Cvr, Fdr , Vcr ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cvr, Fdr , Vcr ?
Cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders have been around for decades , I wonder how long it will be before a high resolution flight deck video recording system will be mandatory ?
It would help with additional clues and information for accident and incident investigations , what do you think ?
It would help with additional clues and information for accident and incident investigations , what do you think ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twenty years ago AA [American Airlines] had CCTV cameras in their DC10s. Pax could see the cockpit on cabin TV monitors and watch the pilots at work during takeoffs and landings, or anytime the captain would decide when to turn on the system. The cams were removed after the Chicago crash on 25 May 1979. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This letter summarizes the Safety Board’s rationale for issuing the recommendations.... [details]... a long history of accident and incident investigations that might have benefited from the capture of a graphic record of the cockpit environment. Reconstructing the events that led to many accidents has been difficult for investigators because of limited data. ...
Over the years I have probably read hundreds of accident report summaries for my own education and like many others watched programs like air crash investigation. It always struck me as outdated how the investigators would spend a lot of time analysing the CVR for background noises to determine whether certain switches or controls were operated when a video would fill in a lot of the gaps that prevented finding out what really happened.
The current Air France accident also raises a suggestion of bursting a data packet over the aircrafts sat link , if there were numerous alerts and error messages the airlines central computer could request a data dump from the CVR, FDR and VIR .
Longer term you can see where we are heading anyway , real time remote monitoring and recording of all aspects of the flight as a back up. Would be a lot easier than trying to find black boxes off the sea floor at 15 or 20 thousand feet.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At first there was a lot of objection by the pilot groups to the installation of CVRs. But for the past 40+ years they have become part of cockpit life. I don't speak any differently in the cockpit knowing that my conversation is being recorded.
Needles to say, it's just a matter of time before image recorders will become part of life in the cockpit. The cams can be installed not to image the pilots, but only to be fixed focused on the dashboard, the glareshield, the overhead panel and the pedestal. It wouldn't be a "candid camera" type show.
Besides external cockpit door surveillance cams, other cams already are in place on certain airplanes which show landing gear positions and tail cams showing wing configurations.
Needles to say, it's just a matter of time before image recorders will become part of life in the cockpit. The cams can be installed not to image the pilots, but only to be fixed focused on the dashboard, the glareshield, the overhead panel and the pedestal. It wouldn't be a "candid camera" type show.
Besides external cockpit door surveillance cams, other cams already are in place on certain airplanes which show landing gear positions and tail cams showing wing configurations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
other cams already are in place on certain airplanes which show landing gear positions and tail cams showing wing configurations
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess a cockpit video recorder will be a great place to hang a jacket! These have been used for years in certain simulators to go over what happened in the detail at certain times. Watching them, I have been struck by how utterly awful the image is. Remember flight decks are dark places. In the profusion of small lights and poor image quality, nothing shows up. You cannot see what switches people are moving, you can barely see their arms. These cameras would have to cope as well with brilliant sunlight images. The added value will be far smaller than people imagine. Also, they will either be used as a coat hangar, or what image will show may well be degraded by a smear of something like vaseline. I have no intention of such things filming me. Another enormous expense for the airlines (anything for an aeroplane is mind-bogglingly expensive) which will have to be recouped from the passengers (who are already being caned to death for tax revenues by all sorts of rapidly increasing taxes).
I can think of few accidents where a camera image would have been of any use whatsoever. Accidents like the Turkish 737 into Amsterdam would have revealed nothing new to a camera. Pilots have a right to privacy in their workplace. As for using such a thing for passenger entertainment- we have seen how well that worked, haven't we?
I can think of few accidents where a camera image would have been of any use whatsoever. Accidents like the Turkish 737 into Amsterdam would have revealed nothing new to a camera. Pilots have a right to privacy in their workplace. As for using such a thing for passenger entertainment- we have seen how well that worked, haven't we?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots have a right to privacy in their workplace.
So I'm throwing this question out there: why do pilots necessarily have a right to privacy in their workplace?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: N 06/W 75
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a quick comparison here, shall we?
ATC (our way of communication) is recorded both by recorders on the towers, radar centers or whatever AND on the airplanes CVR's. Furthermore, aircraft equipped with ACARS/SITA or whatever, will record any text message sent to and sent by the aircraft.
