members and their lawyers) will always seek to rely on automation / computers / equipment / machines / etc. to do their job for them.

If they were on top of their jobs in recruitment, training and supporting crew in a unique job (which they do not properly understand) then they would not need to shout for ever more machines to cover their @rse.

So - this WILL happen and it will spread around the globe. The only hope is that, once the equipment is being developed - you can at least get some cameras in the hold etc. The weight of these is now down to a few grams and the extra hard disk storage required is, again, very light and cheap. So, doubtless, mgmt will find other reasons to say no. :ugh:

[Gretchenfrage]

Stage one. HD recordings of HR department activities regarding treatment of crew.

Stage two. Ditto, for flight planning/crewing/maintenance

good one!

We can extend that to recordings of top management and board meetings:

'Who decided when, what, based on what indications'.

After all it's the shareholders money, the stakeholders pay and profit share and most of the time even the taxpayers money!

So if someone needs to be liable in a crash, metal or money, it should be possible to identify the responsible gals and guys.

After all we all thrive to improve safety in each and every aspect, don't we?
This includes my money!

[stallspeed]

Cameras in the cargo hold - good . Thermal imagers in the cargo hold - better. Seeing a 'hot spot' before it bursts into flames might buy some valuable time. Cameras enabling flight deck to have a look see at engine pods, landing gear, etc. - great.
Ac makers griping about cost and weight - plain bs. Every rinky-dink cellphone comes with a hi-res camera the size of a pinhead. Besides, with them ac makers experimenting with electrically powered wheels in order to do away with the towbars,tugs and taxi fuel, crews will need some good cams in lieu of a rearview mirror :)

[mickjoebill]

Cameras enabling flight deck to have a look see at engine pods, landing gear, etc. — great.

All do-able technically and pictures could be a help to senior cabin crew in an emergency too...
Time taken to select an image and evaluate the scene precludes the usefulness of cameras in all emergencies though!

OK let me have my flight of fancy..
The camera wish list... select from below according to aircraft type
1 x each engine; cowlings, fluid, fire
2 x wings; flap condition and deployment, snow ice, deicing checks(?) fuel leaks
1 x elevators; snow ice, deicing checks (?)
1 x nosegear; tyre condition, deployment, brake fire.
1 x each main landing gear; tyre condition, deployment, brake fire.
1 x thermal cam in cargo holds; fire, security of cargo
1 x each passenger cabin; general surveillance including doors.
2 x wingtip clearance
1 x night/thermal/nose mounted forward looking; horizon of last resort?

A good image of control surfaces of wings on wide bodied aircraft need 2 or three cameras per wing...
The issues of lighting, glare, shadow and reflection of challenging subjects such as black tyres and reflective fuselage can be mitigated by using new HDR (High Dynamic range) imaging technology.

To reduce cockpit workload, cameras could be grouped into five groups; landing gear, cargo, control surfaces, engines, cabin. Automatically pre-selected into a group of thumbnails on a touch screen according to the phase of flight. Overridden if smoke and fire sensors in hold or engines are activated, whereby relevant cameras would be selected on screen.

The pitots are so important (AF447).... is a dedicated pin size camera/s with led a bad idea?.. would a thermal/night vision "horizon camera" have helped the AF447 crew? once they were out of heavy cloud?

One has to say that an interior shot of the flight deck itself would be the least useful in the above list:ok:

[lomapaseo]

What's the difference between universal gossip and a rumour ?

[SeenItAll]

Just to note, there seem to have been a number of recent incidents where a flight deck camera could have shed some light on why they occurred. In particular, in the AF447 and Ethiopian/Beirut situations the pilots were believed to be pointing at certain instruments and wondering "what it was doing" or whether its value was correct. A camera could inform us as to what instrument was being pointed at. In the Polish/Smolensk crash (and some others), an issue has been whether there was someone extra in the cockpit directing things or distracting from things. Again, a camera would have been highly useful in determining if this was correct, and if so, who it was. In EgyptAir or SilkAir, a camera would have removed all doubt as to whether the loss of control was deliberate, inadvertent, or due to some system failure or external influence.

While there certainly could be privacy issues, I don't think there is much doubt that for evaluating the cause of incidents, they would be quite useful.

Ducking now ...

[mickjoebill]

While there certainly could be privacy issues, I don't think there is much doubt that for evaluating the cause of incidents, they would be quite useful.

