TWACaptain wrote:Nothing that Wrigley's crewing gum can't take care of.
That would be incredibly dumb.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TWACaptain wrote:Nothing that Wrigley's crewing gum can't take care of.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:11C wrote:You have no privacy on company time. That they extend it, is a favor they pass onto you.Gremlinzzzz wrote:There is a reason I made a rather simple post in response to your response.
Like in every other sector, this will start as something that is used for safety but its utility will not end there, it. This is what has happened in almost every work setting and this in the natural evolution of things. I do not know of a single company that is in the business of leaking stuff and trying to gain bad press, yet it is these extremes that you and other pilots hang onto in this topic.
Fact is that things must get easier with improvements to tech and if the benefits outweigh the few negatives then application of technology should be embraced. No one really gives a damn outside pilots; if this has the potential to improve how accidents are understood, if it leads to better training of pilots, if it leads to better cockpit design, and if it leads to vastly lower accident rates, or gets rid of doubt when it comes to understanding accidents, then there are more benefits gained. This is what we as passengers want, this is what airlines desire, and if the cost is the discomfort of pilots so be it.
I am also not blind to note that each and every regulation comes at some cost. There are winners and there are those that cede ground. This is true for all regulation and it is true for all deregulation. Increased regulation leads to more cost, always. This has to be weighted against the potential gain and if that gain in this case is safer skies, then what the hell are we still arguing about?
In each accident investigation, there are findings as to what went wrong. This is not attaching blame, it is a statement of fact as to what happened. There are accidents that are down to pilot error (the vast majority), the are accidents that come from poor maintenance practices and there are accidents that come from shoddy plane design, or even ATC mistakes etc. No matter what happens, there is always someone who owns that mistake and has to take responsibility, but the net gain is that the industry learn from mistakes so that they are not repeated.
This notion that you can go to work, mess about and not have to deal with the fallout is strange to me. We just had a poorly designed jet where the OEM tried to blame pilots. The jet was grounded for 2 years and is still not flying in parts of the world. The manufacturer has not only dealt with the software at fault, but had to rework a lot of other things, and the financial hit is not yet fully understood. The regulator has come out as being incompetent and impotent. You allocate responsibility for said mistakes and then look for solutions.
What were the mistakes? When did they happen and in what order? And more importantly, why did they happen? How do we ensure it never happens again? This is understanding the underlying issues and looking for solutions.
By the way, pilots are not the only professionals that are highly monitored, there are those that are monitored to a vastly greater degree. And you are damn right they are continually tested, and why shouldn't this be the case? What does this have to do with trying to make aviation safer?
Forgive me for summarizing your argument, but because you sling a lot of verbiage, I find it necessary. You are seemingly arguing that we should spend a substantial amount of money (no, you can’t just stick go pros on an airplane, it will be an expensive STC, or similar certification process) because there are presently unknown benefits to putting cameras in the cockpit that will later reveal themselves. You mention “potential” to improve how accidents are understood. Again, specifics! How exactly would the benefit outweigh the cost? Nobody here ever bothers to say, because, in my opinion, there is no compelling reason at the present time. I’m also very tired of the implication that we are on the flight deck performing any number of unspeakable acts. We all know that there have been the jackasses (clothing optional, political diatribes on stuck mics, etc), but the vast majority of us are professionals doing our jobs. Give up your privacy willingly, but I won’t.
Cockpit video recorders will come on board, it is only a matter of time. Pilots will complain, they may strike. Once regulation is there, they will work and wait for a salary and if it means you keep opinions to yourself in that environment, so be it. Most of us have learnt how to be politically correct and it has not killed us.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:You have no privacy on company time.
dr1980 wrote:It really seems crazy to me that they don’t already have them. Very archaic to have to try and interpolate what happened in a cockpit in a crash by using the existing black boxes when a few cameras could make a huge difference.
