Video Cameras on the flight Deck
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockpit video feeds in the cabin are a clear security risk. They would tip off potential hijackers as to when the cockpit door is being opened or about to open, when a pilot leaves the flight deck for a call of nature, when a CCM is serving drinks or meals, and any other weakness in cockpit security you can imagine.
All for what? Passenger entertainment?
The risk outweighs the return.
All for what? Passenger entertainment?
The risk outweighs the return.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there was any suggestion hat these feeds would be sent to the cabin if introduced now. The use would be for...
1. Accident investigation as with CVR.
2. Possible secure ground link to verify Hijack in progress
1. Accident investigation as with CVR.
2. Possible secure ground link to verify Hijack in progress
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the media gets a hold of it. "Film at Eleven" Just what we need is the last minutes of the flight on the evening news. You say it can't happen. What about AA at Cali?
Surely there are enough parameters being recorded by the FDR and CVR to make the installation of a flight deck camera unnecessary. It could be argued that a camera watching your every move for ten hours or so is intrusive and adds to fatigue. If cameras are fitted I wonder how many pilots start chewing gum!
Plastic PPRuNer
atse - "Just try getting surgeons to allow VCRs or video cameras into an operating theatre (where the level of risk is multiples of the level of risk in an aeroplane and the need for good ex poste analysis is acute). You’ll learn a few things about how to look after your interests from the reaction!"
Let's get it right.
"1999 report "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System" from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. The report from the private institute, an advisory body to the U.S. government, estimates that 44,000 to 98,000 deaths occur each year in hospitals alone as the result of medical mistakes."
Not, you may note, confined to surgical errors....
I wouldn't mind if I thought that it really would reduce M & M. Gotta doubt it though. Surgeons would certainly tell less jokes (usually worse than those in JB) and become more fed up (just like pilots).
Let's get it right.
"1999 report "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System" from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. The report from the private institute, an advisory body to the U.S. government, estimates that 44,000 to 98,000 deaths occur each year in hospitals alone as the result of medical mistakes."
Not, you may note, confined to surgical errors....
I wouldn't mind if I thought that it really would reduce M & M. Gotta doubt it though. Surgeons would certainly tell less jokes (usually worse than those in JB) and become more fed up (just like pilots).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To err is indeed human, but to really screw up ....
Thanks Mac the Knife. The choice of the operating theatre was only an effort to draw an analogy, not a suggestion that surgeons are more prone to error than other group of physicians, or pilots, or nuclear power plant engineers, or whomever. By virtue of being human we are all operating to the same general error rate ....
The paradox is, of course, that all forms of recording that permit us to reconstuct what happened are very useful, regardless of profession or workplace. (The bad jokes, comments about management, etc. are peripheral, if sometimes embarassing!).
The difference, I would posit, is that physicians are perhaps too defensive of their professional space while pilots are insufficiently so.
What is common to all is the need to use the information obtained in an appropriate manner. I am merely asserting that all the available evidence suggests that protections tend to be overcome (frequently for unanticipated reasons) and that what starts off as a constructive and well-intentioned contribution to safety becomes a nightmare for some practitioners in the following years. The New Zealand example I cited was but one such outcome. It was a nightmare and took serious international action to even get the attention of the government.
I was reacting to the innocence of some of he contributions, not the desireability of information in a perfect world. It's just that we don't live in a perfect world and you need to look after your interests.
In that particular regard, pilots manifestly have a lot to learn from physicians. All of which was really my original argument ...
The paradox is, of course, that all forms of recording that permit us to reconstuct what happened are very useful, regardless of profession or workplace. (The bad jokes, comments about management, etc. are peripheral, if sometimes embarassing!).
The difference, I would posit, is that physicians are perhaps too defensive of their professional space while pilots are insufficiently so.
What is common to all is the need to use the information obtained in an appropriate manner. I am merely asserting that all the available evidence suggests that protections tend to be overcome (frequently for unanticipated reasons) and that what starts off as a constructive and well-intentioned contribution to safety becomes a nightmare for some practitioners in the following years. The New Zealand example I cited was but one such outcome. It was a nightmare and took serious international action to even get the attention of the government.
I was reacting to the innocence of some of he contributions, not the desireability of information in a perfect world. It's just that we don't live in a perfect world and you need to look after your interests.
In that particular regard, pilots manifestly have a lot to learn from physicians. All of which was really my original argument ...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: -
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several solutions are discussed here, including live cockpit video feed to pax, which has nothing to do with post accident investigation.