A camera pointed toward pilots would help identify who is speaking as well as being a pointer to the degree of turbulence/vibration. A camera pointed at the instruments would serve as a backup of sorts if the black box was not recovered. A CF solid state media card can be easily protected as it is so small.

[GlueBall]

A camera pointed at the instruments would serve as a backup of sorts if the black box was not recovered.

What's recorded in the orange box may not include 100% of what's displayed on the pilots' screens when electrics or software anomalies creep in. :ooh:

[KBPsen]

What's recorded in the orange box may not include 100% of what's displayed on the pilots' screens

Really? Do you have any evidence of that?

What is recorded in an EFIS system is the output from the display management computers. What goes to the screens goes to the FDR.

The questions nobody seems to be asking is, will it improve flight safety or simply make life a little easier for investigators? Have the installation of CVRs prevented any accidents? Will the installation of video prevent any? Prevention is the supposed purpose of these devices.

What will be next? Caps with electrodes so brain activity can be recorded?

[mantisboomtang]

The questions nobody seems to be asking is, will it improve flight safety or simply make life a little easier for investigators? Have the installation of CVRs prevented any accidents? Will the installation of video prevent any? Prevention is the supposed purpose of these devices.

Is it not fair to say that the recordings are used to better understand how crews behave during real life emergencies, and adjust training accordingly to help prevent mistakes from happening again.

[GlueBall]

What is recorded in an EFIS system is the output from the display management computers. What goes to the screens goes to the FDR.

Yes, that's when everything works.

AF447 orange box did NOT record what was seen on BOTH screens. Read up on the preliminary reported factual data . . . :ooh:

[KBPsen]

Saying

AF447 orange box did NOT record what was seen on BOTH screens

is very different from saying

What's recorded in the orange box may not include 100% of what's displayed on the pilots' screens when electrics or software anomalies creep in.

The RH displays on AF447 was never going to be recorded by the FDR regardless of the condition of systems or aircraft.

Yes, that's when everything works.
It is even so when not everything works.

The limitations of an FDR is the number of parameters chosen and their sampling rate. Both of which can probably be improved quicker and at less costs than installing one or more video cameras and associated equipment. Most QARs record more detailed data than the FDR already.

The desire to have cameras in the cockpit seems to me to be more about having the latest and shiniest tool even though it does pretty much the same as the old ones.

[fr8doggie]

It appears that the article linked to the original post was written in 2004. I don't know of any recent impetus to install cockpit cameras.

[mickjoebill]

Below quote is from the VS27 flight thread (which relates to a virgin flight turning back this month) where a poster describes action the crew took on a flight to Miami in 2004 following a similar smoke in hold warning.

After 15 mins, Aft Cargo temp remained absolutely constant (low) and as there was no sign of heat on the aft cabin floor it persuaded the three of us that perhaps there was less of a chance of a fire in there.

It is shocking that one has to wait for transfer of heat into the passenger cabin for confirmation of a fire in the hold?


Would a camera in the hold have eased concern in this case? or given the crew of VS27 confidence not to deploy the slides?

[ChicoG]

The questions nobody seems to be asking is, will it improve flight safety or simply make life a little easier for investigators? Have the installation of CVRs prevented any accidents? Will the installation of video prevent any? Prevention is the supposed purpose of these devices.

Might well have stopped this one:

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593)

But then the underlying problem would not have been discovered.

[GlueBall]

The RH displays on AF447 was never going to be recorded by the FDR regardless of the condition of systems or aircraft.

Without straining your intellectual capacity, would you agree that your own conclusion and understanding of the limitations of the FDR suggests that a video recording cam would have separately recorded what was displayed on the RH screen? :ooh:

[Heathrow Harry]

what was that crash a while back when they think the PIC may have put his foot up on the central console and tripped the autopilot off accidentally... you could see that on CTV

[Anthony Supplebottom]

I personally believe that cockpit video recorders can only enhance safety.

Regarding crew privacy this needs to be protected in that anything of a clearly personal nature (such as picking one's nose [which was mentioned] etc.) remains private upon pain of penalty payable by whoever makes public the breach of privacy.

When it comes to collecting cockpit data in the form of video footage related to an incident I believe there should be no contest, this data will, I am certain, prove invaluable.