Both the CVR and the DFDR nowadays will record pretty much any switch, lever, you name it, that we move. I name the CVR too, because most of the times we call out what switch, lever or you name it, we move.
Again, CVR will record most about any conversation that anybody has on the flight deck.
Certainly any legal airline has information on who flied which aircraft on any given day. In fact, modern airliners, like the Embraer Regional Jets (E170, E190...) have an improved FDR, that in the event of any operation deviated from established parameters (read "standards") of the aircraft, it will record and send which parameter was violated to a ground-based operations center, so when you land, somebody will be asking for you and once they found you, they will tell you that you are expected at the Flight Safety Office and you have some questions to answer.
Privacy? What privacy?
my company e-mail is subject to monitoring by IT
as is my computer and internet usage
my telephone conversations are subject to recording
every time I use my badge to gain access to my place of work, this is logged on a central coomputer system and these records are available for review by management.
So I'm throwing this question out there: why do pilots necessarily have a right to privacy in their workplace?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ocampo;
Agreed - pilots have Big Brother as bad as anyone - but my question stands... why should there be an expectation of a right to privacy in the workplace, as Rainboe stated previously? I'm not for or against - just challenging the assumption.
Agreed - pilots have Big Brother as bad as anyone - but my question stands... why should there be an expectation of a right to privacy in the workplace, as Rainboe stated previously? I'm not for or against - just challenging the assumption.
krujje;
It depends upon what kind of privacy is being considered.
If the data collected is used solely for trend analysis in FOQA programs and investigations into incidents and accidents, there is no expectation of privacy on the part of anyone including flight crews. FOQA programs are a special case because of their invasive nature but to my knowledge, Asian carriers are the only ones whose managers routinely use FOQA data to punish crews. The rest of the data collecting world is more enlightened. So the expectation of privacy is justifiably low to nil.
The expectation of privacy is, however, very high when it comes to release of the data to the media and other voyeurs including lawyers who's only interest is in individual financial gain through prosecution using safety data as evidence. Just like achieving safety through industrial negotiations, such use of data is inappropriate.
The moment that safety data leaves the safety investigators' desks for the courts and for the media, is the moment that all data collection/analysis programs under SMS will be shut down.
The expectation of privacy is very high when it comes to the introduction of video recorders simply because they WILL find their way onto You-tube, Fox News, CNN and other media outlets, none of which can be trusted with such information.
I think you would agree that the expectation of privacy on the part of flight crews is justified in these cases.
OTH, what I would like to see is voice, data and video recorders in all corporate board rooms...
It depends upon what kind of privacy is being considered.
If the data collected is used solely for trend analysis in FOQA programs and investigations into incidents and accidents, there is no expectation of privacy on the part of anyone including flight crews. FOQA programs are a special case because of their invasive nature but to my knowledge, Asian carriers are the only ones whose managers routinely use FOQA data to punish crews. The rest of the data collecting world is more enlightened. So the expectation of privacy is justifiably low to nil.
The expectation of privacy is, however, very high when it comes to release of the data to the media and other voyeurs including lawyers who's only interest is in individual financial gain through prosecution using safety data as evidence. Just like achieving safety through industrial negotiations, such use of data is inappropriate.
The moment that safety data leaves the safety investigators' desks for the courts and for the media, is the moment that all data collection/analysis programs under SMS will be shut down.
The expectation of privacy is very high when it comes to the introduction of video recorders simply because they WILL find their way onto You-tube, Fox News, CNN and other media outlets, none of which can be trusted with such information.
I think you would agree that the expectation of privacy on the part of flight crews is justified in these cases.
OTH, what I would like to see is voice, data and video recorders in all corporate board rooms...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: N 06/W 75
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed - pilots have Big Brother as bad as anyone - but my question stands... why should there be an expectation of a right to privacy in the workplace, as Rainboe stated previously?
It's bad enough knowing that all we say and do is recorded, why would we need to be watched all the time?
EDIT: Looking at PJ's reply (just seconds earlier than mine) I agree on the youtube part, and I can think of at least one South American carrier who bans videocameras on the cockpit. Pictures? Suit yourself. Video? Get out of the cockpit
Originally Posted by Rainboe
These have been used for years in certain simulators to go over what happened in the detail at certain times. Watching them, I have been struck by how utterly awful the image is.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2;
Yes that's a good point. And it shows that there are really several aspects to the question. One aspect is the collection of information per se. Another aspect is how that information is used and managed after it is collected. I think a pilot's expectations should be low with regards to the first and high with regards to the second... but as you say, once the information exists, it is very difficult to keep it out of the wrong hands.
