Nope, they "care" about it for two weeks*, while mass media is spitting bs 24/7 having no clue on what happened.
Then is back to the nice and old price and timing.

Keep in mind the average passenger has no idea what aircraft they're travelling on, and some of them don't even know the airline itself, as they still use travel agencies.

Again, aviation safety is not, and cannot, be shaped by politics and/or be influenced by the public. The only driving factors today are profit on one side and pilots/technicians on the other.

*weeks could be even too long

Good idea
 

How else may we be certain whether or not there was a third person in the cockpit of the Air India ?

Listen to the CVR (if you are the investigating team) and for the rest of us read the final report when it comes out.
You (and I) don't need to know Right Now.
The investigating team won't need a camera to figure out how many voices were on the CVR.
I'll recommend reading the initial report, to which a link is posted in the Air India crash thread that is currently open.

You can also open the report from DIBO's post in that thread, the one with a time stamp of 11th July 2025 | 15:31 .
It's sixteen pages long and full of useful information and context, but as it's an initial report, it leaves some questions unanswered.

If you believe that I have land for sale in the Everglades.

Yes let's spend more money on cameras but ignore the fatigue of pilots that are rostered hugely demanding schedules. The world's gone crazy when we're willing to spend money on equipment to convict pilots rather than try to understand why they, fully qualified and current are making mistakes due due fatigue and company pressures.

just putting this here Preppy
It's a longish paper that involved actual trials; I haven't had time to read it.

How many centuries did it take for the unions to get steamrolled on the two-person cockpit?

Not a pilot but the reason for data recorders as relates to crash or incident investigations is to uncover root causes that may result in new requlations or directives intended to prevent the same incidents or faults from occurring again.

I'm not seeing that video adds very much to what is already in place. A cockpit video recording could confirm who did what, but not why. Voice is actually much better for that, as it gives at least some clues into thought process and even mental state.

In the case of the recent Air India crash, video might confirm that the fuel cutoff switches were moved and who did it. It's already virtually certain they were operated intentionally, as no other explanation is even remotely likely. Video might reveal who did it, but would it tell you why, and would it give you any information you didn't already have about preventing a recurrence of such an incident? If not, it's a lot of expense to certify and add to new designs, and to refit existing aircraft, for what benefit? Satisfying morbid curiosity?

It takes a special kind of detachment to believe that public pressure has no influence on aviation safety and that people grieving a dismembered or incinerated loved one need only be patient while the industry decides what's worth disclosing.

This isn’t about whether the average passenger knows what aircraft they’re on. It’s about what happens after something goes horribly wrong and the investigators can’t provide answers. When that happens and it has, repeatedly, politicians act. Pretending otherwise isn’t insight; it’s insulation.

You dismiss public opinion as irrelevant and political oversight as noise. But history says otherwise. Aviation doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's part of a society that expects answers when things go wrong and when the industry can’t provide them clearly, it loses control of the narrative and ultimately the regulation.

Dismissing legitimate points as media hype and passenger ignorance doesn’t make you sound informed. It makes you sound like someone who’s never had to justify why a preventable failure wasn’t prevented.

Just look at the American ATP rule, passed by Congress, sponsored by a NY senator, after a crash in his state that killed 50. It doesn’t even a large toll to get politicians involved. Killing of Sen Cutting in 1935 got the big reforms in how airlines were dispatched. TWA Flight 6 crash in Kirksville, MO.

Sorry mate, but our opinions have not the same value if we talk about commercial aviation. I've spent years in the field both as a pilot and as in the office, and I'm telling you that what drives aviation safety policies is the eternal battle between company profit and technicians pushing back.

A CCTV is NOT a preventive measure, you can keep pushing your mantra, but it's just a load of BS. You still fail to provide a useful scenario for your proposal and you keep dismissing the only safety-improving feature: fatigue detection.

Now, I've had more than enough and nothing is being added to the discussion, so I won't help you spinning the wheel anymore.

Surely you are not justifying installing cameras in the cockpit based on the extremely limited release of information in the Air India preliminary report?!

Like in the main thread, people are jumping to conclusions based on a report that was very purposefully left very incomplete and ambiguous.

The replies here, read more like a catalogue of excuses.

It is not uncommon for HGV cabs or coaches to include cameras capable of picking up the driving cabin. Generally, these crashing has far less of an impact than an airliner.

As for this instance, if the camera was appropriately placed it would likely prove or deny the current theory that one of the passengers switched the fuel cutoff. A massive step forward for the investigation, which given the number of aircraft out there would not be a bad thing.

It would also likely prove at least one of the flight crew 'innocent' or even both if the details of what has been released turn out to be not as clear as supposed.

Obviously pilots would want protection from nasty bosses - but surely the principle of this has already been made with the CVR rules..

CVR and FDR give a good picture of what's going on in the cockpit. Cameras aren't going to add much, and aren't going to help if someone is determined to do something completely unpredictable. Knowing what happened doesn't move the ball that far, and it doesn't help the crew and passengers. A hijacker not worried about their own life isn't going to be too worried about being recorded.

The conversation I fear most as a result of current events is removing the pilot altogether. There are people rubbing their hands about this, I guarantee it.

Many moons ago, I used to work nightshift, operating a numerically controlled drilling machine in the Printed Circuit Industry.
When loaded and run, the cycle would take 23 mins before being unloaded, loaded and reset.
I used the opportunity to have a little nap.
No harm done.
Just glad that there were no CCTV cameras around then, If you get my drift !!

R66 accident
 

Most definately YES!
Here isvery recent ATSB report of a R66 helicopter accident. An inflight break-up with 1POB. Unfortunatly, but not surprising fatal The almost new aircraft had the factory standard cockpit video recorder. There is a lot of disussion of this because without it they would never have known exactly what went wrong. Short version don't fly near maximum cruise speed in turbulence while eating a sandwich.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2023-051
I also posted this in the AI thread.

Robert.

Must read ( and spare us a lot of hamster's wheeling...): In Air India’s wake, revisiting the case for cockpit video recorders

Install the camera in the cockpit, but prohibit the use of the recordings unless

1. there is no other way to reconstruct what actually happened and (cumulative)
2. there is at least probable cause for an intentional crime.

Both underlying prior judicial approval.

I'll caveat first - I'm not a pilot, my aviation experience is in ATC and Operations.

I can understand any fears pilots may have of the company using the cameras to spy on their employees - but do the airlines use the CVR/FDR to spy on any of you now?

Whilst a camera might not prevent a pilot committing suicide by purposely crashing, they could help investigators better understand what has happened.
Take for instance the recent Indian 787 crash. The voice recorder has both pilots denying they pulled the fuel cut-off switches. What if the investigators could actually see if either pilot deliberately operated the switches, knocked them accidentally or even if they were faulty and somehow tripped themselves due to a little turbulence? If they did 'self operate' how much more quickly could national aviation authorities issue a bulletin to airline operators that they may have a fault in the aircraft systems.

Would Sully and Jeff have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny and innuendo by the NTSB if they had actually been able to see the actions undertaken in the cockpit?

However - how gruesome could those videos be? Would the investigators need careful monitoring to ensure their own mental health is not affected?

Does it have a CVR and FDR?