[CJ Driver]

This is indeed old news, and I have posted something similar before, but since repetition is the very purpose of the Internet, here it is again:

Some years ago I did participate in a "camera in the cockpit" experiment, which as a previous poster suggested was aimed at creating training material. Whilst it is possible to "act" a scripted scenario with grand thespian gestures at instruments to draw attention to what is going on, a much more telling video was recorded during a real high-workload incident which was not scripted at all. I and my copilot would later agree that our effort had been 100%, we were working at the peak of CRM performance, and a tricky situation was well managed. Watching the video however, all you see is two statues! Movements were so economical that you might think we never even twitched a muscle, let alone operated controls and switches (but we did). In a heightened state you can draw your colleagues attention to an instrument with the tiniest nod of the head or flick of the eye, and in the real world that is how it works. As a record of the incident, the video was therefore completely useless. For detailed operational metrics, the FDR is much more likely to explain what was going on.

Having said that, there have been some accident reports recently that would have benefited from cameras - but they are ones that have such major unknowns as "Who was sitting in which seat?". It is surprising how often an accident chain starts with someone leaving/entering the cockpit, and the reports end up with lines like "Unknown Voice Number 7"! These are questions that can best be answered with cameras; hoping for insight into detailed operation may be hoping for too much.

[Sillypeoples]

Great idea, with real time up link to the FAA and airline dispatch.

[sevenstrokeroll]

OK...next contract, we demand a makeup person take care of the bald spots on the back of our heads and any shiny spots on our nose prior to flying cockpit video recorder equipped aircraft.

I'm ready for my closeup CB. Gear UP

[mickjoebill]

Watching the video however, all you see is two statues! Movements were so economical that you might think we never even twitched a muscle, let alone operated controls and switches (but we did). In a heightened state you can draw your colleagues attention to an instrument with the tiniest nod of the head or flick of the eye, and in the real world that is how it works. As a record of the incident, the video was therefore completely useless.

How large were the crew in the frame?
I'd suggest then that there needs to be a camera that reveals facial expressions on each crew member.
This could be used to track (roughly) where they are looking.
One camera for each crew member and a third wideshot to show their arm movements.

View of engines, cargo hold and control surfaces is more useful!

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

View of engines, cargo hold and control surfaces is more useful!

This seems another hamster wheel.:rolleyes:

The idea is from accident investigators. To them, a cockpit video could answer some questions, and that is useful (far more than what you suggest, Sir, in the case of an accident investigation).
As said by CJ Driver: Who is in the cockpit? Who sits where?
But also (with appropriate resolution & point of view): What were the instruments indicating (*)? Was this fault acknowledged, leaving place for the next one to be displayed on the ECAM/EFIS/whatever you call it?

(*) the data fed into if may be correct, but if the screen display itself is out of order/unreliable, the video will positively show it, when a FDR may not.

My 2 cents ;)

[mickjoebill]

For general reference,

Multicameras in cockpit
Frankfurt - Los Angeles Boeing 747 Cockpit View [HD] - YouTube (http://youtu.be/JPX_J38MT3U)

View of instruments only
FIRST OFFICER IN ACTION! (APPROACH SBEG) - YouTube (http://youtu.be/0NVeOQwxopM)

Pilot view landing in poor weather.
Bad Weather Landing Brussels Cockpit B737-500 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/36DxYzNTFI4)


To them, a cockpit video could answer some questions, and that is useful (far more than what you suggest, Sir, in the case of an accident investigation).

I was inferring they were useful to view other parts of the aircraft, ie cargo and engines, as mentioned in an earlier post.

[lomapaseo]

This seems another hamster wheel.:rolleyes:


:ok:

Just remember that everything you add into a cockpit to aide interpretation only works when it does as proven and intended.

likewise hidden failures and confusion are also part of our lives among technological improvements.

but all this has been covered in earlier threads, so there is nothing new to discuss

[cosmo kramer]

Cockpitvisit:
Why does a pilot's job require more privacy than e.g. a flight attendant?
...
Every cashier's office with a just few thousand bucks at stake is equipped with a camera recorder today, but a pilot's office with several hundred lives at stake isn't???
...
In my opinion as a cowardly paying pax, pilots willing to sacrifice safety for a little bit of their own privacy simply don't belong in the cockpit.
...
Even though I personally fail to see any reason for pilots to expect some super privacy. Isn't a cockpit camera (with discipline use allowed) similar to riding with a check pilot every time?
...
Paying passengers on some airlines are routinely observed by a video camera from the cockpit door - should I expect my nose picking onboard the plane to appear on youtube too? :eek:

Cockpitvisit, you are mixing up a lot of things. And have misunderstood a great deal (combined with a great part of disrespect as well).