I am in favour of video recordings in the cockpit, encrypted in a form so only the authorities can access them, and kept in a secure manner like CVR/FDR. Erasing should not be an option for the crew nor company.
If a am dead anyway, then let the world see how many times I picked my nose, and where I put the bogers, if they so want! As long as investigators can see that I am not reciting the Koran instead of appropriate checklists, or taking of my shoes because I think I am about to die, instead of performing recall items!
Please distinguish between company surveillance and post crash accident investigation!
I am in favour of video recordings in the cockpit, encrypted in a form so only the authorities can access them, and kept in a secure manner like CVR/FDR. Erasing should not be an option for the crew nor company.
If a am dead anyway, then let the world see how many times I picked my nose, and where I put the bogers, if they so want! As long as investigators can see that I am not reciting the Koran instead of appropriate checklists, or taking of my shoes because I think I am about to die, instead of performing recall items!
Please distinguish between company surveillance and post crash accident investigation!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the posts earlier that there is more than adequate info for the aaib and the likes from FDR and CVR. If they were to introduce a camera into the F/D then I agree that the video ought to be erasable once on the ground. Just like the CVR!!!
If a video of us in the F/D makes it onto TV do we get an appearance fee????
If a video of us in the F/D makes it onto TV do we get an appearance fee????
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: here and there mostly
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hows about cameras on the outside of planes, to aid safety, first.
i'm sure having the ability to see each engine and flying control surface, would have been appreciated by the swiss crew with their poorly rj reciently.
how long ago was it that trials were carried out?
how much has camera technology and miniturisation progressed!
ref. cb pulling - you'll be on camera!
i'm sure having the ability to see each engine and flying control surface, would have been appreciated by the swiss crew with their poorly rj reciently.
how long ago was it that trials were carried out?
how much has camera technology and miniturisation progressed!
ref. cb pulling - you'll be on camera!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ME
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very suspicious of any intrusion into the flight deck which can so obviously be abused.
To say that they would be used only in conjunction with the CVR in case of an incident or assist in the case of hijack is a bit naieve to say the least.
How would they have helped in the 911 investigation or any other come to think of it, other than to provide graphic images of violence & murder? If hijackers can make it into a flight deck and fly a plane, they can surely disable a camera or two. And how long before the images make it onto some voyeristic web site or 'crash investigation' documentary with the excuse that the 'public need to see this' ?
This is another measure using 911 as an excuse to sell more unecessary equipment when the money should be spent on other areas such as training crews to deal with a hijack.
We have already been presented with a 'new secure door' and CCTV with no specific training on their use or what to expect now we've changed the rules on hijacker 'compliance' ie: comply but don't let them in the flight deck despite what you hear or see on the new CCTV.
The problem is still being left entirely with the flight crews and it doesn't matter how many cameras you install it will not replace adequate training.
To say that they would be used only in conjunction with the CVR in case of an incident or assist in the case of hijack is a bit naieve to say the least.
How would they have helped in the 911 investigation or any other come to think of it, other than to provide graphic images of violence & murder? If hijackers can make it into a flight deck and fly a plane, they can surely disable a camera or two. And how long before the images make it onto some voyeristic web site or 'crash investigation' documentary with the excuse that the 'public need to see this' ?
This is another measure using 911 as an excuse to sell more unecessary equipment when the money should be spent on other areas such as training crews to deal with a hijack.
We have already been presented with a 'new secure door' and CCTV with no specific training on their use or what to expect now we've changed the rules on hijacker 'compliance' ie: comply but don't let them in the flight deck despite what you hear or see on the new CCTV.
The problem is still being left entirely with the flight crews and it doesn't matter how many cameras you install it will not replace adequate training.
Last edited by Shake; 30th Aug 2004 at 01:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A secure ground feed would possibly be useful in the decision to shoot down a hijacked plane approaching any urban areas.
I hear the Pentagon is very keen on the idea!
Not much use on 9/11 as it would seem the airforce were nowhere to be found.
I hear the Pentagon is very keen on the idea!
Not much use on 9/11 as it would seem the airforce were nowhere to be found.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent place to hang my hat.
Judging by how carefully CVR's have been protected (now its a crime to erase them, so much for fully eraseable, if you made it to the gate, it used to be your to erase) I will hang my hat on the camera.
I have no desire to have my son watch my death over and over on TV should my aircraft crash, and no matter how much it is claimed this will never happen, we all know it will eventually.
They failed to protect the sanctity of the CVR, so under no circumstances should anything else be granted. Fix the CVR privacy problems, give us back the right to erase them when we make it to the gate and I will think about cameras.
