Yes I read the report, and thanked you for sharing it. I find it an impressive piece of investigation work.

No, the aircrafts self protection (which b.t.w. other contributers in other threads consider a bad thing to be) prevented the aircraft from getting into a worse state - nowhere does the report say it prevented a ground impact - that was done by the pilots who finally managed to get the CPT sidestick into normal position and establish a level altitude.

May be the Voyager fleet could have been de-grounded quicker with video, although it seems to me the crew stubbornly did not tell what really happened, so it would still need quite some investigation effort, to dismiss the CPT's statements. By the way: we are back at the topic of "culture": why would the crew not just tell what happened? Sound like a punishment culture to me - but that is only a superficial impression.

Everything being registered is pretty much state of art on modern airliners. Name me some flight critical system that is not registered. May be there is some subsystem, but it does not devalue my argument. You seem to be grasping for straws there.

Consider also EasyJet 6074:

• Did something in the entirely electromechanical (no electronics) changeover logic break, but magically start working again after landing (somewhat like is being posited for AI171, except rather less unlikely...), or
• Did both flight crew somehow spend 10 minutes pressing the wrong button despite ECAM telling them what to press?

CCTV would probably help explain it, and either a) prove that the A320 electrical design had a major flaw, or b) show some human factors issues with the overhead panel.

1201alarm:
I wasn't cluching at straws just challenging you statement that everything is recorded. All the important parameters and discrtes are and co-incidentalll a lot that is represented on the data bus. but that is not everything. It varies a lot between aircraft type, age and even operator. Nothing personal, we should try to be factual.

how often do you a cvfdr is downloaded for investigation in to an event? with video or otherwise? its only after a significant event.
Its not like there's a control room of people watching and monitoring a cockpits every move.
its a passive system to find the truth . because people make mistakes and some people don't remember what happened and actually can prove innocence as well as error.

Who decides that an event is significant … how,
Who decides what is 'truth', video has to be interpreted, by whom.
Who might be making mistakes, actor or assessor … how can this be judged.

A better question to ask might be "how many internal airline investigations involve the CVR, without going straight to the NTSB?"

Virtually all those concerns apply to CVR too.

I support the installation of video recording systems or camera in the cockpit.

We already have cockpit voice recorders (CVRs), so why not include video? Think about it , would you feel safer with just audio recorders around your house, or with CCTV cameras? Video provides a clearer and more complete picture, especially in complex environments like the cockpit.

Video data can be handled responsibly. If a flight concludes uneventfully, the footage can be automatically deleted. The purpose is to retain it only in the event of an incident or accident — just like how CVR data is handled today. It’s worth noting that even if a pilot criticizes the government, management, or their airline during a flight, that audio is already being recorded by the CVR. Yet that’s not considered a breach of privacy, as the data is routinely deleted post-flight unless needed.

There are actions that take place in the cockpit without any associated sound — gestures, switch movements, interactions — which voice alone cannot capture. A visual recording would greatly enhance investigators’ understanding by providing context that audio alone cannot offer.

So, what kind of video system or CCTV should be installed?

This is where aviation authorities must step in. Just like CVRs and flight data recorders (FDRs) have standards set by ICAO, FAA, EASA, or national aviation authorities, cockpit video systems should follow similar rigorous specifications. There should be clear guidance on technical standards, data retention, access rights, and implementation timelines.

# The video system should be capable of recording both visuals and audio

These assertions sound reasonable, but in practice, "greatly" reduces to "somewhat".
See https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...l#post11922654 (CAP 762) or https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...l#post11922707 (simulator training). Since the video does not convey intent, it can be misleading, too.

Exactly — that’s why we need as much evidence as possible.

No single source not CVR, FDR, or CCTV can fully explain what happened. Each provides only part of the picture. That’s why it’s important to have all of them, so they can be used together to give a more complete and accurate understanding of the situation.

Even if video doesn’t show a person’s intent, it still clearly shows what actions were taken. That alone can be critical.If we had video, we would see whether the action was taken or not. As for intent ,that’s something we can only ask the person about if they survive. If they choose not to tell the truth, we may never know their real motive.

Audio alone (CVR) can often lead to misinterpretation, whereas audio combined with video gives a much clearer picture.

Take, for example, the case of AI 171. From the CVR, we could hear the pilot saying, “I didn’t do it.”

• “I didn’t do it” — if we only have CVR, maybe he didn’t, or maybe he did — we can’t see.

• “I didn’t do it” — if we have CCTV video, we can immediately confirm whether he did or didn’t do it.

Intent is a separate issue. But actions are observable facts, and video makes them undeniable.

“Less evidence, more illusion ”
“More evidence, clearer truth.”

Didn't one of the major US airlines have a cockpit cam back in the day when seat back TV screens were new? You could select that channel and watch the pilots flying the plane. I *think* that might have stopped when two smartass pilots thought it would be funny to put on gorilla looking sleeves on their arms IIRC lol.