From what you are suggesting, the pilots should be recorded because possible misconduct could be revealed (like a cashier stealing from the register), and hence every flight would be like a check flight. That would require someone to actually watch every recording. Big news for you, that is not done with voice recordings either, nor is it the purpose of those. However, we are being "watched" already with data recordings that a being stored on every flight and reviewed if anything is out of the ordinary. That is actually quite enough (combined with the semi- and annual-checks) to catch someone who regularly disregard the operating procedures.

Flight attendants and passengers are not being observed by means of cameras. The entry door to the cockpit is, however. There are no cameras in the cabin, and the there are no cameras that are directed at Flight attendants work places in particular. If a Flight attendant or a passenger passes by the area of the cockpit entrance door, they will briefly appear on a monitor in the cockpit (when/if switched on, mostly not), and this will not be recorded or stored in any way. The purpose of these cameras, are to allow the pilots to identify persons standing in front of the door without having to leave their seats to look through the peephole, not to observe what the Flight Attendants are doing nor to observe what's going on in the cabin. These cameras are not suitable for either.

So let's get back to the point, post-accident use (not check ride or to catch undisciplined pilots scratching their belly and picking their nose). Let's talk the real interesting, economical feasibility vs. achieved increase in safety. To equip every airline in the world with such system would cost an astronomical amount. Safety benefit? Close to none. First it would not prevent accidents from happening. You would have to wait for an accident, that would be unsolvable by any other means but such a camera system. How many accidents have we had in, say, the last 20 years of such kind? Secondly, the recorded evidence would have to be of such kind, that lesson could be learned that would increase safety. We are in this case talking a microscopic chance that anything revolutionary could come from such recordings. All at a gigantic cost which could have been used elsewhere to enhance safety.

When someone with a profile like yours (registered for 10 years, obviously not a professional and only 15 posts) make controversial posts like this, I get curious and click "find more posts by user". I see that you are also disgruntled that pilots don't like to go through body scanners (with unknown health effects when done every single day for an entire career) or being "felt up" by security personnel every day before going to work. Ending up in a absolutely disrespectful comment like this one:

Now you may argue that pilots are essential to flying a plane - but so are paying passengers! So there is absolutely no reason why pilots should be trusted any more an ordinary pax, sorry.

It is clear that you resent pilots, possibly being denied a cockpit visit by one, (surely you would be by myself) or not making the cut to become a pilot yourself. Hence, you pretty much disqualified yourself to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way.

[Shell Management]

cosmo kramer

The authority of command comes with responsibilities. The travelling public will not put their lives in the hands of blind trust anymore.

The Coster Concordia accident is a good example of the great public displeasure that follows an accident.

Cockpit video, routine CVR monitoring and rigorous drugs and alcohol screening are the sort of compliance monitoring tools that the public will demand.

Or

They will insist that crews face the full weight of the law for endangering aircraft when accidents of near misses occur and treat errors as grounds for manslaughter charges.

Your call.

[Alogan]

Cockpit video, routine CVR monitoring and rigorous drugs and alcohol screening are the sort of compliance monitoring tools that the public will demand.

Or

They will insist that crews face the full weight of the law for endangering aircraft when accidents of near misses occur and treat errors as grounds for manslaughter charges.

Your call.

According to whom?

[caber]

cosmo kramer

The authority of command comes with responsibilities. The travelling public will not put their lives in the hands of blind trust anymore.

The Coster Concordia accident is a good example of the great public displeasure that follows an accident.

Cockpit video, routine CVR monitoring and rigorous drugs and alcohol screening are the sort of compliance monitoring tools that the public will demand.

Or

They will insist that crews face the full weight of the law for endangering aircraft when accidents of near misses occur and treat errors as grounds for manslaughter charges.

Your call.

I think it more likely they will be told that such compliance will raise fares. Demands for such things will then go away.

[FlyingSportsman]

20 years time we'll have Airline bloopers instead of 10 year old traffic cops repeated over & over again :ok:

Always wanted to be a star anyway :E

[rubik101]

There will no doubt be an option on the pax console to select the cockpit video, and why not? I foresee Captains sporting their Breitlings on their right wrist, checking the time every five minutes, the FO his Rolex likewise on his left wrist. iPads, Samsung Galaxies, et al will be on prominent display. We can make it a revenue stream for pilots instead of for the company. Bring it on!