OpsCheckNML wrote:No more sleeping in the cockpit.
armagnac2010 wrote:1) A significant proportion of accidents involve human factor issues – the 737Max, AF447, Air Asia etc. Video recordings would have been extremely helpful to quickly and accurately analyse the issues at stake. Please note that human factor issues do not equate to pilot error – most of the time, this is the opposite, a poor design traps the crew into unrecoverable situation (eg the 737). Reconstructing crew actions from the DFDR and CVR is simply not fit for purpose.
armagnac2010 wrote:2) This is not only NTSB – this is also BEA France, AAIB Uk, BFU Germany etc which are repeatedly issuing safety recommendations begging for video recordings.
armagnac2010 wrote:3) I am not aware of leaked CVRs in recent major accidents. Accident reports typically feature heavily edited transcript. The real stuff can be unbearable, if you are a normal person.
armagnac2010 wrote:4) For intrusive employers, generally in countries where Just culture is just a distant concept, installing a small camera recoding the crew is easy and straightforward. It is already there, no regulation needed.
armagnac2010 wrote:5) In my own opinion, the biggest threat for pilots is not video recording but rather the permanent monitoring of flight parameter, with automatic transmission and analysis. Slightly deviate from the nominal flight path, look for another job. SMS, they call it.
zeke wrote:OpsCheckNML wrote:No more sleeping in the cockpit.
Many regulators around the world permit controlled rest in the cockpit, it is also part of the ICAO FRMS, the FAA should adopt the ICAO standard.
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1756.pdf
https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/upl ... d-Rest.pdf
32andBelow wrote:goboeing wrote:Noshow wrote:Pilots get ranked for fuel used and bad landings and such.
Alright, if you want any credibility whatsoever in this discussion, you're going to now have to tell us about how pilots are ranked for fuel and bad landings and such.
Go ahead, we're waiting.
There’s a system called FOQA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_ ... _assurance
That is the very slippery slope that this opens the door to. This thread started with the view that video be stored to aid in the investigation of accidents, yet a third or greater of this thread has nothing to do with accident investigation, purely industrial reasons to monitor crew. That will not be an advancement in safety, it will have the opposite effect.
Many regulators around the world permit controlled rest in the cockpit, it is also part of the ICAO FRMS, the FAA should adopt the ICAO standard.
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1756.pdf
https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/upl ... d-Rest.pdf
This simply is not true, we knew as soon as the FDR was downloaded that the issue was both with the Max and AF447. A camera would not provide any insight into the pilot control inputs as no camera exists that can look through a pilots seat and the pilot.
And yet not a single business case has been presented where a real cost benefit analysis has been made, none of those agencies have unresolved airliner accident investigations.
ozark1 wrote:After the angry recording from the Southwest pilot and his feelings regarding the West Coast plus recording after recording of other, more important statements regarding the status of flight problems, what makes adding video to the mix so invasive? Like that ditching of Air Niugini filmed by a cockpit jumpseater. You saw no ones face, just the instrument readings. ALPA will always be opposed but, to me, additional information gleaned from technical readouts from the instruments would be extremely valuable.
zeke wrote:The cause of a crash can be determined very quickly after data has been downloaded from a FDR, the reason for that is they provide thousands of data points at a high sampling rate from control inputs to aircraft systems. A camera is simply unable to capture that data, for example the seats and pilots would obscure vision of the pilot control inputs or their displays, or the displays are at the wrong angle to be readable like the FMC. People also think cameras are great, however in reality they are very inferior to the human eye, I can see things with my eyes that a camera cannot see, that simply due to the fact that a human eye has a resolution of around 600 megapixel, where a surveillance camera maybe only around 2 megapixel.
hayzel777 wrote:My ex-employer used to do this exact thing, but recently removed it after the pilots nearly went on strike over the use of FOQA and the lack of freedom in onboarding fuel as determined by the PIC. They would use FOQA data to "judge" our landings using G meter, VS etc. and our captain upgrade was partially dependent on it. I also understand that a certain ME3 carrier was laying pilots off based on who/how many times one onboarded additional fuel beyond what the dispatcher had originally planned.
Chemist wrote:kiowa wrote:garpd wrote:
Completely agree on that part.
The government and the NTSB are not capable of not leaking the footage. This is the stuff lawyers salivate over.
So then you would promote the elimination of the CVR then?
acecrackshot wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:I have to wonder why this wasn't proposed after the AC759 near miss (which could have resulted in 3 planes being destroyed). What caused AC759 to ultimately line up with the taxiway was never fully determined, and ATC didn't notice what was wrong even after the landing clearance was challenged.
Land at SFO at night and tell us how befuddling this was.
KingOrGod wrote:acecrackshot wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:I have to wonder why this wasn't proposed after the AC759 near miss (which could have resulted in 3 planes being destroyed). What caused AC759 to ultimately line up with the taxiway was never fully determined, and ATC didn't notice what was wrong even after the landing clearance was challenged.
Land at SFO at night and tell us how befuddling this was.
Lining up with runway centreline is befuddling? Find another job then I guess...
aemoreira1981 wrote:KingOrGod wrote:acecrackshot wrote:
Land at SFO at night and tell us how befuddling this was.