On the other hand, many people, rightly or wrongly, insist on complete transparency when it comes to decisions and actions which are being made about their personal safety or any other aspect of their lives... but that's a whole debate in and of itself.
The expectation of privacy is very high when it comes to the introduction of video recorders simply because they WILL find their way onto You-tube, Fox News, CNN and other media outlets, none of which can be trusted with such information.
On the other hand, many people, rightly or wrongly, insist on complete transparency when it comes to decisions and actions which are being made about their personal safety or any other aspect of their lives... but that's a whole debate in and of itself.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While it may be as evident elsewhere as it is in the US, I doubt that anywhere on the face of the globe is more “litigation happy” than we see it in the US. There are some attorneys practicing law to provide a basis for equitable treatment for all parties … however, there are some who practice “predatory law” as a means for self-enrichment while bellowing “fair treatment for my client.” The premise that is used as justification by those practicing “predatory law” is that everyone is legally entitled to be provided goods and services 100% error free: e.g., a patron visits a Burger King drive-thru and orders a “hot coffee.” The patron pays for the coffee and takes it from the smiling Burger King employee. Pulling out into traffic, the patron spills said coffee in said patron’s lap and is burned. A predatory lawyer sues Burger King for providing coffee that was “too hot” in a container that was not “spill-proof” and wins the law suit, resulting in Burger King paying an unconscionable amount of money to the patron for medical bills and punitive damages, of which the predatory attorney collects between 30 and 50 percent. The premise here is that the Burger King patron had a legal right to expect that the “hot coffee” ordered, would not be “too hot,” and that the patron had a legal right to expect that the container in which the “not too hot coffee” was served would not allow it to be spilled. Sure. Unfortunately, this was a real case, involving real events, and real outcomes.
There is another, somewhat similar, circumstance currently working its way through the US Congress at this time. It’s referred to as “universal health care.” The alleged reform is deemed necessary because there are some who cannot afford health insurance and cannot afford directly paying for health care. Why? Answer; the high charges are likely due, at least in some part, to the costs charged by doctors, which are quite high. Why? Answer; the high charges are likely, again, at least in some part, because the insurance premiums paid by the doctor for “malpractice insurance” are so high. Why? Answer; the high charges from the insurance companies are likely due to the high dollar lawsuits that are won by “predatory lawyers” for doctors committing “mal practice,” or, said another way, for doctors not providing medical care error free.
While it may be true that pilots believe they have a right to practice their trade behind a shield of “privacy,” there are many who feel that this assumption is … well, bogus - and I'm one of them. However, if there were a means for being able to visually see (and hear) what went on in a cockpit when someone was injured (or worse), it is quite likely that the “predatory lawyers” would be all over every incident, no matter the size. Potential law suits for everything from “injuries” sustained in “hard landings” to the traumas suffered by late arrivals, would explode exponentially - and there are some who believe this is exactly what is happening on an ever-increasing scale today. If this does happen or happens to any large degree, airlines or individual pilots are likely to be forced into “mal practice insurance systems” similar to those of doctors – on the equally bogus basis that airline passengers have a legal right to expect their flight to be delivered “error free.”
I would submit that unless and until humans can develop a process for training and then applying that training in such a manner that will ensure 100% error-free performance of any task, each and every time that task is performed, this type of “predatory law” will continue to be practiced – OR – it will until someone, someplace, takes the bull by the horns and disallows such idiocy from continuing. What the passengers deserve is the best trained pilots HUMANS can produce - and I’m not at all sure that includes computer-flown (notice, I said "flown," not "controlled") airplanes. One of the very best ways of modifying the training provided to anyone, is to find out what went wrong (or how a particular event was averted) and then find a way to provide that information to those in need of it. I think one of the best ways to do this in the world of aviation is to include audio, video, avionic, flight control, and aircraft response monitoring that would be used exclusively for error detection and correction. But as long as the persons involved are identified and someone, someplace, can get a legal decision that the person at the controls didn’t provide the service 100% error free, and is, therefore, legally obligated to pay fines and penalties, I’m afraid we’re going to see this argument continue – while unidentified errors continue – and we all are condemned to the potential of repeating those unidentified errors - while we train to avoid "probable causes."