[Golf-Sierra]

It is however a fact of life that every London underground and bus passenger is being filmed. Coach drivers in the UK are also filmed - there was even a case recently when one lost his job as he was caught out eating on the job. (I am not saying that is necessarily a good thing but it is a fact of life).

One advantage of cameras in the cockpit is that junior crew members will find it easier to raise concerns about behaviours of more senior colleagues if they have evidence to back their claims. This may not seem so important in the UK, but in countries where the culture often places rank and hierarchy over safety this could make a big difference.

Golf-Sierra

[GlueBall]

As mentioned before, future cockpit video recorders are NOT about filming seat occupants. Nobody's interested in seeing anybody pick one's nose. Tiny video cams would be beamed only on instrument panels, pedestal and overhead switch positions. Eventually this is how it will be played out; maybe not next month, maybe not next year, but soon. So we might as well get a grip on practical techno reality that's coming our way. :ok:

[Shell Management]

FDRs record instruments. Cockpit video of the crew will vastly enhance the value of CVRs and show how the crew were acting in the critical moments.

These rally need to be on every safety top 10.

[lomapaseo]

quote]
FDRs record instruments. Cockpit video of the crew will vastly enhance the value of CVRs and show how the crew were acting in the critical moments.

These rally need to be on every safety top 10.
[/quote]


Really ??

Then what do we drop off from the top ten?

[Earl of Rochester]

what was that crash a while back when they think the PIC may have put his foot up on the central console and tripped the autopilot off accidentally..
I know an airline where several of the Captains regularly put their feet on the forward console (even with a visitor on the flight deck). I must say it was always amusing to watch even if it didn't exactly inspire confidence!

I foresee Captains sporting their Breitlings on their right wrist ..
I always wear my watch on the right - have done for years, much easier to read (for me at least). You forgot to mention the advertising potential! Jocks could have company logos sewn into the back of their shirts in return for a modest retainer! ;)

From what I've understood, video recorders are on the way in (whether we want them or not). I believe they will form part of the 'investigation package' ie. FDR, CVR and now CVR2.

[Shell Management]

From what I've understood, video recorders are on the way in.

Great news and entirely consistent with what is happening on the ground.

They will protect pilots too (security and reputation [at lesat the reputation of the competent ones])

[DavidWoodward]

what was that crash a while back when they think the PIC may have put his foot up on the central console and tripped the autopilot off accidentally... you could see that on CTV

You may be thinking of the Embraer over Brazil where the Captain put his foot on the footrest but may have knocked the transponder off with his foot in doing so. This stopped TCAS from working and they collided with the GOL 737-800 over the amazon resulting in the total loss of the 737. Bit of a design flaw with the Embraer which pilots need to be careful of.

[Case One]

One of the types I fly currently has cameras as external sensors, nice to have, but not as useful as one may expect. Suitable cargo bay cameras may be nice. I'm sure that instrument video - like HUD tapes would be of some use to the AIB/ NTSB etc, but I doubt it's worth the cost.

Flight deck crew video, what a waste of time and money. Better training and less politics is the solution, not YouTube. "If you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear", don't be so naive. As for trends in practice on the ground, I'm really not interested. I fly aeroplanes not mahogany bombers.

Check ride on every trip, don't be so juvenile. What do you think goes on in 99.99% of flight decks? For those conducting pre-meditated gross misconduct I cannot see the cameras providing any data - obviously.

[hawker750]

It is purely because it is an easy option and the airlines will foot the bill. Many many many more people are killed in automobile accidents every year so if the health and safety people say it will save lives then suggest every car/truck and bus has one installed. Trouble is this may impact on the profitibility of auto industry so would never get sactioned.
If there was a cost trade off then perhaps be a good idea. Line checks, simple, send in the tape. One line checker could do about 10 a day

[Alexander de Meerkat]

First of all, we as pilots are very keen that the safety record of aviation exceeds that of the automobile industry - if we want anyone to fly then that has to be the case. Without embarrassment or awkwardness we openly want to have a 100% safety record around the world where the number of take-offs equal numbers of landings. That may never be achievable but it is a worthy goal, and in our efforts to achieve that we should have no sacred cows.

