Do you have any data to back up that hope? I couldn't find any.

in the aviation sector, no.

There is data with CCTV on bridges showing reduced suicides. But that is at least partly because security staff can be alerted and intervene - which is not what we are talking about here.

But we are not talking of simple suicide. We are talking about an act which kills hundreds of others. It is mass murder rather than straightforward suicide.

There is evidence CCTV reduces criminal activity

And both MH370 and perhaps this incident suggest pilots contemplating mass murder as part of their suicide are concerned about their legacy after death.


Anyway, with pilot malfeasance now comprising a substantial proportion of RPT fatalities, I would argue the burden of proof rests with those opposing something that may help.

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

CCTV is a deterrent when criminals worry about getting caught.

I'm not really happy with the "I found an appeal to emotion, so I don't have to prove my case" approach.

One thing to remember about CAP 762 is that technology has significantly improved since it was written. In particular camera resolution image processing and storage. I'm pretty sure they were not thinking of a unit smaller than an eyeball vent with internal storage of hours including audio and GPS data. Any argument about size weight and power has gone.
The NTSB has mostly used helicopter accidents to promote video recording because that sector is already using video recording. In CS/Part 25 CAT aircraft this is not replacinf CVR/FDR it is supplementing it. For CS/Part 23 CAT aircraft without CVR/FDR the Robinson style system would provide a significant improvement in accident investigation.
I don't see any cockpit image recording system having much deterrent effect on suicide by pilot. The only possible case is where the motive is to provide an insurance payout for family.

In my company some years ago, we ran a trial where you could opt-in to have some of your sim session video recorded (LOFT exercises I think) and then played back to facilitate the debrief. Pretty much everyone who did this, myself included, found that even though you had spent a sweaty half-hour with a high workload doing a lot of problem solving, CRM and tricky handling in a broken aeroplane, the video showed two people sitting down apparently not doing very much with the odd hand going out. It was underwhelming as a training aid so we stopped doing it.

To fit this to current aircraft which have CVRs and FDRs would be expensive and be of questionable value; it doesn’t seem that it would have helped much in the AI accident as it would only confirm what the investigators already knew from other sources. There is also the issue that it would stop working in cases where there is major disruption to electrical supply unless it was directly wired to the battery which is a risk all of its own - the less stuff you have that you can’t turn off in the event of an electrical fire, the better.

Define expensive? Robinson is fitting cameras as standard on low cost helicopters. Connecting to existing recoring systems is only one possible option. The battery comment is irrelevant, Connecting an extra 0.5A breaker to the battery bus is not a risk and in anycase if recording without power is required for a few minutes an internal cell in the camera will do the job.
I'd suggest a standalone camera / recorder would be the best option.

Yes, but they don’t have a FDR/CVR so it’s filling a void. Much like in cars/trucks. Low cost helicopter is a bit of an oxymoron as even a R22 is $400k new.As with everything that is safety related, you need to examine the effect on overall risk with a change to a system. Does the solution to a perceived problem introduce more risk than the problem itself? In this specific case does having a camera reduce risk? No, not really. Does having an extra system with a connection to the aircraft power supply and/or internal battery increase risk? Yes, especially considering the exposure of 30-40 million commercial flights a year. What are the benefits you are gaining for the extra risk? Will having a camera increase flight safety, given that I have yet to read an airliner accident/incident report that could have come to a different conclusion based on video evidence and that conclusion would lead to enactable changes?

Doesn’t matter much what we decide here. The decision will be made by insurers, politicians, media and the public.

The list of suspected / known deliberate plane crashes is longer than many think.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cate...berate_crashes


Some of these definitely would not have been prevented by CCTV.

There is reason to believe some may have been (but that can’t be proven to be true)

Three certainties
1. Sadly, there will be more such incidents. This problem isn’t going away
2. The technology to video cockpit operations and stream this video will get better
3. Sooner or later, this will happen.

@LeadBalloon posted in the other thread that pilots should prepare for this.

I agree, and submit it is better for the industry to be proactive and negotiate appropriate safeguards, rather than reluctantly have this forced on the industry .

Would the Trinity Bay crash in 2019 qualify? The NTSB recommended image recorders on this one because they couldn't confirm their guess of how go-around mode was activated at 6000 feet. It might be good to know how to prevent that.

People of a mind to commit murder suicide might actually be attracted by the idea of it being recorded and played for everyone to watch. A camera is not needed for such people, mental health check ups maybe if there continues to be an issue with this.

In reviewing the preliminary Air India 787 report and CAP 762 research, it’s evident that many of the unresolved issues pertain to the pilots’ actions and decision-making during the incident. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) confirms that switches #1 and #2 were manually actuated, raising further questions about cockpit conduct.