Lining up with runway centreline is befuddling? Find another job then I guess...
There was a review done and the NTSB determined it could be confusing. That is why the audio could have been useful, as a tool for knowing what needs fixing (the pilot did challenge the landing clearance before going around).
zeke wrote:That is your expectation, and it has been entertained. It is not a right. You seem to be confusing the two.Gremlinzzzz wrote:You have no privacy on company time.
There already exists an agreed expectation of privacy in a cockpit. Also if you take the example of passenger trains in the US, they have audio and video recording black boxes, however the law specifically prevents the employers using that data against the employees, the only agency that can use the data is the NTSB. Trains do not cross international boundaries as readily as aircraft do, there are many countries where US flagged aircraft operate to that do not have the similar legal and investigation frameworks, where release of that data can be used for political purposes.
washingtonflyer wrote:zeke wrote:The cause of a crash can be determined very quickly after data has been downloaded from a FDR, the reason for that is they provide thousands of data points at a high sampling rate from control inputs to aircraft systems. A camera is simply unable to capture that data, for example the seats and pilots would obscure vision of the pilot control inputs or their displays, or the displays are at the wrong angle to be readable like the FMC. People also think cameras are great, however in reality they are very inferior to the human eye, I can see things with my eyes that a camera cannot see, that simply due to the fact that a human eye has a resolution of around 600 megapixel, where a surveillance camera maybe only around 2 megapixel.
What's ironic about this is that the FDR data shows how it happened, it does not show why it happened. Egypt Air 990 is one example. Heck, there is a difference of opinion about why OZ214 crashed at SFO. Some say pure pilot error; others say that its a Boeing manufacturing defect. Cockpit vid would have provided additional information about both of these incidents.
And frankly, you are insulting our intelligence Zeke. Your average iPhone camera has 12 megapixels of image capture. My HP smartphoto camera from 1999 had 2 megapixels. Please save the fear for important issues. Surveillance cameras are easily obtainable with 8 megapixel ability. You don't need 600 megapixels to see a pilot yawning...
LTEN11 wrote:washingtonflyer wrote:zeke wrote:The cause of a crash can be determined very quickly after data has been downloaded from a FDR, the reason for that is they provide thousands of data points at a high sampling rate from control inputs to aircraft systems. A camera is simply unable to capture that data, for example the seats and pilots would obscure vision of the pilot control inputs or their displays, or the displays are at the wrong angle to be readable like the FMC. People also think cameras are great, however in reality they are very inferior to the human eye, I can see things with my eyes that a camera cannot see, that simply due to the fact that a human eye has a resolution of around 600 megapixel, where a surveillance camera maybe only around 2 megapixel.
What's ironic about this is that the FDR data shows how it happened, it does not show why it happened. Egypt Air 990 is one example. Heck, there is a difference of opinion about why OZ214 crashed at SFO. Some say pure pilot error; others say that its a Boeing manufacturing defect. Cockpit vid would have provided additional information about both of these incidents.
And frankly, you are insulting our intelligence Zeke. Your average iPhone camera has 12 megapixels of image capture. My HP smartphoto camera from 1999 had 2 megapixels. Please save the fear for important issues. Surveillance cameras are easily obtainable with 8 megapixel ability. You don't need 600 megapixels to see a pilot yawning...
Exactly, this crap about 2 megapixel cameras is insulting really. Samsung claim the forward facing camera in the S21 is 40 megapixels, with another 3 cameras taking up a total space of 40mm x 15mm x 10mm. Why the hell would you only have one camera and place it behind the pilot ? 5 or 6 well placed cameras could give complete, clear coverage of what was happening in a cockpit and would be of great value to any investigation team.
Everybody has concerns with privacy issues when it comes to workplace surveillance, but sometimes these reservations have to be put aside for the benefits that they can bring.
jetmatt777 wrote:LTEN11 wrote:washingtonflyer wrote:
What's ironic about this is that the FDR data shows how it happened, it does not show why it happened. Egypt Air 990 is one example. Heck, there is a difference of opinion about why OZ214 crashed at SFO. Some say pure pilot error; others say that its a Boeing manufacturing defect. Cockpit vid would have provided additional information about both of these incidents.
And frankly, you are insulting our intelligence Zeke. Your average iPhone camera has 12 megapixels of image capture. My HP smartphoto camera from 1999 had 2 megapixels. Please save the fear for important issues. Surveillance cameras are easily obtainable with 8 megapixel ability. You don't need 600 megapixels to see a pilot yawning...
