|
Flightdeck cams
190220 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47303077 Quote ...Google acknowledgment comes days after Singapore Airlines faced criticism for installing cameras into the backs of some of its planes' seats as part of a new in-flight entertainment system...Singapore confirmed the cameras' existence on Sunday, but said they had been disabled and added that it had no plans to use them... End of Quote... Just thinking... Interesting to find out how long it takes to install these on the flight deck. Would be the birth of skyskyping !-) and skymonitoring (fatigue,..). If 2-way is possible someone will use it at some time. No brainer to predict a big fight about privacy versus productivity and other uses. When you could connect flightdeck ipads to the 'airplane backbone' you could of course already do this. Wonder about the robustness of them though. Can already see some interesting discussions about robustness, backbone(s), tunneling, encryption, ... This could develop fast if parties involved find a common ground...for either separate or connected flight phases. |
The recent crash of a Convair 440 in South Africa showed that a cockpit camera can be useful in crash investigations. The crew had installed a go pro in the cockpit and another on the wing IIRC.
|
Originally Posted by Raffles S.A.
(Post 10398172)
The recent crash of a Convair 440 in South Africa showed that a cockpit camera can be useful in crash investigations. The crew had installed a go pro in the cockpit and another on the wing IIRC.
|
We discussed this issue some 25 years ago at the IFALPA Accident Analysis Conferences I use to partake in. Sadly and even more so today, the press would 'kill' for such footage and with their wonderful reputation for accurate reporting (Cynical old me), it would be the last thing any of us in the profession would like to see. Especially the relatives if the accident was a fatal one. As a tool for accident investigation though it would possibly be very useful. An example I believe in the B777 accident at KSFO, it couldn't be clearly established who was handling the thrust levers and so a camera would have quickly resolved. this.
|
The former Chairman of the NTSB, Jim Hall, made a pitch for cockpit CCTV linked to the FDR or CVR back in 2015, but nothing has become of it yet.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/27736967/ |
|
Originally Posted by eppy
(Post 10398249)
The former president of the NTSB, Jim Hall, made a pitch for cockpit CCTV linked to the FDR or CVR back in 2015, but nothing has become of it yet.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/27736967/ |
Originally Posted by Wally777
(Post 10398206)
We discussed this issue some 25 years ago at the IFALPA Accident Analysis Conferences I use to partake in. Sadly and even more so today, the press would 'kill' for such footage and with their wonderful reputation for accurate reporting (Cynical old me), it would be the last thing any of us in the profession would like to see. Especially the relatives if the accident was a fatal one. As a tool for accident investigation though it would possibly be very useful. An example I believe in the B777 accident at KSFO, it couldn't be clearly established who was handling the thrust levers and so a camera would have quickly resolved. this.
|
Originally Posted by skadi
(Post 10398349)
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10398389)
Helicopter tour operators use the cameras to make money.
skadi |
Originally Posted by skadi
(Post 10398407)
Definitely not with the mentioned Vision1000 System! For example it's used in many HEMS fleets....
skadi |
Why would anyone require a union for this matter if there was an open and honest desire to improve safety. World opinion might not be so entrenched as the US who appear to release information on a whim; irrespective of ICAO recommendations. Video clearly would be aid an understanding of the situation; there is no need to publish the data publically at all. Not every investigation authority releases the CVR verbatim. |
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10398500)
Why would anyone require a union for this matter if there was an open and honest desire to improve safety. The view of the three major pilot unions in the U.S. was that is was more of an invasion of privacy than an enhancement to safety. I have long since stopped having a dog in that fight, so I'm not the right person with whom to debate the merits, or lack thereof. I'd suggest a letter to the chair of the NTSB. The present chairman is smart, intellectually honest, and a retired U.S. Air captain. |
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10398545)
The view of the three major pilot unions in the U.S. was that is was more of an invasion of privacy than an enhancement to safety.
|
Police officers and firefighters do not have the entirety of their shift recorded, ie what goes on in the car or crew room for example while they're having some lunch or a drink.
If a camera was on for the takeoff and landing only, perhaps I could live with that, but not the intervening 13 hours in the cruise, thank you. |
Whatever the imagined benefits of this technology there is one absolute and undeniable reality: Humanity will always find a way to use it for nefarious purposes.
One only look at the purported benefits of Farcebook and compare it to the myriad of privacy and data mining issues they quietly levered behind their curtain. Airline management, have struggled to lever pilots under the Corporate envelope of HR drivel. Pilots are licensed and thus accountable to, a legislative and regulatory environment, that HR has little to no control of. Imagine the fun to be had when not only actions but visions exist that HR managers could pour over, looking for breaches of Corporate policy, non- politically correct conversations, comments and 'failures to adhere to (insert policy)...'? An Orwellian nightmare.. |
Conversations are also recorded on CVR. So the camera should not be the problem, more who has the right to read out the recordings and for what reason it's done.
skadi |
In a word..... NO. |
I went from aviation to maritime some years ago now - some of the high speed ferries I drive are required to have a camera in the wheelhouse/bridge.
In fact, even some of the smaller slower boats I was driving had them on me (as pax would board in that area, so for security). I just don't see the issue - if you're doing your job properly, it shouldn't matter. It gets recorded to a DVR and wiped after a certain amount of time - so its not like they're watched for the fun of it... They would only ever access them if there was a major incident (not that I have had any). On the few occasions I've heard about - the camera actually vindicated the skipper for doing the right thing. |
Originally Posted by OK4Wire
(Post 10398657)
Police officers and firefighters do not have the entirety of their shift recorded, ie what goes on in the car or crew room for example while they're having some lunch or a drink.
If a camera was on for the takeoff and landing only, perhaps I could live with that, but not the intervening 13 hours in the cruise, thank you. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.