It is not so long ago that flight data monitoring was considered an attack on a pilot's professionalism, but now forms part of our daily lives. Certainly, in my own airline, the application of the data has been religiously applied in terms of the original agreement with the Union. This is where the problem applies with regard to the video issue, and it has to be addressed - particularly in the context of the USA where freedom of information is King. If we can have a Union agreement in place that the video information is only available to download in the event of an incident/accident and will not be used to observe and punish minor breaches of SOP then that would be fine. The problem is what happens in the event of a fatal accident involving massive loss of life, which, alas, does happen in aviation from time to time. The pressure to release 'the moment of impact' video to the voracious press and blood-sucking public would be just too immense, coupled with media-led court cases under the auspices of 'freedom of information' to obtain release of the video. Added to that you would have secretaries who have access to the video and would want to make a fast buck by selling it. It may be that somewhere in the bowels of the US military is a helmet-cam video showing the shots that killed Osama bin Laden, and to an extent I am surprised it has not appeared already in the public domain. The reason it has not is due to military desire to protect one of their own, backed by clear secrecy laws - protections not on offer to civilian pilots.

Unions are quite rightly protective of their members' rights to privacy. They know that in the final analysis those rights would be long forgotten 'for the greater good' if a video existed of the last minutes of a crash. They do not want their members' families being subjected to the horror of their loved ones' last moments being endlessly displayed to the waiting masses. Therefore we have two irreconcilable positions - the pilots' desire to avoid their last moments displayed to the world as opposed to a professional board of inquiry, and the public's appetite for the vile and unwholesome. Until some very clear legislation can be brought in to offer the same level of privacy the SEAL who shot Osama bin Laden gets to the pilots in an air crash, then there really is nowhere to go. Basically, a public agreement needs to be in place that says normal 'right to know' is subordinated to the need to keep pilot confidence and maintain the privacy of their last moments on Earth - tricky but achievable.

[lomapaseo]

Privacy is just one argument against installing video cameras. Unfortunately it only inflames somebody elses rights.

I have and will continue to profer that there are more productive ways to increase safety (cost vs benefit) and the cost is not just $. The major cost is the technical challenges including installations and support vs the benefit gained.

This is the # 1 reason why this proferred gizmo has not moved to the top 10 list and is unlikley to do so in the next 10 years.

There are other more delectable fruit still hanging lower on the tree that we are still picking.

[hawker750]

Commercial video equipment as installed in non aviation facilities cost a few hundred dollars. Let's have a competition to see how many thousand it will cost to install in aircraft once the FAA and EASA have their input who will listen to Collins and Honeywell's argument that commercial video equipment is not suitable (AKA too cheap and we won't make any money)
I will start the bidding at $50,000

[lomapaseo]

Commercial video equipment as installed in non aviation facilities cost a few hundred dollars. Let's have a competition to see how many thousand it will cost to install in aircraft once the FAA and EASA have their input who will listen to Collins and Honeywell's argument that commercial video equipment is not suitable (AKA too cheap and we won't make any money)
I will start the bidding at $50,000


Don't forget the installation charges to certify the RF and the G load requirements as well as the camera angles that can be agreed (no face or groin shots).

How about airplane out-of-service to install and maintain? Should it be deferrable if a lens gets mucked up with chewing gum or a smiley face :O

[hawker750]

loma, you and I think out of the same box

[Shell Management]

Listen to you!

PRIVACY!!!!!! PA!!!!!

You'd ban CVRs wouldn't you you!

This unionist nonsense will be the death of your fellow pilots.:*:*:*:yuk::yuk::yuk::oh::oh::oh:

[iceman50]

Shell management

We have to listen to you. You seem quite content to spout your hatred of pilots on nearly every thread. Lets put a video camera in your office and it follows you wherever you go. Including your management lunches.

You sound exactly like someone who "failed" to become a pilot, all bitter and twisted.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I don't have a problem with cockpit video recorders....as long as the same rules as cockpit voice recorders hold true.

and, please, don't show that little bald spot on the back of my head.

I think the recent crash in Lagos would have been solved by now if the cockpit video recorder had been installed.

[Turbine D]

SM,

Years ago, American Airlines had a video camera installed on some of their aircraft, DC-10's if I recall correctly. At the crews discretion, the camera was on during the T/O. For SLF it was interesting, particularly to note how much it bounced around during the T/O roll, rough runways at some airports.