Exactly, this crap about 2 megapixel cameras is insulting really. Samsung claim the forward facing camera in the S21 is 40 megapixels, with another 3 cameras taking up a total space of 40mm x 15mm x 10mm. Why the hell would you only have one camera and place it behind the pilot ? 5 or 6 well placed cameras could give complete, clear coverage of what was happening in a cockpit and would be of great value to any investigation team.
Everybody has concerns with privacy issues when it comes to workplace surveillance, but sometimes these reservations have to be put aside for the benefits that they can bring.
I used to install security cameras and even top-end professional models are only several megapixels. The power, storage, and bandwidth requirements of super high-res cameras are very costly. Especially in a multi camera setup. I have 6 professional cameras installed in my house (not what you buy at BestBuy), they eat up a LOT of data.
LTEN11 wrote:jetmatt777 wrote:LTEN11 wrote:
Exactly, this crap about 2 megapixel cameras is insulting really. Samsung claim the forward facing camera in the S21 is 40 megapixels, with another 3 cameras taking up a total space of 40mm x 15mm x 10mm. Why the hell would you only have one camera and place it behind the pilot ? 5 or 6 well placed cameras could give complete, clear coverage of what was happening in a cockpit and would be of great value to any investigation team.
Everybody has concerns with privacy issues when it comes to workplace surveillance, but sometimes these reservations have to be put aside for the benefits that they can bring.
I used to install security cameras and even top-end professional models are only several megapixels. The power, storage, and bandwidth requirements of super high-res cameras are very costly. Especially in a multi camera setup. I have 6 professional cameras installed in my house (not what you buy at BestBuy), they eat up a LOT of data.
Yet aircraft have an FDR recording how many different parameters and storing them, it's not like you're looking to store every minute of an 18 hour flight. Even if the cameras are only "several" megapixels, they are only focused on a small area and coupled with the other data available and knowledge of cockpit layouts, investigators will still get a better picture of what was happening onboard, it's not like it's necessary to see the sweat running off some unfortunate souls brow in an emergency, you just need to get a clearer picture of the crews actions, or inactions. Crews viewing their own actions at a later date maybe surprised at what they had done in a situation, compared to what they thought they had.
jetmatt777 wrote:LTEN11 wrote:jetmatt777 wrote:
I used to install security cameras and even top-end professional models are only several megapixels. The power, storage, and bandwidth requirements of super high-res cameras are very costly. Especially in a multi camera setup. I have 6 professional cameras installed in my house (not what you buy at BestBuy), they eat up a LOT of data.
Yet aircraft have an FDR recording how many different parameters and storing them, it's not like you're looking to store every minute of an 18 hour flight. Even if the cameras are only "several" megapixels, they are only focused on a small area and coupled with the other data available and knowledge of cockpit layouts, investigators will still get a better picture of what was happening onboard, it's not like it's necessary to see the sweat running off some unfortunate souls brow in an emergency, you just need to get a clearer picture of the crews actions, or inactions. Crews viewing their own actions at a later date maybe surprised at what they had done in a situation, compared to what they thought they had.
You were the one who suggested super high-res video, not me.
LTEN11 wrote:jetmatt777 wrote:LTEN11 wrote:
Yet aircraft have an FDR recording how many different parameters and storing them, it's not like you're looking to store every minute of an 18 hour flight. Even if the cameras are only "several" megapixels, they are only focused on a small area and coupled with the other data available and knowledge of cockpit layouts, investigators will still get a better picture of what was happening onboard, it's not like it's necessary to see the sweat running off some unfortunate souls brow in an emergency, you just need to get a clearer picture of the crews actions, or inactions. Crews viewing their own actions at a later date maybe surprised at what they had done in a situation, compared to what they thought they had.
You were the one who suggested super high-res video, not me.
