Camera in the cockpit, yes or no?

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by anawanahuanana

What makes pilots any different?

What makes you think that pilots think it's ok for anyone to be subject to CCTV while they're at work?

[Asturias56]

The issue goes back years - IIRC the original opposition was a well founded fear that the company would search any footage in order to nail something onto the Flight Crew - even if there was no incident. The crews, in the days when cockpits were not "sterile" and there was a great deal of chat, banter and a lack of adherence to many procedures, knew they were handing a loaded gun to people who were not their friends.

These days cockpits are much more controlled spaces, and people (well, almost all of them) no longer indulge in unacceptable behaviour on anything like the scale in say the 50's & 60's. We should be able to come up with rules that allow a camera and rigorously control the uses the film can be put to. Maybe a Union rep in the loop?

I find it odd that almost every Taxi & Uber I take to the airport has a camera (s) but the aircraft doesn't

[safetypee]

The present is the key to the past - if we think about it.

Cameras / videos record the past, provide opportunity for the viewer to form history, but do not explain the reasoning for past activity.
In war, the victors, survivors, write history and define war crimes.
Hindsight, a powerful bias, particularly with visual records, enables those viewing to invent missing data (other's reasoning), applying inferred context, and then define this as true 'information'.

The greater the power in recording enables similar great power in mistaken analysis and opportunity for inappropriate intervention, which could destabilise the current balance of safety activities, and never assures perfection in understanding others' point of view.

The present is the key to the past - only if we think about it.

"There is a rather touching faith in the magical ability of technology to solve problems in a way which turns a mess into a mere difficulty. This belief is particularly widespread amongst decision makers who do not understand the technology. It is also complicated by the false belief that expertise in one area enables that expert to offer informed advice across a whole range of domains where they do not have the necessary know-how.
Modern technology induces a kind of techno-paralysis, whereby the victim suspends all sense of reason when dealing with it. Yet technology, no matter how sophisticated, is just a tool. It is not magic and will not automatically evolve towards a state where it will comprehensively address an ill-defined mess. Policy makers, however, rarely seem to understand this. The computer on its own cannot rectify an ill-defined 'digital' (binary, linear, thinking) decision making (DDM) mess. " Ray Corrigan

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by 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.

There's no provision for flight crew to use the erase feature of the CVR (especially nowadays with 25h CVRs), why would it be different with video recorders?

[dhorgan]

I recall only too well the (justified) painfull lead up and eventual introduction of CVR's into the industry.
Many in Management did not appreciate Pilots real concerns and many Pilots displayed a degree of undue paranoia.
The intro eventually came to pass and 'yes' it has been a plus for aviation safety.

Now In 45 years flying, with various organisations, I cannot recall a single incident where a colleague was 'gunned' because of the CVR
It probably did happen but I never experienced it. There are bad guys on all sides so negatives are inevitable.

I'm in favour of CCTV but like St Agustine, not just yet. The appaling change in western society 'normalisation' of dishonest behaviour and the carry on of those in modern day politics give me real grounds for concern. As long as it's profit before principal I'm a no vote.

[OldLurker]

Originally Posted by dhorgan

I recall only too well the (justified) painfull lead up and eventual introduction of CVR's into the industry.
Many in Management did not appreciate Pilots real concerns and many Pilots displayed a degree of undue paranoia.
The intro eventually came to pass and 'yes' it has been a plus for aviation safety.

CVR has certainly been a plus for aviation safety. Notably, it doesn't record voices only, but also any sound audible in the cockpit, and those non-voice sounds have often been valuable to investigators.

Now In 45 years flying, with various organisations, I cannot recall a single incident where a colleague was 'gunned' because of the CVR
It probably did happen but I never experienced it. There are bad guys on all sides so negatives are inevitable.

I think the aftermath of the Delta 1141 crash in 1988 was such an incident. The pilots didn't set the flaps and slats for takeoff. The CVR revealed that they'd spent the taxi time chatting with a flight attendant instead of doing their jobs. They were fired.

I'm in favour of CCTV but like St Agustine, not just yet. The appaling change in western society 'normalisation' of dishonest behaviour and the carry on of those in modern day politics give me real grounds for concern. As long as it's profit before principal I'm a no vote.

Would not that argument also hold against CVR? Should CVR therefore be removed?

Anyway, video recording is an extra cost, so impacts profits, so "profit before principle" would oppose video recording.

[safetypee]

to err is human, to see it, convincing

Originally Posted by OldLurker

.
… the aftermath of the Delta 1141 crash in 1988 was such an incident. The pilots didn't set the flaps and slats for takeoff. The CVR revealed that …

The CVR identified a human weakness, the evidence of which was used for punishment.
The CVR did not identify the lack of configuration warning, which the crew may have habitually relied on.

