Well thats just the thing:

If one ran out of gas as a consequence of wanting to avoid a crosswind and low viz, what would one expect?
If ones calculations say one wont make the further out airfield, why is it a consideration? am i over-simplifying it?

What's wrong with being able to stand behind the decisions?

And what if you don't run out of fuel because you went one mile further (completely unlikely btw) but suppose you blew a tire on landing and someone was hurt, or more damage to the aircraft occured. or the accident was going to end in pain anyway (like sioux city) but you went somewhere safer at the time you made your decision.

You do have to stand behind the decisions. But people then get to second guess you with YEARS to think about a decision you had seconds to make.

Yes you are very much oversimplifying it because you will not be judged by PILOTS with similar skills to you. You will be judged by prosecutors, who the only thing they know about airplanes are what they learned from hollywood.

More importantly, do you want to fix a safety problem that could harm other crews and people in the future, or do you want to extract vengence (which will do NOTHING to fix the injuries or resurect the dead)? That is the choice. You don't get to do both. Once people have to start couching their actions with regard to a possible prosecution, then an accident investigation becomes a process of self protection rather than Safety improvement.

What is the point of the prosecution? Are you telling me that the prosecution of those pilots in Australia made aviation safer? Have speed camera's made driving safer? Most pilots don't know anything about the prosecution of those pilots. What they DO know is that they better be carefull what they say if there is an incident.

Cheers
Wino

What the camera saw...
 

Something not mentioned on this thread - or as far as I know in the original proposals - is what you expect to see on the camera.

We have cameras in the simulator for training, and the astonishing thing is how little it shows. Explode an engine at V1, set off a few other bells and alarms, and watch the crew sweat? Umm, actually, we appear to be sitting there like statues! OK, so you can sometimes see something obvious, like pressing a big flashing red fire switch. Anything else, forget it. Hands quietly reach to switches and move back out of sight. Hardly a muscle seems to move. Is this thing even running? Did he just press a button, and if so, which one was it?

The only thing I learned from the video is why I get stiff on a long day of flying - I get more exercise watching television!

Seriously though - anyone who is familiar with the difficulty crash investigators have in deciphering the audio track from a CVR has very little to fear from the cockpit video. In order to have sufficient resolution to accurately distinguish individual switches on a typical flight deck panel, and confirm when they were operated and in which way (on/off) would take many cameras focussed on individual areas. If the motivation was on crash investigation, they'd do better to add more tracks to the FDR for all the ancilliary switches. If the motivation is CRM, then there's not much to see on the film, since on a well-flown sector the crew look completely inert.

I suppose if the Captain were beating the F/O about the head with a blunt instrument, that would tell you something, but like an earlier post on this thread, I always cover the camera before assaulting my F/O, and I suggest you do likewise. :)

The video results I see in the simulator are totally useless! As the last posting says, they tell you nothing. And that may be from someone 'high & mighty', Mr. Jettesen (back off Buster- your presence here is more to yell abuse at pilots than make any point!), but it is true. A wasted effort- there is already a CVR and that is all that is needed.

Weather cameras will add to safety or just help investagators blame the crew for a mishap is not for me to determine. I just don't want anyone to catch me picking my nose while the pnf is sleeping.