Cockpit Video Recorders to become mandatory
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Savannah, Georgia USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again only Lawyers and the NTSB will reap the rewards
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmo Beauregard . . .
AF447 accident the FO's control yoke input as well as all available flight conditions were obtainable from existing recording devices.
... 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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History & Future
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.
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.
Last edited by HyFlyer; 9th Oct 2012 at 02:55.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