There is another, somewhat similar, circumstance currently working its way through the US Congress at this time. It’s referred to as “universal health care.” The alleged reform is deemed necessary because there are some who cannot afford health insurance and cannot afford directly paying for health care. Why? Answer; the high charges are likely due, at least in some part, to the costs charged by doctors, which are quite high. Why? Answer; the high charges are likely, again, at least in some part, because the insurance premiums paid by the doctor for “malpractice insurance” are so high. Why? Answer; the high charges from the insurance companies are likely due to the high dollar lawsuits that are won by “predatory lawyers” for doctors committing “mal practice,” or, said another way, for doctors not providing medical care error free.
While it may be true that pilots believe they have a right to practice their trade behind a shield of “privacy,” there are many who feel that this assumption is … well, bogus - and I'm one of them. However, if there were a means for being able to visually see (and hear) what went on in a cockpit when someone was injured (or worse), it is quite likely that the “predatory lawyers” would be all over every incident, no matter the size. Potential law suits for everything from “injuries” sustained in “hard landings” to the traumas suffered by late arrivals, would explode exponentially - and there are some who believe this is exactly what is happening on an ever-increasing scale today. If this does happen or happens to any large degree, airlines or individual pilots are likely to be forced into “mal practice insurance systems” similar to those of doctors – on the equally bogus basis that airline passengers have a legal right to expect their flight to be delivered “error free.”
I would submit that unless and until humans can develop a process for training and then applying that training in such a manner that will ensure 100% error-free performance of any task, each and every time that task is performed, this type of “predatory law” will continue to be practiced – OR – it will until someone, someplace, takes the bull by the horns and disallows such idiocy from continuing. What the passengers deserve is the best trained pilots HUMANS can produce - and I’m not at all sure that includes computer-flown (notice, I said "flown," not "controlled") airplanes. One of the very best ways of modifying the training provided to anyone, is to find out what went wrong (or how a particular event was averted) and then find a way to provide that information to those in need of it. I think one of the best ways to do this in the world of aviation is to include audio, video, avionic, flight control, and aircraft response monitoring that would be used exclusively for error detection and correction. But as long as the persons involved are identified and someone, someplace, can get a legal decision that the person at the controls didn’t provide the service 100% error free, and is, therefore, legally obligated to pay fines and penalties, I’m afraid we’re going to see this argument continue – while unidentified errors continue – and we all are condemned to the potential of repeating those unidentified errors - while we train to avoid "probable causes."
krujje;
The difficulty with "enframing the discussion" in a "motif of transparency" (so that the "logic" of transparency/honesty is perceived as "irrefutable") is, most who are presented with the information:
a) have no time to devote attention to the information;
b) have no comprehension of what the information means,
and therefore cannot make rational, relevant decisions/assessments regarding the information available. Instead, inevitable misunderstandings lead to "simple" conclusions which then turn into policy, or prejudice. It's a human thing, not an aviation thing...
It doesn't matter whether one is a professional in another field and also an "SLF" who is cognizant of and interested in the issues being discussed on PPRuNe or elsewhere. "Transparency" is a "rights" notion, not a tactical notion upon which intelligent decisions may then be made simply because no one "off the street" is capable of understanding the flight safety dialogue or the priorities and methods in the work yet the publicly-traded notion of "transparency" has that very goal in mind. The intent of transparency fails immediately and through no one's "fault".
Where such honestly-intended processes and programs leave a vacuum, special interests, (meaning a "strategic ignorance"), rapidly fill the absence of understanding, "enframing" the dialogue in perhaps legal terms, financial/economic terms, terrorist/fear terms or labor/management (industrial) terms and so on.
Operations managers in some cases can't even comprehend and interpret simple spreadsheets and traces let alone the depth of safety information available because they are specialists in operations, scheduling, keeping things going - they can't/don't wear two hats, (and that is the chief problem with SMS which is being compounded as safety specialists such as FOQA staff are reduced in numbers as safety responsibilities are "shared" with operations personnel, again, under SMS).