I highlighted that a phone can have a high quality camera, another poster was claiming nothing more than 2 megapixels was possible, I never said you would need super high res video. Use 2 megapixel cameras, put in 5 or 6 of then and your still going to see everything you need too see.
armagnac2010 wrote:The video is not there to determine the pilot input, but rather why the pilot input was made (or not made, most of the time).
armagnac2010 wrote:Egyptair 804 is an obvious counter example; a video will help to understand if and how a fire destroyed the flight deck. Other accident investigations are still controversial (Egyptair 990, for instance) and a video will resolve any such argument. Your statement is debatable even considering your understanding of accident investigation stopping at pilot action. More is needed to address systemtic causes and human factor issues.
armagnac2010 wrote:I am also convinced that had a video recording being made of the first 737Max accident, the evidence from the accident investigation will have prompted more rapid / drastic actions from FAA and Boeing, preventing the second one. This is certainly speculation, but a reasonable one.
washingtonflyer wrote:We can also throw in any number of crashes where the pilots lost spatial orientation owing to flying into cloud cover. We have weather reports and METAR data but often seeing what the pilots were seeing (or not seeing) can provide a major queue to an investigation. One example of this is US 1493. There is a lot of speculation that because US 1493 was flying directly into the sun for a large portion of the flight that it affected the vision of the pilots as they landed and made it much more difficult for them to see the Metroliner lined up on the runway for an intersection takeoff.
washingtonflyer wrote:Buses have them; train locomotive and control cabs have them; cargo ships and cruise ships have them.
KingOrGod wrote:Lining up with runway centreline is befuddling? Find another job then I guess...
Gremlinzzzz wrote:That is your expectation, and it has been entertained. It is not a right. You seem to be confusing the two.
LTEN11 wrote:Exactly, this crap about 2 megapixel cameras is insulting really. Samsung claim the forward facing camera in the S21 is 40 megapixels, with another 3 cameras taking up a total space of 40mm x 15mm x 10mm. Why the hell would you only have one camera and place it behind the pilot ? 5 or 6 well placed cameras could give complete, clear coverage of what was happening in a cockpit and would be of great value to any investigation team.
jetmatt777 wrote:I used to install security cameras and even top-end professional models are only several megapixels. The power, storage, and bandwidth requirements of super high-res cameras are very costly. Especially in a multi camera setup. I have 6 professional cameras installed in my house (not what you buy at BestBuy), they eat up a LOT of data.
LTEN11 wrote:I highlighted that a phone can have a high quality camera, another poster was claiming nothing more than 2 megapixels was possible, I never said you would need super high res video. Use 2 megapixel cameras, put in 5 or 6 of then and your still going to see everything you need too see.
jetmatt777 wrote:LTEN11 wrote:jetmatt777 wrote:
You were the one who suggested super high-res video, not me.
I highlighted that a phone can have a high quality camera, another poster was claiming nothing more than 2 megapixels was possible, I never said you would need super high res video. Use 2 megapixel cameras, put in 5 or 6 of then and your still going to see everything you need too see.
Fair enough.
One aspect for this application that will need to be solved with modern video camera formats (that is usually not impacted with straight-line data feeds such as sensor inputs, audio recordings, etc.) is data-loss in compression. Usually, video interpolates frames to save on file size, this means that one frame has data the next frame needs, and it needs data from the previous frame. This compression allows video to be saved in smaller formats, however it means that a physically damaged file can be completely unusable. For this reason, GoPros record in blocks (which can be stitched together later) where if the memory card is damaged you still get SOME recoverable video, instead of none. For example a 25 minute video may be recorded in 5 chunks. But your GoPro fell off it's mount and tumbled down the side of a cliff. When you finally find it you lost the last 5 minutes because the file corrupted as it was writing at the time it was damaged. But you kept the first 20 minutes because it recorded it in chunks. That would not help a post-crash investigation too much if you missed the critical moments of the emergency.
That is not something that cannot be overcome, but it is one of the other technical challenges to video that doesn't present itself in other formats. Those other formats can largely write data and close files before they are corrupted, where a video file has to process in chunks and then save to the file. A half-processed video will not save.
Perhaps recording chunks could be standardized based on the inertial imputs. Slow and level flight, 5 minute processing chunks may work. If flight behavior begins to get erratic it could revert to 2-3 second chunks. More work for the investigation team stitching together 3 second videos, but the likelihood of those 3 second video files surviving are greater than larger files where just a few corrupted lines in the file can render the video unplayable.
I am not an expert in this field, but I do a lot of video work these days and it can be extremely finicky and data intensive. I think people are under the impression you can tape a gopro up to the CB panel and wire it into a SSD and solve the next crash. That's not so, there would be quite a bit of work involved to make it a reliable data source, and a lot of legal work to make sure the data cannot be abused.
oldJoe wrote:zeke in well respect to you !
"A video does not show why something happened, it records what happened, same as a FDR. "
Flight 4U 9525 could have spend much less $$$ if there was a camera on board, does it ?
oldJoe wrote:I don`t understand why pilots are so against it ! Is there something to hide when you are using a muli- million asset of your employe ?