Today, video cameras are often installed on school busses in the USA. They are there mainly to focus on the SLF, particularly those that would be considered "bullies". Now, if you rode a school bus 50 years ago and you probably didn't if you grew up in Europe, but if you would have, it was good they didn't have cameras, Eh? :p:p:)

[Shell Management]

I think the recent crash in Lagos would have been solved by now if the cockpit video recorder had been installed.

Very true. Thats why following the increasing practice on ground transport is THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

[Earl of Rochester]

ADM, enjoyed your post #65 - well done.

[SPACEBALL]

I agree with your analysis posted on 65 and I fill to add more.
Would a crew fill completely free to act for safety when you konw big brother is watching you and will be judging you? Or would you move in different way, say different things, and and act in a different way just because you know any of your single move, word or act will be judged. In a few words you will think more like an actor trying to show up you did a good job on an emergency rather then take your collegues your passengers out of trouble. Same passengers and collegues that will take you to the court in the best case. Brain under these circustancies could be overloaded and getting useless specially captain brain which is already under pressure for responsability and loss of live, we don't really need more pressure. The risk is to work against safety being too busy to think usless things.
Prevention of accident, CRM and flight simulator is the best way to maintain a good level of safety. I have never been asked what would you like to do on this Simulator section? Where do you think you are weak in your knoledge or your pilot skill? We do not need cameras on board we need only VST and GCS.

[GlueBall]

Privacy is just one argument against installing video cameras.

. . . With 229 deader than dead bodies on the bottom of the Atlantic, your "privacy" rights in the cockpit are severely challenged. :{

Video recording cams focused on the instrument panels of AF447 would have shown what was displayed on the F/Os screen, data that was NOT recorded by the FDR. :eek:

What did the F/O at the controls SEE on his display that would give investigators a clue as to why he may have pulled on his stick and climbed into a stall? :ooh:

[lomapaseo]

glueball

. With 229 deader than dead bodies on the bottom of the Atlantic, your "privacy" rights in the cockpit are severely challenged. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

Video recording cams focused on the instrument panels of AF447 would have shown what was displayed on the F/Os screen, data that was NOT recorded by the FDR. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

What did the F/O at the controls SEE on his display that would give investigators a clue as to why he may have pulled on his stick and climbed into a stall? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif


You seem to have misrepresented my arguments by clipping a quote.

I was only acknowledging other's arguments about privacy as a singular argument when in fact there are numerous other arguments of why cockpit cameras are not high on the wanted listed of safety improvements.

As to your specious argument above about saving lives regarding AF447 it would require a speculative conclusion about the causal factors let alone a design engineers understanding of just how to employ such a camera exactly as needed for each and every accident you deem it necessary to do so.

[Yellow & Blue Baron]

.. when in fact there are numerous other arguments of why cockpit cameras are not high on the wanted listed of safety improvements.

Says who? Emails from within the industry (manufacturing) indicate that "future flight decks" will need to have provision for "full" video coverage ,,, and they mentioned crew positions, instruments and even an angle looking back at the flight deck door to record who goes in an out - and my sources are reliable .. [cough] Seattle. Sorry, did somebody say something about cattle?

[Lookleft]

After a while pilots will simply forget the cameras are there. Who modifies what they say in the cockpit because of the CVR! Pilots will talk about all sorts of non-operational stuff while they are starting the engines then taxi for take-off. The NTSB has been wanting CVidR for a while so it is high on the list of priorities and it will provide answers to accidents that the CVR simply can't capture. If those who are so concerend about privacy are really serious then I take it they have no bank accounts, never use a credit card and have no internet connection. Unless you are living in the remotest hills of your particular country of abode then privacy is a concept that is as illusory as parliamentary democracy.

[GlueBall]

The only privacy rights aboard a jet is in the lavatory. :ooh:

[Cosmo Beauregard]