On the other hand, many people, rightly or wrongly, insist on complete transparency when it comes to decisions and actions which are being made about their personal safety or any other aspect of their lives... but that's a whole debate in and of itself.
a) have no time to devote attention to the information;
b) have no comprehension of what the information means,
and therefore cannot make rational, relevant decisions/assessments regarding the information available. Instead, inevitable misunderstandings lead to "simple" conclusions which then turn into policy, or prejudice. It's a human thing, not an aviation thing...
It doesn't matter whether one is a professional in another field and also an "SLF" who is cognizant of and interested in the issues being discussed on PPRuNe or elsewhere. "Transparency" is a "rights" notion, not a tactical notion upon which intelligent decisions may then be made simply because no one "off the street" is capable of understanding the flight safety dialogue or the priorities and methods in the work yet the publicly-traded notion of "transparency" has that very goal in mind. The intent of transparency fails immediately and through no one's "fault".
Where such honestly-intended processes and programs leave a vacuum, special interests, (meaning a "strategic ignorance"), rapidly fill the absence of understanding, "enframing" the dialogue in perhaps legal terms, financial/economic terms, terrorist/fear terms or labor/management (industrial) terms and so on.
Operations managers in some cases can't even comprehend and interpret simple spreadsheets and traces let alone the depth of safety information available because they are specialists in operations, scheduling, keeping things going - they can't/don't wear two hats, (and that is the chief problem with SMS which is being compounded as safety specialists such as FOQA staff are reduced in numbers as safety responsibilities are "shared" with operations personnel, again, under SMS).
AirRabbit;
Interesting post - some food for thought, for sure.
Regarding "mal-practise", I wonder if the analogy with the medical profession breaks down somewhat in the nature of the relationship with the employer? Pilots are generally hired and work for large and small organizations alike whereas doctors are generally not employees but businessmen and thus must shoulder a greater burden of the obvious risks.
In lawsuits, while anyone remotely connected with the incident/accident is cited it is the organization/airline and the manufacturers who usually have the deep pockets whereas it is the doctors themselves who are the corporation.
I can't see pilots having to "carry mal-practise insurance" because of this.
Usually, the pilot is the way to the organization and not the target. It is generally not like that in the medical profession even though hospitals may be targets.
I hope I'm not misinterpreting your thoughts here - the "learning", of which you speak, is being done and has been done for decades. What you are looking for is the erradication of human error in complex systems.
If I understand your points, our industry suggests a different approach - full erradication of error is a "brittle" solution; it takes only one example to break the model.
A risk-tolerant, "graceful failure" system is not brittle but shields the system from single-point (human error) failures through layering of defences, intervening soft-failures, backups etc - I think you get the picture and likely have considered these notions already...
Interesting post - some food for thought, for sure.
Regarding "mal-practise", I wonder if the analogy with the medical profession breaks down somewhat in the nature of the relationship with the employer? Pilots are generally hired and work for large and small organizations alike whereas doctors are generally not employees but businessmen and thus must shoulder a greater burden of the obvious risks.
In lawsuits, while anyone remotely connected with the incident/accident is cited it is the organization/airline and the manufacturers who usually have the deep pockets whereas it is the doctors themselves who are the corporation.
I can't see pilots having to "carry mal-practise insurance" because of this.
Usually, the pilot is the way to the organization and not the target. It is generally not like that in the medical profession even though hospitals may be targets.
I hope I'm not misinterpreting your thoughts here - the "learning", of which you speak, is being done and has been done for decades. What you are looking for is the erradication of human error in complex systems.
If I understand your points, our industry suggests a different approach - full erradication of error is a "brittle" solution; it takes only one example to break the model.
A risk-tolerant, "graceful failure" system is not brittle but shields the system from single-point (human error) failures through layering of defences, intervening soft-failures, backups etc - I think you get the picture and likely have considered these notions already...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aseanaero: "Longer term you can see where we are heading anyway , real time remote monitoring and recording of all aspects of the flight as a back up."
Maybe all this monitoring in real time combined with all those fancy computers controlling our aircraft would one day mean we will do all of our flights from some dark room. we would just monitor the action.
This of course would also help the airlines, as 2 more seats would be available to pay for our salaries.
a bit far fetched ..
but possible .
Maybe all this monitoring in real time combined with all those fancy computers controlling our aircraft would one day mean we will do all of our flights from some dark room. we would just monitor the action.
This of course would also help the airlines, as 2 more seats would be available to pay for our salaries.
a bit far fetched ..
but possible .