SteelChair wrote:One wonders why pilots are so opposed to the idea? What are they hiding?
SteelChair wrote:And lest anyone think that pilots and their unions are looking out for the best interests of the industry, they were wrong on removal of the flight engineer, and they were wrong on ETOPS.
SteelChair wrote:Now corporate operators can block their callsigns.
SteelChair wrote:It so seems ironic that this issue is coming up just as the first seeds of the end of the pilot profession come to fruition (I'm referring to UAVs).
LTEN11 wrote:Can anybody tell me if simulator sessions are currently recorded and if they are, what sort of system is used ? ie : single camera, multiple cameras and their locations ?
zeke wrote:No one gives a damn that tellers are monitored on camera, their every action captured on banking systems. No one gives a damn that police are monitored on video, and audio and no one cares that cameras have been installed on different work setups.oldJoe wrote:zeke in well respect to you !
"A video does not show why something happened, it records what happened, same as a FDR. "
Flight 4U 9525 could have spend much less $$$ if there was a camera on board, does it ?
A camera in that Germanwings aircraft would likely have not shown much at all, with the seat blocking view of the sidestick. We knew very soon after the even what happened, it took the investigation some time to do get the background on the FOs medical history. A camera cannot see into someone's mind.oldJoe wrote:I don`t understand why pilots are so against it ! Is there something to hide when you are using a muli- million asset of your employe ?
Every airline in the US already monitors their aircraft and pilots, and has been for decades. They are able to pull up thousands of parameters for flights from literally years ago. There is no other industry that has the same level of scrutiny. The issue is management has been abusing this data for a long time for industrial reasons, like the thread starter mentioned in their airline they used the data to grade landings as a key basis for promotion. They send us little graphs on how much fuel we use, our delays etc. We are also tested almost every 12 weeks, the training record system has marks over our entire career, they have a score for all of our reports.SteelChair wrote:One wonders why pilots are so opposed to the idea? What are they hiding?
Nothing is being hidden, its already being monitored. That has been stated multiple times over.SteelChair wrote:And lest anyone think that pilots and their unions are looking out for the best interests of the industry, they were wrong on removal of the flight engineer, and they were wrong on ETOPS.
Give us a break, pilots didn't advocate for that, the people who advocate for that are the same sort of people who use flight data analysis to stifle pilots careers today. If you knew anything about my posting history, I have always been a very strong advocate of quads. Numerous times I have told on here by bean counter/MBA types that quads are less safe than twins because they have more chance of an engine failure. Fact is engine failures happen so rarely that there is no tangible difference.SteelChair wrote:Now corporate operators can block their callsigns.
I dont have a problem with private aircraft having the ability to block their movements, likewise I don't have a problem with private vehicles not being tracked despite the fact they are involved in the majority of road deaths, crashes, and crime.SteelChair wrote:It so seems ironic that this issue is coming up just as the first seeds of the end of the pilot profession come to fruition (I'm referring to UAVs).
You are kidding, myself and my children will have long passed before airliners become pilotless. Ill probably have passed before driverless cars are even on the road.
zeke wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:No one gives a damn that tellers are monitored on camera, their every action captured on banking systems.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:No one gives a damn that police are monitored on video, and audio and no one cares that cameras have been installed on different work setups.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:No one outside entitled pilots and their unions will give a damn the moment these changes are presented as necessary to improve safety, or how investigators understand accidents.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:Finally, data is used everywhere, even your local grocery stall knows what times to increase supply and when to decrease it. Why different airlines use different data, and whether they implement it in the wrong on right way is another topic altogether. However, all businesses seem to stumble on this and then get better with time.
KingOrGod wrote:Even in my *very* limited time up front IFR, we had the ILS tuned as a backup on a visual for cross-checking. Evidently they're better than me
zeke wrote:Expectation is not a right. You still seem to be confusing these two things.They are areas which are generally open to the public, anyone can use a camera in there, there is no expectation of privacy. The reason why the cameras are there to capture members of the public committing a crime.
zeke wrote:Pilots will not be under the camera full time, just when they are flying the plane.Police dont have their cameras on all the time, and it very common for them to cover up the microphone so they cannot be heard. They are public servants mainly operating in the public, where anyone is allowed to use a camera. Courtrooms are areas where members of the public are generally not permitted, there is no first amendment right of access to civil proceedings, and when they are permitted it is by the invitation of the court which can be revoked at any time. Members of the public are not allowed to film in court rooms.
zeke wrote:No one is saying that cameras will stop accidents. NTSB wants them to expedite the investigation process, to better understand what went on so that we can have a safer flying environment be it better training, better cockpit design etc. This is what leads to lower accident rates.Clearly displaying an axe to grind against pilots, it is now clear what your motivation for your contributions on this thread are, and it is not safety related. I asked you for the basis under the law for your claims that cameras will be installed, you have not been able cite anything. There is no proof it will improve safety, installing a camera will not prevent an accident.
