Camera in the cockpit, yes or no?

[+TSRA]

I see this subject as a double-edged sword. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but rather it is both all in one.

On the one hand, the inclusion of CCTV in the flight deck does have some rather obvious investigative benefits when combined with the FDR and CVR data. In the case of the Air India accident, it could clearly indicate whether the start levers were actuated by man or machine. In the instance of the helicopter accident described in post 36, it's clear we would not have known about the accident sequence without the video. When I was much younger I was part of the company response to an internal accident where both pilots were killed. Having cockpit video would have told us a lot given the CVR transcript that we were provided indicated both pilots were making PF and PM calls, leading both the company and the government investigative unit to question who was flying the aircraft. So yes, there is an upside to accident and incident investigation. But that's the extent of it. To those saying it will act as a deterrence in the long run, I would point out that hypothesis has not borne out for FDR and CVR. There are still pilot suicides or pilots mishandling airplanes that disproves the deterrence argument.

Without the corroboration of FDR or CVR data to confirm the movement of a switch or lever, CCTV becomes an unreliable witness. Consider the case of engine anti-ice as a basic example. Approaching a cloud I may move my hand up to the igniters with the intent to move them to continuous, but perhaps the other pilot doesn't call for it, I see that the OAT is actually above the icing temperature, or the cloud layer is thin enough that I wouldn't even get up to the engine anti-ice switches before I'd be turning it all off again. All the video would show is that my hand moved up, stayed a bit, then came back down. It doesn't show my motivations for doing or not doing that thing and without the FDR to confirm the movement or lack of movement of the switch, the video doesn't tell you anything other than it was me. Suppose we have an Air India situation where there is loss of life. Just as I take my hand off the thrust levers with the V1 call a start lever is moved to the cutoff position. Unless the CCTV has another angle that can conclusively say that my hand touched the switch, you have coincidental movement of hand and switch. The video cannot necessarily corroborate that I touched the switch - unless of course it was a very deliberate movement. This is why I italicized "could" in an earlier paragraph. The CCTV can only tell you about the most deliberate of actions. One needs only look to professional sports to see how different people can interpret a situation: did the ball made it into a fielder's glove before the runner's foot made contact with a bag, or did the puck completely cross the goal line before the timer ran out. In these cases it is very clear the motivations of the individuals - one is trying to stop a run, the other is trying to acquire one. The same cannot always be said for workplace video.

Of course, that's not how the involved companies will view it. The airline, its insurance company, the manufacturer, and even the regulator will see the pilots movements not as a way of telling the truth, but as a way of getting out of the lawsuits. They will slow the video down and examine each frame for a way to show just how deliberate the pilots actions (or inactions) were. What could be an unconscious or routine movement made by the pilot will be seen as deliberate and against the movements of other pilots. Each company has their own motivations, and some will be more reputable than others. But make no mistake, one CCTV is included in an accident report, the lawyers will make damned sure to point the finger at the pilot.

As a result, if there is to be CCTV in the flight deck, and I believe that ultimately there will be, there must be protections for the pilots - whether they survive or not. At the moment, pilots do not have any sort of malpractice insurance. But you can bet that as soon as the first pilot is disciplined or charged because of video evidence, that form of insurance will become the standard. The pilot unions will call for that to be a part of the professional compensation, much as paid pilot medicals are the standard here in North America. I'm not sure what malpractice insurance runs for doctors, but the end result will be higher airfares. You'll have far more diversions and cancellations as pilots become less and less willing to apply their professional knowledge and experience because of how that could look on video, especially knowing that video could make it onto a social network one day. And what happens to that pilots career? I do not believe that the vast majority of accidents or incidents are caused by ill-intentioned people. Rather, I believe that most accidents and incidents occur to well-meaning pilots who zigged when they should have zagged. Before there was a sense of anonymity - you knew the experience of the pilot, but often not their name. You could read a transcript of what they said, but you didn't know who it was. Now you potentially have a face that is easily searched during a job interview or just as a curious individual. Now instead of being clear of an accident or incident after 5 or 10 years, this follows you for life, should you be apparently unlucky to survive!

In my country the most violent offenders get off in 25 years. Here we are potentially talking about an honest-to-god life time sentence. For what is almost always a mistake. I'm not sold that the investigative upsides are balanced by the loss to an individual's ongoing right to forgive and forget their mistakes.

[Kiltrash]

Surly Cockpit Video would be for who did ( the action,) as what the fault or action was would be on the other black boxes. So it would be only be say the central console in focus. ..

[Thruster763]

My view on this, incase its not clear, is that cockpit video should (would) be treated the same way as CVR / FDR recordings. It's purpose is to supplement the CVR / FDR. So the data can ONLY be used as part of a safety investigation not in civil or criminal investigations. Now if the all concerned agree there could be a separate "recorder", actually removable media this could optionally be used for other purposes. This is the same as a Quick Access Recorder. The system fitted by Robinson does exactly this. It has a internal memory which can't be accessed by the user but will accept a plug-in memory which the user can use if they want.
For accident invetigation the camera is best sited looking forward to catch as much of the controls and instruments as possible. A bit of outside view good too. A view facing the pilot(s) is of very little value.
The big advantage over a CVR / FDR is that it tells you who or what caused the "input" recorded on the CVR / FDR. Examples from past incidents include:
A SLR camera between sidestick and seat.
A Sandwich in the hand
A NVG case as a control "lock"
A iPad in the controls
In these cases the cause was found, not always definitively, by other means. There must have been many accidents where the cause was completely missed in the past. And of course it will tell you who operated a switch..
I'm not sure how a cockpit camera can monitor fatigue unless it gets to the point wher the crew are actually having microsleeps. And in any case you don't need image recording for that, just some image processing software and a loud horn....

