Cameras in the cockpit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameras in the cockpit
What are the thoughts from the forum on cameras in the cockpit to monitor the instruments and view ahead out the bubble, and whether this information would be used to hang a pilot should there be an incident????????
When we moved across to Bristow and flew their nice new shiny S76C++, they had cockpit cameras directed on the instruments. None forward looking outside though as far as I am aware. It did feel a bit like being watched, but after a while you forgot they were there. Fly within the envelope and youve nothing to worry about. Fly outside the Ops manual limitations (unless in an emergency) and yes, they'd no doubt be able to use the footage to help them make some decisions.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In test flying, everything is recorded. Everything. You rapidly get used to the fact that what you do will be quite known by everybody, should anything go wrong. Most TPs are grateful in fact, because when something goes wrong the data is amazingly informative and instructive. And mostly shows that the crew does the right thing.
.
The Vision 1000 is standard equipment on the 350 since the beginning of 2013.
It records high resolution images of the cockpit, as well as the aircraft’s GPS position, acceleration and attitude plus the sound in the cabin.
should be standard on all AH helicopters this year.
.
The Vision 1000 is standard equipment on the 350 since the beginning of 2013.
It records high resolution images of the cockpit, as well as the aircraft’s GPS position, acceleration and attitude plus the sound in the cabin.
should be standard on all AH helicopters this year.
.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's now standard on the EC135, the whole kit and caboodle though weighs 27kg.....
I personally think it's the right way to go but your boss needs to be of the right stuf to deal with the data...
I personally think it's the right way to go but your boss needs to be of the right stuf to deal with the data...
.
Hello Brilliant Stuff,
You must have something else, the vision 1000 weight 0.3 kg plus one cable !
By now, all the 350, 130 and 407 of Air Methods should be equipped with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APW35aGBYxg
.
Hello Brilliant Stuff,
You must have something else, the vision 1000 weight 0.3 kg plus one cable !
By now, all the 350, 130 and 407 of Air Methods should be equipped with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APW35aGBYxg
.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ouch. Is that the Chinese version with the optional modem sending a duplicate feed of everything (including your bank account) to PLA Unit 61398? 
The SB mentioned by skadi shows an install weight of between 0.2 kg and 0.6 kg.
I/C
The SB mentioned by skadi shows an install weight of between 0.2 kg and 0.6 kg.
I/C
"Just a pilot"
Yes, the cameras will be used to "hang pilots"
For sound legal and financial reasons.
More worrisome is that many operators regard their system as flawless and the pilots as the malicious fly in the soup. I have enough problems doing the job without worrying about some absent party reviewing isolated data and requiring that I defend X, Y or Z some weeks or months in the future.
More worrisome is that many operators regard their system as flawless and the pilots as the malicious fly in the soup. I have enough problems doing the job without worrying about some absent party reviewing isolated data and requiring that I defend X, Y or Z some weeks or months in the future.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think many crews are looking at this the wrong way.
As Nick alluded to regarding flight test campaigns, a camera is a note-taker.
I have had the disappointing experience of trying to help an operator sort out
a strange issue twice now where they had a camera installed but the pilot unplugged it because he did not like "being spied on".
Ask yourself this: If you have serious malfunction in flight, are you going to be
Jotting down parameters on the way to the ground? The camera is there for you
and those trying to sort out the problem, not to tell the boss how you fly.
If your boss wants to know how you fly, an HFDM capable SAT Tracking system
will tell him all, without you ever knowing about it.
While not putting words in the mouth of anyone posting here, I have heard some very vocal individuals take the position of the "spying on me" set. These are the very same people who several years ago opined that they preferred older AS 350's to newer ones because those VEMD's would "tell on you"
Regards
Rigidhead
As Nick alluded to regarding flight test campaigns, a camera is a note-taker.
I have had the disappointing experience of trying to help an operator sort out
a strange issue twice now where they had a camera installed but the pilot unplugged it because he did not like "being spied on".
Ask yourself this: If you have serious malfunction in flight, are you going to be
Jotting down parameters on the way to the ground? The camera is there for you
and those trying to sort out the problem, not to tell the boss how you fly.