"… designed to alert the crew if the engines are throttled to take-off power without the flaps and slats being correctly set, failed to alert the pilots to their improper takeoff configuration.  The switch that operated the TOWS in the incident aircraft had been previously modified, per Boeing instructions, to prevent nuisance activations during aircraft taxiing. A fleet-wide Boeing 727 inspection, … identified 35 anomalies in the TOWS out of 1,190 aircraft examined."

Whom held responsibility for the modification, manufacturer, operator, FAA; not identified by the CVR, … Read the full Wiki ref re legal precedent, etc; how might this play out for a video recording.
The distinction between safety and law is blurred, more so with video; "to err is human, to see it, convincing".

"The greater the power in recording enables similar great power in mistaken analysis and opportunity for inappropriate intervention, which could destabilise the current balance of safety activities, and never assures perfection in understanding others' point of view." # 103

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

For etrang:
Your blythe assertion needs more data to back it up.
CCTV do assist Law Enforcement with finding perps, yes, but they do not prevent the crime being committed in the first place.
Your assertion of deterrence is suspect.

'Big Brother' Eyes Encourage Honesty, Study Shows:

"A study by Newcastle University found people put nearly three times as much money into an "honesty box" -- for payment for refreshments -- when they were being watched by a pair of eyes on a poster, compared with a poster that featured an image of flowers. The findings may inform strategies for tackling anti-social behaviour."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0628091247.htm

I know you will simply dismiss this out-of-hand, but nonetheless, evidence exists to support the view that people who think they ar being watched behave differnetly to those who do not. Whether that will prevent the incidnts under discussion is another matter, but if it brings additional certianity post-occurence, then it is to be welcomed.

[Max Angle]

There's no provision for flight crew to use the erase feature of the CVR (especially nowadays with 25h CVRs), why would it be different with video recorders?

Not sure what you mean by "provision" but the erase button deletes the entire recording as long as the aircraft is on the ground and the brake is set (A320), it was the only way any of the pilot unions would agree to having them. I would expect that any cockpit video recorder would offer the same facility.

[Musician]

Originally Posted by RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike

'Big Brother' Eyes Encourage Honesty, Study Shows:

"A study by Newcastle University found people put nearly three times as much money into an "honesty box" -- for payment for refreshments -- when they were being watched by a pair of eyes on a poster, compared with a poster that featured an image of flowers. The findings may inform strategies for tackling anti-social behaviour."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0628091247.htm

I know you will simply dismiss this out-of-hand, but nonetheless, evidence exists to support the view that people who think they are being watched behave differently to those who do not. Whether that will prevent the incidents under discussion is another matter, but if it brings additional certainty post-occurence, then it is to be welcomed.

If you go as general as, "people who think they are being watched behave differently to those who do not", yeah, you can find some situations where some people do that. But since there's no "honesty box" in the cockpit, it's unclear whether that's a situation where the claim applies; and if it does, do you know whether that "different behaviour" is actually safer? Could it promote clinging to procedures when independent action is needed, for example?

Compare also:

Originally Posted by Musician

The best available research consistently suggests that CCTV has no effect on violent crime. Better results have been found for its ability to prevent property crime, particularly vehicle crime. CCTV systems have been found to be especially effective when used in car parks.

https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default...-05/crm018.pdf

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by Max Angle

Not sure what you mean by "provision" but the erase button deletes the entire recording as long as the aircraft is on the ground and the brake is set (A320), it was the only way any of the pilot unions would agree to having them. I would expect that any cockpit video recorder would offer the same facility.

Are you allowed to routinely erase CVR recordings at your airline solely at your discretion? I hope not...

[bulldog89]

Originally Posted by Max Angle

Not sure what you mean by "provision" but the erase button deletes the entire recording as long as the aircraft is on the ground and the brake is set (A320), it was the only way any of the pilot unions would agree to having them. I would expect that any cockpit video recorder would offer the same facility.

Just pull the CB, even better.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Originally Posted by bulldog89

More than fine, as long as you also include automatic fatigue recognition...

Cuts to the point exactly. Open reporting and NTSB requests have fallen on deaf ears in the past and both in US & UK fatigue related issues, reported ad infinitim, achieved the sq root of S.. all. A camera will help investigators after the event and will seldom stop it but the responsible management problem will remain.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Originally Posted by safetypee

The CVR.....