The issue of cockpit cams has been kicked around for some time now, with the NTSB generally leading the charge. Those who claim the AF447 accident is a prime example for the need of video feed from the flight deck truly don't understand the liabilities involved with such a requirement, or do they understand the parameters currently being recorded by modern Fight Data Recorders. In the case of AF447 accident the FO's control yoke input as well as all available flight conditions were obtainable from existing recording devices. Having a video recording of the F/O pulling back on the yoke would have been completely redundant. Once again the only real beneficiaries would be the NTSB and Lawyers.
Oddly enough even the FAA would ultimately be against the addition of video in the cockpit due to the original dual mandate of the organization itself. To promote the advancement of aviation is code for we'll back the airline every chance we get. And of course the mention of safety follows secondarily in statement and in practice. Having their policies acted out on camera can't actually help their position with either the NTSB or aviation lawyers. The same mentality reigns at Airlines. Fact is no real good come from such a move, especially these post 9-11 days of heightened security.
It's no real secret that the NTSB has a great deal of heartburn with almost everything the FAA does or doesn't do. This will be a issue for the foreseeable future, the cockpit cam will be yet another weapon wielded by the NTSB at the FAA.
I'm in full agreement that there are many other places on the aircraft where cameras would be of great benefit. The first to come to mind include cargo bins, inaccessible equipment bays such as air conditioning packs, landing gear wells and engine nacelles. Just the inclusion of cameras at the wing tips could possibly prevent many many ground operation incidents. All items listed would be of far more benefit to the flight crews than the speculated addition of a crew cam.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

If anyone from Airbus or Boeing are reading this - then please stick cameras all over your aircraft to that the drivers can see exactly what's going on!

[GlueBall]

AF447 accident the FO's control yoke input as well as all available flight conditions were obtainable from existing recording devices.

Cosmo: Did you actually read the report and previous comments....? :confused:

... the FO's display screen was NOT recorded by the FDR. Investigators don't know what was displayed and seen by the F/O which may have spooked him to aggressively pull on his stick and climb 3000 feet into a stall.

A video cam focused on the F/O's instrument panel would have given investigators a clue.

[HAWK21M]

As long as the recordings remain strictly accessable for professional use...should not be a problem....convincing the crew is another matter though.....

[HyFlyer]

The issue with recording cockpit video and also external aircraft video goes a long way back...and was initiated by the UK AAIB...after the Kegworth accident....we're back in the early 80's here.

Whilst there had been experimental installations run at Cranfield in the late 70's these were not true engineering/operational trials. The first such funded trial was run by the CAA using a BA B747 and the installation was done with Boeing oversight and involvement. External camera's were fitted, and an onboard video recorder fitted in the upper deck pax seat area. The system ran on revenue flights for several months.

During this time, and as a result of AAIB lobbying to CAA, both Airbus and Boeing took a passing interest in the concept of video systems on board. Two main themes were studied and discussed to death....

A) video recording of the cockpit instruments/panel & pedestal area, as recording of the whole cockpit and crew was immediately considered a non-starter.....

B) video display of external views of the aircraft to the crew and recording of such views.


To paraphrase several reports and many months of work from multiple groups, that even included an RFP issue from Airbus....

A) was deemed to be not so useful without crew being shown and their actions and interactions synced to the CVR and FDR. Also making a crash survivable video recorder (pre the digital age, when all was on tape) was not considered economically feasible at the time....


B) the display of external views of the aircraft (and get this as to me it seemed crazy at the time) was deemed unsafe because the images were believed to be too comanding and attention making for the crew...and there could be ambiguity between the image and primary flight instruments or alarms..and this could cause CRM issues.

Remember these studies started after Kegworth, where essentially crew switched off a good engine due to faulty fire warning and left the real burning engine running...the pax knew the crew had screwed up, as they could see which engine was burning....

There was also a Manchester (If I recall correctly) ground evacuation incident when pax where crew turned aircraft off active runway with an engine fire, but did not realise wind blew flame over the fuselage...and pax ushered out via exit door into the flames....!!

So the idea crew seeing a burning left engine on the video would then have a quandary which engine to switch off if the warning indications said the right engine was on fire, was a reason given to NOT install the video system for crew external inspection of airframe in flight/on ground....seemed silly to me at the time and still does.

Also the video is a 'fail-safe' warning as it cannot give a false warning. If there is no image..then simple..the system is not working. If there is an image, then the system is working...unlike a warning indicator where bulbs can burn out or wires can short.... Also you can hardly show an image of the right engine burning if it is the left engine...even if you get the wires mixed up.....!!

Following on from the trials several companies gradually began to market external video for 'entertainment' purposes...and we gradually arrive at modern times......

A) is still a highly emotive and contentious subject
but B) is a system whose time has come I would say, and should seriously be considered, including crash survivable digital store units.

[itsresidualmate]

There's no guarentee that what the FDR picks up is displayed in the flight deck or vice versa, due to unserviceabilities in systems, perhaps the kind that may cause an accident. Been involved in a few defects like that!