HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2130 times:
Why is a Cockpit Image Recorder not considered essential on Commercial Aircraft,when it would help in Investigation.Apart from Costs & maybe privicy to some individuals What is prevnting them from replacing the CVR.
regds
HAWK
Regarding this topic, I myself have mixed emotions. I believe most airline pilots are against the idea for various reasons, and I agree with most of their thoughts.
On the other hand, I'm sure the Transportation Safety Boards that investigate aircraft accidents in any country would love to have cameras in the cockpit to help them determine the cause of an accident (if cameras could), which doesn't seem bad to me at first thought, but then there's the Blame Game to think about too.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
I think it is a great idea for investigations, but at the same time, would you like someone following you around the hangar floor with a video camera? So it's easy for me to say install them, but I can understand the pilots not liking it.
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
Pilots also did not initially like the concept of CVR's however, the need to know what happened, and prevent it from happening again, outweighed their concerns and they were installed and are now standard equipment. The same goes for CIR's.
One of the things that I have seen that I kind of agree with on CIR's is interpretation of what is being presented. Not everyone sees things the same way and what could be interpreted by one person could be interpreted entirely differently by someone else. They (the NTSB and other such agencies world-wide) need to set standards by how this information is handled. It also needs to be kept out of the public eye (out of respect for those who might have perished in the crash).
MxCtrlr
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
I think the Images should only be used for Investigative purposes & not available to the General Public.
Also the Cameras can focus on the Equipment/Instruments rather than crew.
regds
MEL
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 40 Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1848 times:
As I recall, the plan is to use several cameras, including a wide-angle of the overall cockpit from behind the pilots, so as to capture most of the views of the flight deck. It could be an invaluable tool in crash investigation (for example, the infamous "Onff" on the QH Palm 90 CVR transcripts, for whether the engine anti-ice was called "On" or "Off" during the "During Taxi" Checklist.) A visual record would have most likely been able to see if the switch was actually On or Off (although post-crash investigation showed the switch was in the "Off" position but that could have been affected by the aircraft crash).
In other incidents, CIR could have provided a clearer picture of the conditions on the flight deck (as in VJ Critter 592, when the crew reported "Smoke in the cockpit." CIR would have shown exactly how bad the smoke was).
MxCtrlr
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1790 times:
I dont think that the cameras can add more information than current FDR/CVR's or adds very little that the cost of it does not worth fitting.Airline companies are very sceptical of fitting any extras that cost a lot of money to their airplanes unless it brings more benefit that its cost.
Most pilots may feel like invasion of their privacy on work environment and feeling of being in the TV show "Big Brother"(for those unfamiliar,big brother is a TV show which bunch of idiots live in a container full of cameras and people watch them,aired in most countries with different names) may add extra pressure to the flight crew which can lead to more disadvantages that the advantages that gives.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1706 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Using video footage to gather information about a past accident or incident is one thing, but I fear airline management would abuse the system by second-guessing pilots and punishing them for imperfect day-to-day decisions. As they say...hindsight is 20/20, and in a situation that requires quick decisions to be made inflight, nobody is more qualified than the flight crew to make these decisions. People on the ground simply do not have all the necessary information at their disposal. Pure telemetry does not communicate the subtle visual, aural, and "seat-of-the-pants" cues that influence decisions made in the cockpit. There is also much to be said for instinct and past experience...something that can only be effectively used when in the situation one is attempting to control.
I can imagine airlines implementing a sort of "video police" to watch over flight crews and monitor their behavior, a la "1984" by George Orwell. A much more frightening version of Big Brother.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
I would rather see all the airlines add fire suppression systems to the cargo holds before adding camera's in the cockpits.
I agree with the sentiment. While cameras may help, if you're going to spend money making aviation safer, surely there are other areas which would benefit more from the investment?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7991 posts, RR: 27 Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
Also the Cameras can focus on the Equipment/Instruments rather than crew.
I find that rather pointless as instruments are all recorded on the FDR.
UAL Bagsmasher From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2130 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1674 times:
As far as the privacy issue is concerned, many employees in other airline departments (ramp, CS, MX) are already under video surveillance. What's the big deal over cockpit crews?
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
2H4 nailed it as to what the big deal is. What he describes happening is every pilot's fear. We do not need to worry about how our actions or reactions will be percieved in hindsight during an emergency. Pilots are already subject to background checks, medical checks, proficiency checks, line checks, and regular harrasment by the TSA. We do not want to be watched every single second we work. The flight deck should be a place where all that fades away and you can concentrate on the work at hand. It should not be a place where you have to worry about who else is checking up on you. Many would argue that if you don't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear. I disagree. That excuse has been used for various encroachments into personal lives. It doesn't make it valid.
Furthermore, FDR's are already abused by companies and I can only imagine what abuse we would see from video. A modern, digital FDR can provide all the data needed to reconstruct an accident to the nth degree. At some point it comes down to trust. You have to trust the people you give the responsibility of operating the aircraft. If you don't, why were they hired in the first place?
Sponsor Message: 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2780 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