Investing in infrastructure, investing in training, investing in ATC, improving certification standards and processes is what prevents accidents.
zeke wrote:Sure shops use data they generate all the time, however as I pay with cash, and dont use store rewards cards, they have no idea who is making those purchases so they cannot profile me or annoy men with useless advertising. I dont use social media either. I dont understand some people fascination of sharing with the world every location they visit, and every meal they consume. Guess what, without having to tell the world where I have been, what I have eaten, and tell the shops what I am buying, I manage not to starve to death, keep a roof over my head, and keep warm. I have the right not to participate in mass corporate surveillance, if you want to, fine, fill your boots.
oldJoe wrote:zeke in well respect to you !
"A video does not show why something happened, it records what happened, same as a FDR. "
Flight 4U 9525 could have spend much less $$$ if there was a camera on board, does it ?
I don`t understand why pilots are so against it ! Is there something to hide when you are using a muli- million asset of your employe ?
CRJockey wrote:This is what I said when I stated that pilots are one of the most entitled employees I have seen in my life.Flight 4U9525 inestigation would have saved no cent with a camera. It was clear from the moment the CVR was being heard. And yes: first hand information.
Pilots are against it, because we value some kind of privacy at the workplace, same as everybody else. And in conjunction with the fact, that next to no investigation of accidents would have been materially different in outcome and recommendation with some camera pictures, the scale tips towards leaving a bit of privacy.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:Expectation is not a right. You still seem to be confusing these two things.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:Pilots will not be under the camera full time, just when they are flying the plane.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:No one is saying that cameras will stop accidents..
Gremlinzzzz wrote:NTSB wants them to expedite the investigation process, to better understand what went on so that we can have a safer flying environment be it better training, better cockpit design etc. This is what leads to lower accident rates.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:As a regulator, investigator, flight attendant, passenger, someone related to someone who flies a lot, what is there not to love?
Gremlinzzzz wrote:You need to get rid of this sky god mentality that aviation should center around pilots and start viewing it as a service that is paid for by clients. Those same people, including those that do not fly are busy bailing out your behinds at a time when many are losing jobs. So, zip it.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:And yet the airlines will collect consumer data and act on it as they see fit. Be it when we check in, historical data on people that cancel flights, passenger preferences especially in premium cabins etc. When your employers do that, it is trying to better understand market needs. When they monitor your performance, it is surveillance.
Surely, the hypocrisy is mind bending.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:You do not know that accident investigations would not have been materially different in outcome and recommendation because there is nothing you compare it to. This is not an argument, it is fact.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:If there is a chance, even a slight one that aviation will get better with some cameras on the cockpit, common sense states that the expectation of pilot privacy must perish. Our lives on what is a paid service must matter more than your valuation of some kind of privacy.
jetmatt777 wrote:I used to install security cameras and even top-end professional models are only several megapixels. The power, storage, and bandwidth requirements of super high-res cameras are very costly. Especially in a multi camera setup. I have 6 professional cameras installed in my house (not what you buy at BestBuy), they eat up a LOT of data.
Virtual737 wrote:I have 8 x 8MP cameras around my house.
zeke wrote:Virtual737 wrote:I have 8 x 8MP cameras around my house.
I bet you have something like a 8MP IMX219 sensor in that camera, I would wager it will only be be doing 30 Hz @ 1080p video which is 2mp. A lot of these camera state they can do higher resolution which is technically true however not practically. It comes at the expense of frame rates (like 15 fps), compression, transmission, and storage.
zeke wrote:[/quote]washingtonflyer wrote:Buses have them; train locomotive and control cabs have them; cargo ships and cruise ships have them.
Your facts claimed here are not true, trains do not have inwards facing cameras they only have outwards facing cameras, the reason for them is to capture the signals displayed and switches on the tracks. Trains and aircraft come under the same industrial legislation in the US due to the importance on them for interstate commerce. As the train network is being upgraded with Positive Train Control (PTC) technology, it will address the root cause for rail accidents.
zeke wrote:Gremlinzzzz wrote:Expectation is not a right. You still seem to be confusing these two things.