Cheers
Wino
Judging by how carefully CVR's have been protected (now its a crime to erase them, so much for fully eraseable, if you made it to the gate, it used to be your to erase) I will hang my hat on the camera.
I have no desire to have my son watch my death over and over on TV should my aircraft crash, and no matter how much it is claimed this will never happen, we all know it will eventually.
They failed to protect the sanctity of the CVR, so under no circumstances should anything else be granted. Fix the CVR privacy problems, give us back the right to erase them when we make it to the gate and I will think about cameras.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: LGW
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they have cameras in the cabin, then why not in the flightdeck? You pilots think you are so high and mighty, and that you think you deserve preferential traetment. why don't you come down of cloud nine and join the rest of us???? What about everyone who has cctv watching them alll day everyday in their jobs on the ground I don't hear them complain. Get a grip guys
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You never know...
Excellent point Wino. The type i fly is not required to carry any audio or data recorder so maybe im not qualified to opine and you (we) need assurance that the footage is not going to wind up on 'americas most wanted' but...
If one follow procedures... what is the worry?
Sorry to dredge up the past but in the aforementioned New Zealand incident:
A couple of casual factors in the incident were the Captain not ensuring the aircraft intercepted and maintained the approach profile during the conduct of the non-precision instrument approach and the Captain's perseverance with his decision to get the undercarriage lowered without discontinuing the instrument approach.
What was wrong with conducting a go around and fixing the problem in a hold?
So it's not like the police were barking up the wrong tree with their manslaughter charge.
call me naive but if you are not up to the task at hand... you know the story.
I guess I am of a generation after the introduction of CVR's and FDR's so have come to expect/accept them. I sometimes wonder why they aren't fitted to smaller types.
You never know... a CVR or FDR may very well clear your good name in a court of law.
this smacks of the anti-speed-camera brigade.
If one follow procedures... what is the worry?
Sorry to dredge up the past but in the aforementioned New Zealand incident:
A couple of casual factors in the incident were the Captain not ensuring the aircraft intercepted and maintained the approach profile during the conduct of the non-precision instrument approach and the Captain's perseverance with his decision to get the undercarriage lowered without discontinuing the instrument approach.
What was wrong with conducting a go around and fixing the problem in a hold?
So it's not like the police were barking up the wrong tree with their manslaughter charge.
call me naive but if you are not up to the task at hand... you know the story.
I guess I am of a generation after the introduction of CVR's and FDR's so have come to expect/accept them. I sometimes wonder why they aren't fitted to smaller types.
You never know... a CVR or FDR may very well clear your good name in a court of law.
this smacks of the anti-speed-camera brigade.
Back to basics; why do we need a video recording of the flight deck?
I would fully support such a move, principally to replace those cabin / flt deck communications lost due to the locked door policy; so give the flt attendants a monitor. Do not cite security, if the hijacker is on the aircraft then its too late – its like photographing / finger printing everyone so that after the event you will know who did it and who to blame.
For safety reasons? What more could a video of the crew’s actions give accident investigators? Some insight to the crew’s interaction or haste? Possibly, but little more than that which is already available from the CVR and the latest, extensive FDR requirements; the greatest data deficiency is in the information displayed on CRTs (EFIS, ECAIS, FMS).
An internal recording of each CRT display is viable; the military have been doing this for decades (WIWOL). This information together with sensor data and the FDR would enable a much-improved reconstruction of the state of the aircraft. Again, do not cite lack of recording space, how many film video/games are already stored on board.
What the industry would still be missing is the reasons why the crew did something. If the answers cannot be determined from CRT (system video) and enhanced CVR/FDR recording, then we will have to wait until brain scans and memory dumps are available on the flight deck.
I would fully support such a move, principally to replace those cabin / flt deck communications lost due to the locked door policy; so give the flt attendants a monitor. Do not cite security, if the hijacker is on the aircraft then its too late – its like photographing / finger printing everyone so that after the event you will know who did it and who to blame.
For safety reasons? What more could a video of the crew’s actions give accident investigators? Some insight to the crew’s interaction or haste? Possibly, but little more than that which is already available from the CVR and the latest, extensive FDR requirements; the greatest data deficiency is in the information displayed on CRTs (EFIS, ECAIS, FMS).
An internal recording of each CRT display is viable; the military have been doing this for decades (WIWOL). This information together with sensor data and the FDR would enable a much-improved reconstruction of the state of the aircraft. Again, do not cite lack of recording space, how many film video/games are already stored on board.