If your boss wants to know how you fly, an HFDM capable SAT Tracking system
will tell him all, without you ever knowing about it.
While not putting words in the mouth of anyone posting here, I have heard some very vocal individuals take the position of the "spying on me" set. These are the very same people who several years ago opined that they preferred older AS 350's to newer ones because those VEMD's would "tell on you"
Regards
Rigidhead
"Just a pilot"
Watch this Airbus sales video, critically:
https:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMxuO77mdQo
I can't argue the value of the data.
Listen carefully as Airbus pitches the system as a way of being proactive and preemptive in utilizing the data to monitor pilots.
Listen as they say that dispatch is better qualified to decide whether to fly than the PIC, and consider that the video's showpiece flight was declined or aborted repeatedly, and those decisions were over-ridden by, tuh duh- dispatch!
The Airbus-ians also spiel the benefits of 'more robust risk assessment' processes. The showpiece incident pilot flatly states that risk assessment was not, repeat- not! a consideration.
Listen as they talk about being eager to accept the request as it was a slow week, not mentioning that that subtle consideration may have been a pressure to fly when the PIC didn't think it wise to do so.
Listen as he narrates the reconstructed event and pick out the technical flaws in his actions, and there are many. Ask yourself why a skilled professional would make those errors and how a camera would have helped him.
The event pilot took a post incident check ride and was found competent and capable. Isn't that a more substantial test than a camera? If it's not, then the whole process is broken.
We can speculate about the benefits in investigation that would be forthcoming and the changes of practices that result of having that data, (NONE that I've seen) and what difference would the camera have made in the outcome? Also NONE.
I can't argue the advantage in investigation of having the data. It's the Big Brother side of it I resist, as N-O-T-H-I-N-G will be done to actually address the issues that kill EMSers, the Airbus video is spectacular in ignoring the actual issues while assigning virtue to demonstrated failures and pitching their camera system.
In my 45 years I have worked for operators who actively blamed pilots for issues. "That helicopter was fine until you took it out and broke it!" an actual management quote. I won't volunteer anything to people with that attitude to use to grief me. And they will do so, proactive and preemptively enforcing useless insubstantial trivia, like the fact that normal operation wears machinery...
https:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMxuO77mdQo
I can't argue the value of the data.
Listen carefully as Airbus pitches the system as a way of being proactive and preemptive in utilizing the data to monitor pilots.
Listen as they say that dispatch is better qualified to decide whether to fly than the PIC, and consider that the video's showpiece flight was declined or aborted repeatedly, and those decisions were over-ridden by, tuh duh- dispatch!
The Airbus-ians also spiel the benefits of 'more robust risk assessment' processes. The showpiece incident pilot flatly states that risk assessment was not, repeat- not! a consideration.
Listen as they talk about being eager to accept the request as it was a slow week, not mentioning that that subtle consideration may have been a pressure to fly when the PIC didn't think it wise to do so.
Listen as he narrates the reconstructed event and pick out the technical flaws in his actions, and there are many. Ask yourself why a skilled professional would make those errors and how a camera would have helped him.
The event pilot took a post incident check ride and was found competent and capable. Isn't that a more substantial test than a camera? If it's not, then the whole process is broken.
We can speculate about the benefits in investigation that would be forthcoming and the changes of practices that result of having that data, (NONE that I've seen) and what difference would the camera have made in the outcome? Also NONE.
I can't argue the advantage in investigation of having the data. It's the Big Brother side of it I resist, as N-O-T-H-I-N-G will be done to actually address the issues that kill EMSers, the Airbus video is spectacular in ignoring the actual issues while assigning virtue to demonstrated failures and pitching their camera system.
In my 45 years I have worked for operators who actively blamed pilots for issues. "That helicopter was fine until you took it out and broke it!" an actual management quote. I won't volunteer anything to people with that attitude to use to grief me. And they will do so, proactive and preemptively enforcing useless insubstantial trivia, like the fact that normal operation wears machinery...