[WHBM]

There are multiple cases where automatic recording of actions leads to unexpected consequences.

The automated entrance/exit lines of gates into the London Underground are required to be staffed on the spot at all times, otherwise the gates are to be left open, principally a safety requirement. However various software updates started recording when they were set open, and then set targets and reported to HQ when gates were set so. As a result, when the attendant goes on break or just a changeover, they can now be found left unmanned but operating. The safety auditor only comes round occasionally, and somewhat predictably, whereas any setting them open at any time is recorded against the target. It was inevitable. One awaits the day when there is an accident at an unmanned gate set across.

Some UK schools started putting cameras in the classroom which parents could log into to see progress of their children. However the more zealous and shouty parents started making issues that their child was not being given a "fair" share of questions or attention, and started complaints, to the extent that teachers were firstly upset by such, and then quit for different schools. After this became a separate issue the parent video access was generally given up.

[Fortissimo]

This debate has been dragging on for years, much as it did for FDM/FOQA and CVR. The only certainty is that there will always be diametrically opposed views - some of which are entrenched - and that nobody will be happy with the outcome.

The (Annex 13) state investigation authorities want to see imagery, because it might provide some answers that would not otherwise be available. The pilot unions will always be opposed, in case the imagery is used by management for purposes other than safety. The answer to this is to make it unlawful to use imagery for anything other than an Annex 13 investigation.

The central question remains: what do you stand to lose by using imagery? The gains might not be present in every investigation, but that is true of FDR data right now. And if there are ambiguities, the investigators will deal with them in the same way they deal with any other ambiguous data.

[DIBO]

Originally Posted by Thruster763

My view on this, incase its not clear, is that cockpit video should (would) be treated the same way as CVR / FDR recordings.

The more correct statement, in my opinion, is: "cockpit video must be treated the same way as CVR".
Looking at the EAFR's, that already today have the (unused) capability to store video recording, there is a big difference in the accessibility of the FDR and the CV²R data (V²= voice&video). FDR can be ("routinely") downloaded using the dedicated maintenance laptop. CV²R requires the EAFR to be dismounted/removed, which is not a routinely executed task.

I think it will be only a matter of (much) time before the most advanced (network-centered avionics) airliners will have the option to retrofit/replace the CAM on the overhead panel, with a CAMV: Microphone + (birds-eye) Video-camera. Given network and storage limitations, it will probably be in moderate resolution and low frame-rate (ex. 4fps to stay in line with the FDR's 4Hz sampling rate of some parameters??).
So no faces, angry or smiling to be found on the recording. No close-ups, no peeking in the smartphone texting after landing. Only, which body-parts (and objects) moved when/where.
For me it's hard to understand, that a birds-eye video-camera would be potentially more damaging to the crew, than what is actually said/recorded on the flight deck during cruise (let's exclude the boobs-flashing french stewardess...and they recorded themselves in HD-quality)

And the next unsolved mystery of a major accident involving a state-of-the-art airliner with recovered recordings (but without the Video option installed) might become the driving force for the optional retrofit, to become a mandatory retrofit (in a decade or so).

[330Heavy]

Using train crews as an example, is one you'll want to avoid. Those crews are disgruntled, and union weak. Despite those cameras capturing engineers and conductors falling asleep, they were punished. Fatigue barely saves us of any excuse. Careful for what you wish for

[601]

Having retired from flying last century, is there any airline aircraft fitted with a flight deck camera that transmits to passenger screens?
If yes, is it transmitting all the time or can it be switched OFF?

[Musician]

Originally Posted by Thruster763

It would be much more helpful if you actually told us how you think a cockpit camera can solve the problem of crew fatigue instead of being sarcastic.

https://www.samsara.com/products/saf...ness-detection "... detects fatigue in real-time by analyzing multiple behaviors, including: head nodding, prolonged idling, yawning, and face-rubbing." Which sounds like you wouldn't need a camera for that in a 2-person cockpit, unless you wanted a record of it.

Compare:
Detecting and predicting driver fatigue
Driver fatigue is one of the big 3 killers on NSW roads. We used the SAFET1 research vehicle to test driver monitoring systems, which measure how tired a driver might be, and predict their level of fatigue before a trip.

A driver’s level of tiredness can be monitored by using:

• cameras to monitor a driver’s eyelids and head position
• sensors built into the vehicle that can detect steering wheel movements and lane position
• wearable devices such as smart glasses and intelligent headbands or caps.