This underscores the ongoing need for cockpit video monitoring. Currently, we utilize cameras in passenger cabins, galleys, and crew rest areas, yet the flight deck remains a blind spot during the most critical phases of operation.

Installing cockpit cameras that activate in response to e.g. EICAS warnings, vertical speed anomalies, or GPWS alerts is not a matter of surveillance, but of safety and post-incident clarity. This capability is long overdue. Resistance to this from certain pilot groups should be weighed against the broader imperative of flight safety and accountability.

In parallel, we must re-examine the role of existing safety technologies such as flight envelope protection and autoland systems. Should flight crews retain absolute authority to inadvertently stall an aircraft into the ocean, fly it into terrain, or cut fuel 100 meters above the runway? Or should the aircraft be empowered to intervene—at the last possible moment, if necessary—to prevent a catastrophe? These systems are not theoretical; they have been available and proven for years.

At a minimum, we must ensure that all pilot inputs are reliably logged and that cockpit video becomes a standard part of accident and incident investigation tools. These steps are not about assigning blame, they’re about ensuring we have the full picture when lives are on the line.

I tought your point was that FDR CAN'T confirm if the fuel switches were manually actuated, thus we need cameras to confirm that. Stupid me.

My CS25 aircraft with 200 pax in the back has not a single camera on board. We have one of the best, if not THE best, safety record in Europe.

Pure nonsense. You need to understand the actions BEFORE the triggering event, not afterward.

You clearly have no idea on the real capability of the automated systems on the average CS25 aircraft. Hint: is way less than what you think.
And just FYI: EASA dropped the single pilot study, as an equivalent (not higher, EQUIVALENT) level of safety is not achievable as of today (compared to a two pilots crew). Think about it.

Pilot inputs are already logged by the FDR and more sofisticated onboard logging systems.

As already said, the only safety improvenent a camera can offer is a fatigue recognition system. I wonder why none of you camera supporters is even willing to talk about it...

Interesting Topic.

In the modern world many employees in multiple different trades are monitored by cameras, it becoming standard practice.

CCTV cameras are of course a double edged sword in that:
a) They can be used to protect an employee who is being accused but has done the job correctly or
b) They can be used to prosecute an employee who fails to do the job correctly

Arguably, if a person is doing the job correctly they should welcome and not reject being filmed on a CCTV loop.

Which pilot flipped the cut-off switches and which one asked if they were cut off? Same person? not?

Then we could as well remove CVR and CDR. That is real non-sense.

Automation goes far and developments don't stop, contrary.. . EASA does their job as they should and concluded. For now that is.

I think if camera's monitoring pilot behavior would be proposed, pilots unions would be the first to block, privacy..

I think it is a question of time before cockpit camera's become mandatory. They are cheap, light and can provide critical flight safety information. And they can be programmed to only activate during flight critical situations.

Flight Global's article on the 787, and other articles on ARINC 767 suggest that low frame rate video is already an option.

What?

What? #2

What? #3

Nothing is cheaper, lighter and more failproof than not having a useless piece of equipment on board.
And again, you need footage BEFORE the critical situation develops, not afterward. This of course only if the camera is installed to improve safety investigations and not for other reasons...

I'm really happy to see the fatigue point has been totally bypassed, I think it's like the sixth time it happens in two days. I really wonder why...the unions/pilots would LOVE to have automated fatigue recognition on board, but I guess the airlines won't...again, I wonder why...I really have no idea...do you have any?

Interestingly my car has fatigue/attention/awareness sensing and alerts. My airliner does not.

What are you going to do, pull over and rest?

Pilot incapacitation, single pilot ops, at least pan pan, land at nearest suitable. Fatigued pilot must be offloaded and another one must be flew in. Possibly an entire crew, depending on FTL limits and BS rostering practices. Suitable accomodation must be provided. Extra rest days to recover, fatigue report. No BS excuses, as fatigue was recognized by an automated system. Fatigue reports go through the roof and airlines can't roster 14 hours duty days with 18 hours awake time anymore.

That's what EASA says.

I'd pay the cameras with my own salary to see this happening, FFS.

Reminds of a story I was told by a NW Counsel 1 Captain MEC Rep. it seems NW mgt and union agreed to study fatigue on trans-Pacific rotations with various monitors. This was early ‘80s, I was an EA MEC rep. Anyway, a couple of days in, the crews are told to drop off the monitors before the next trip as the company wasn’t going to continue the participation in the study. Yoy can guess why. Also, need to remember pilot pay, more accurately, “time away from base” is effected by fatigue rules. Lots of crews would rather fly fewer days away with the same pay, hence no long layovers to reduce fatigue. I know US train crews had rules that paid real well but were horrible from the fatigue and safety aspects. It was hard battle to change the contracts.