What the industry would still be missing is the reasons why the crew did something. If the answers cannot be determined from CRT (system video) and enhanced CVR/FDR recording, then we will have to wait until brain scans and memory dumps are available on the flight deck.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dududud,
Aviation is like any other over regulated endeavor.
Assuming you are british, I will give you are real life example parallel.
Have you practiced your archery at the village green this week? If not you are breaking the law. Well guess what, there are obscure and outdate regulations still on the books (nothing ever gets erased) that a well knowleged but lacking in total common sense prosecutor could use against the crew of any flight. Captain cuts off a prosecutor from drinking on the plane, doesn't let him upgrade etc, prosecutor starts filing motions and subpeoning tapes etc...c
Nope, no protections no cameras. And by protections I mean fix the CVR protections first.
I can see PLENTY of scenarios where I might do the MOST legal thing rather than the most safe thing once you start inserting prosecutions into the mix. (Start with a diversion, did you go to the closest field or the safest? You went one mile further to the one without the 40 mph crosswind with blowsnow. Into Jail with you!)
Safety was not gained by the prosecution. Instead what has happened is that accident investigations become cover your ass, wait till my lawyer gets here and MAYBE I will answer your questions, rather than what happened, can we do it safer excersizes. By prosecuting in that case EVERY accident investigation in the future was harmed. Safety in the future has been thrown out the window in the quest for "Vengence and justice."
The valujet prosecutions caused many of the same problems in all the accident investigations that followed. Did Sabre tech comit a crime? Yep. Should they have been prosecuted, only if you care about that 100 people that are already dead, and not the 1000s of living people that might come later that you might have saved. They could have put Saber tech out of business and imposed better oversite regulations without the prosecutions and mechanics wouldn't be calling their lawyers the second they hear a plane goes down.
As to the need.
The stated need is the lack of "witness marks" on instruments now with CRT displays. (For those that have never participated in an accident investigation, witness marks are the scars or marks made on the glass of an oldfashioned gauge like a VSI or Airspeed indicator that is caused by the impact. Usually the glass will get a mark where the pointer was pointing when the instruments were subjected to the horrific stresses of the impact. Those marks will tell you what the gauge was reading at impact) Well that is really a load of crap. It would be MORE usefull and more precise to simply record the CRTs as someone suggested.
Cheers
Wino
Aviation is like any other over regulated endeavor.
Assuming you are british, I will give you are real life example parallel.
Have you practiced your archery at the village green this week? If not you are breaking the law. Well guess what, there are obscure and outdate regulations still on the books (nothing ever gets erased) that a well knowleged but lacking in total common sense prosecutor could use against the crew of any flight. Captain cuts off a prosecutor from drinking on the plane, doesn't let him upgrade etc, prosecutor starts filing motions and subpeoning tapes etc...c
Nope, no protections no cameras. And by protections I mean fix the CVR protections first.
I can see PLENTY of scenarios where I might do the MOST legal thing rather than the most safe thing once you start inserting prosecutions into the mix. (Start with a diversion, did you go to the closest field or the safest? You went one mile further to the one without the 40 mph crosswind with blowsnow. Into Jail with you!)
Safety was not gained by the prosecution. Instead what has happened is that accident investigations become cover your ass, wait till my lawyer gets here and MAYBE I will answer your questions, rather than what happened, can we do it safer excersizes. By prosecuting in that case EVERY accident investigation in the future was harmed. Safety in the future has been thrown out the window in the quest for "Vengence and justice."
The valujet prosecutions caused many of the same problems in all the accident investigations that followed. Did Sabre tech comit a crime? Yep. Should they have been prosecuted, only if you care about that 100 people that are already dead, and not the 1000s of living people that might come later that you might have saved. They could have put Saber tech out of business and imposed better oversite regulations without the prosecutions and mechanics wouldn't be calling their lawyers the second they hear a plane goes down.
As to the need.
The stated need is the lack of "witness marks" on instruments now with CRT displays. (For those that have never participated in an accident investigation, witness marks are the scars or marks made on the glass of an oldfashioned gauge like a VSI or Airspeed indicator that is caused by the impact. Usually the glass will get a mark where the pointer was pointing when the instruments were subjected to the horrific stresses of the impact. Those marks will tell you what the gauge was reading at impact) Well that is really a load of crap. It would be MORE usefull and more precise to simply record the CRTs as someone suggested.
Cheers
Wino
Last edited by Wino; 30th Aug 2004 at 12:07.