Whom held responsibility for the modification, manufacturer, operator, FAA; not identified by the CVR, … Read the full Wiki ref re legal precedent, etc; how might this play out for a video recording.
The distinction between safety and law is blurred, more so with video; "to err is human, to see it, convincing". [ emphasis added, WR 6-3 ]

"The greater the power in recording enables similar great power in mistaken analysis and opportunity for inappropriate intervention, which could destabilise the current balance of safety activities, and never assures perfection in understanding others' point of view." # 103

At the risk of drifting over the centerline of this discussion it strikes me as relevant that the NTSB often makes safety recommendations which the FAA then holds under review and deliberation seemingly indefinitely, or just plain ignores. Requiring video recordings of flight deck actions, as a source of safety improvements, may not yield any significant benefits if the recommendations made by the safety authority to the CAA/regulator fall into interagency or bureaucratic inaction. (I acknowledge many fine-spirited professionals in both federal agencies, FAA and NTSB, who do strive to improve the safety of the NAS and the aviation sector, but only a senseless soul would fail to realize that effectiveness of these federal agencies is not determined solely by the presence of well-intentioned staff.)

Then there is the problem of whether, and to what extent, airline management officials should, or can, be trusted not to use recordings for improper purposes. I recall some extensive discussion at the ICAO Second High-Level Safety Conference (February 2015, Montreal) about preserving and assuring the confidentiality of certain safety reporting. There was far from consensus that managements could or should be trusted to respect and abide by, to observe, the rules under which such reporting would take place. And even less assurance, if any assurance at all, that courts and the attornyes (and firms) who practice in aviation accident matters would play by the rules (especially the attorneys). (The discussion might have drawn from "just culture" principles; probably the conference webpage (ICAO keeps stuff from past conferences on its site) has some relevant working papers and so on.)

The video eye is nearly everywhere in the "built environment". At a legal conference, a speaker on the subject of privacy rules and policies for institutions of higher education opened his remarks with cataloguing all the video cameras he had noticed walking from his hotel room entrance, through and out of the building, down the street and across it, into the conference center, and to the room where the meeting was held. I don't recall the number exactly but it was over a dozen. It was 2004, in Vancouver. Since then, certainly no lessening of prevalence of the video-eye. This does not mean that flight deck recorders are or are not a good idea.... but it does strongly suggest the issue will get more intense.

[Max Angle]

Are you allowed to routinely erase CVR recordings at your airline solely at your discretion? I hope not...

Of course, that is what the button is there for.

Generally if you are on stand with the brake set and in a position to push the button the recording is not required, you are safely parked rather than being in a smoking hole.

If you have had a reportable incident or accident, and have survived, then you would be required to preserve the data for the investigation but otherwise we are quite free to erase the recording if we wish to.

The discussion in moot anyway, if the powers that be decide it is finally time to fit them, and Air India may just be the one that swings it, they will be fitted regardless of what we think.

[FlyingStone]

Do you erase FDR and QAR data, too? Surely if nothing reportable has happened in your opinion, that data has no value in any kind of future investigations at all, by that logic.

Quite interesting to read how paranoid people are about CVR recordings. Is your airline downloading CVR recordings at every night stop, and chief pilot and management spends their full 8 hours work day just listening to the tapes, day after day?

[Max Angle]

I've probably only pushed it a handful of times in 30 years but that isn't the point, it is the ability to do it should one wish to.

Actually in modern CVRs the data isn't actually erased, the file system is scrambled so it is not possible to retrieve the data using the normal equipment airlines have access to, air accident investigators could still get the data if they really needed it in the same way the police can get files from erased disks etc.

If you have been making comments about the Chief Pilots dubious parentage or worse then its quite nice to know that your comments are going to be saved for posterity if a subsequent flight needs the CVR downloading.

I think it was the powerful US pilot unions that insisted upon the erase button when CVRs first came in.

If the same would apply to a video system I can't see why anyone would object to having it fitted.

[Musician]

Originally Posted by FlyingStone

Do you erase FDR and QAR data, too? Surely if nothing reportable has happened in your opinion, that data has no value in any kind of future investigations at all, by that logic.

Quite interesting to read how paranoid people are about CVR recordings. Is your airline downloading CVR recordings at every night stop, and chief pilot and management spends their full 8 hours work day just listening to the tapes, day after day?

Ai has gotten fairly good at transcribing speech, though CVR recording quality could be a challenge

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by Max Angle

Of course, that is what the button is there for.

Generally if you are on stand with the brake set and in a position to push the button the recording is not required, you are safely parked rather than being in a smoking hole.

Completely ignoring that there could have been something on the flight, or series of flights, immediately before yours. But, crack on...

[iggy]

In 2009, a Qatar Airways 330 had an incident in DXB while doing the pushback. The airline downloaded the CVR and found the Flight Crew NOT guilty of, and cleared them of any responsibility regarding the incident.

BUT

The pilots had been mocking AAB, and they were fired on the spot for that.

How am I sure that my family is not going to end up watching rhe snuff movie of my own death? That's my main concern, given how most airlines around the world operate.

P.S. I haven't read the full thread, I admit it.