Predicting levels of fatigue
A driver’s level of tiredness can be predicted by using a:

• diary to record sleeping hours
• wearable device like a smart watch or fitness band that measures movement or heartrate to understand the quality of sleep a driver has had before they start their trip
• calculator like Test Your Tired Self - Driver-fatigue test for NSW drivers.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roa...ety-technology

Cameras are only a small part of it.

Accident investigators often try hard to find out how much sleep a pilot has had before a crash, but lack data. If you go by what would be useful in an accident investigation, asking pilots to wear fitness bands might be more useful than putting cameras in cockpits. (And it'd obviously have huge privacy issues as well.)

If you want accident investigators to be able to blame fatigue in the event of your crash, start logging your sleep.

[Someone Somewhere]

Originally Posted by 601

Having retired from flying last century, is there any airline aircraft fitted with a flight deck camera that transmits to passenger screens?
If yes, is it transmitting all the time or can it be switched OFF?

See this post, in this same thread:

Originally Posted by bafanguy

Many years ago, American Airlines briefly had cockpit cameras on some airplanes to provide "entertainment" to the pax. Apparently recognized as a bad idea:

Well, apparently the FaceBook link won't copy and paste into this thread. But it was 1976 on DC10s



https://www.facebook.com/groups/4392...re%20in%201976

[Thruster763]

Originally Posted by 601

Having retired from flying last century, is there any airline aircraft fitted with a flight deck camera that transmits to passenger screens?
If yes, is it transmitting all the time or can it be switched OFF?

Yes. I've flown on one in the last 5 years. There were various views selectable on the IFE system. It was turned off durnig the final stages of the approach. I can't remember where it was or what airline. Probably a 787 or A380 in the middle east but I can't be sure.

[Gargleblaster]

Perhaps pax could watch how solving the sudoku is going? Joking aside, I think it's a very good idea to have video footage available to the authorities only, of the actions of two people responsible for hundreds of lives, should anything go wrong.

[PinkusDickus]

Would it be more acceptable if cockpit CCTV was automatically activated during unusual, abnormal or unexpected flight operation?

[Someone Somewhere]

Typically you would want to record the events leading up to the upset, because those are usually more informative than the (successful or failed) upset recovery itself.

Many security systems (that are not configured to record continuously) keep a ~3-10 second buffer of footage in memory, so that when an event/trigger occurs they can store footage from before the event, as well as however long they're configured to record after the event.

Making that buffer larger means more memory and a larger chance of the buffer not being successfully transferred to permanent storage in case of e.g. a power cut or impact.

[skyvan]

Originally Posted by PinkusDickus

Would it be more acceptable if cockpit CCTV was automatically activated during unusual, abnormal or unexpected flight operation?

No, it will be too late, by the time you have a problem and start recording, all you will see is the pilots trying to fix the issue. You need the recording to begin earlier, to see how the problem started, and developed.

[L337]

A strong no from me. It will not solve anything and only create a whole host of new problems. All those empty promises of privacy and probity will be instantly broken the moment it suits management's purpose. They will throw you under the bus in a blink.

[Max Angle]

As long as there is an erase button like the CVR then I can't see any reason to object to be honest. Almost everything else we do is recorded in detail already, cockpit conversation, RT transmissions, every switch and lever selection, every flight parameter etc. etc. I really don't see video as that much of a step on from all of that really.

[anawanahuanana]

You are an employee of the company, operating the company's aircraft on their behalf, with the purpose of getting the company's customers to their destination safely, wearing a company uniform and getting paid for the privilege. What makes you think that you are entitled to privacy in those circumstances? In my opinion, a camera mounted facing forward above the flight deck door should be mandated. A vast amount of people the world over are subjected to constant CCTV surveillance at work. What makes pilots any different?

I understand that it is a great expense to certify and install such systems, but the decision as to whether or not it is an acceptable expense does not belong to the flight crew. It may only give a small improvement in clarity post accident, but then why do we still not use FDRs that only record 8 parameters? Because more information is better in an investigation.

Picture the scene: You are the PM on AI171. The PF has shut down both engines for his own reasons after rotation. He then asks you why you shut them down. You, surprised by what is happening, simply reply that you didn't. By then, it's already too late, and it's goodnight for you both. On release of the final report, in the absence of video data, and the fact that the CVR can't determine who moved the switches, the finger of blame is pointed firmly at you as the PM, in an assumption that the PF would have been too busy at that stage to do it and could have simply nosedived the aircraft if he had intended to crash. What a wonderful, lasting legacy you have now left on the world. Your family shamed and shunned, and left without financial compensation. The real culprit, now in the clear, can be lauded as an unwitting victim in your evil plan who tried valiantly to save everyone. But at least you had your privacy.

[ferry pilot]

In bygone times there were three of us up front. When the third pilot/ flight engineer was no longer present the one thing most noticeably missing was the formality. Funny thing is, with the extra set of eyes it somehow gave the performance that little bit of an edge that comes with having an audience and not just an associate. Like a little trio of chamber music. Really hard to describe or imagine. You had to be there. Maybe you can see how this relates to a camera in the cockpit. Or maybe not.

[CombatThrust]

CCTV time limit

Time limit on recording, perhaps :30 minutes would solve many concerns