This is a forum for factual discussion, not for political grandstanding. I have provided the agreement nd the legislation which is relevant, and yet every time I have asked you to produce the law that that states that employees do not have rights in the workplace, I am reposed with unsupported opinion.
The owner and members of this site require you though the forum rules to produce the information that supports the comments you make. If you are unable to provide that information, you MUST clearly state what you are posting is your personal opinion, and not statement fact.Gremlinzzzz wrote:Pilots will not be under the camera full time, just when they are flying the plane.
What exactly do you think pilots do ?
Can you describe a setting where pilots would not be under camera surveillance then ? Definitely not at the airport, not on the ramp, not in the carpark, not at the office, these are all under surveillanceGremlinzzzz wrote:No one is saying that cameras will stop accidents..
By definition that means there is no safety benefit.Gremlinzzzz wrote:NTSB wants them to expedite the investigation process, to better understand what went on so that we can have a safer flying environment be it better training, better cockpit design etc. This is what leads to lower accident rates.
Rubbish, cameras would not make anything quicker, especially when the NTSB have no active airliner accidents to investigate. The majority of accidents have a cause that wasn't even on the aircraft. Besides, producing a report in 11 months instead of 12 months does not prevent another crash. If you read the NTSB finding from the last decade, we knew the reasons for these accidents from previous events, they just keep reoccurring because instead of investing where it actually makes a difference people just are looking for someone to blame. Blame does not prevent accidents.Gremlinzzzz wrote:As a regulator, investigator, flight attendant, passenger, someone related to someone who flies a lot, what is there not to love?
Its a garbage justification like WMDs were garbage justification for Iraq. There is no business case for this. How many airliner accidents in the US in the last year, still sitting at zero ? How many people killed with car accidents or guns ?
The last accident someone died in an airliner in the US was 17 October 2019, that was a turboprop landing on windy icy runway in Alaska.Gremlinzzzz wrote:You need to get rid of this sky god mentality that aviation should center around pilots and start viewing it as a service that is paid for by clients. Those same people, including those that do not fly are busy bailing out your behinds at a time when many are losing jobs. So, zip it.
I never once have been condescending to you, I have consistently been providing factual information which you have consistently brushed off like it does not exist. There is no outstanding airliner accidents in the US, there is not rush to finish investigations, there is no systemic pilot cause of accidents. There is monitoring of pilots, and has been for decades.
The only person coming across as being verdictive is you, you are the one throwing around labels like "elitist" and "sky gods". I wasn't born yesterday, I have seen this style of behavior many times before. Everyone reading your posts can see you have no real interest in improving safety.Gremlinzzzz wrote:And yet the airlines will collect consumer data and act on it as they see fit. Be it when we check in, historical data on people that cancel flights, passenger preferences especially in premium cabins etc. When your employers do that, it is trying to better understand market needs. When they monitor your performance, it is surveillance.
Surely, the hypocrisy is mind bending.
Again this is another false allegation, airlines do not operate ticketing systems or check-in systems, these are provided by a handful of third parties like Amadeus and Sabre (there are also others). For someone to have a record which is known to the system, they would need to sign up a frequent flyer program (which they agree to their flights being recoded), it is like any other customer loyalty program. There is no requirement to sign up to these programs in order to fly.Gremlinzzzz wrote:You do not know that accident investigations would not have been materially different in outcome and recommendation because there is nothing you compare it to. This is not an argument, it is fact.
Provide the evidence.
What you do not understand is the majority of incidents are not investigated by the NTSB, they are investigated by airlines. Investigator courses are offered to pilots regularly, the person you are lecturing maybe a fully qualified investigator. The majority of investigators in the US are not employed by the NTSB, they are employed by the airlines.Gremlinzzzz wrote:If there is a chance, even a slight one that aviation will get better with some cameras on the cockpit, common sense states that the expectation of pilot privacy must perish. Our lives on what is a paid service must matter more than your valuation of some kind of privacy.
Under the constitution any person in the US, being a citizen or not, do not have their rights diminished if they are at work. Your repeated claims that people have no rights at work are false.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:CRJockey wrote:This is what I said when I stated that pilots are one of the most entitled employees I have seen in my life.Flight 4U9525 inestigation would have saved no cent with a camera. It was clear from the moment the CVR was being heard. And yes: first hand information.
Pilots are against it, because we value some kind of privacy at the workplace, same as everybody else. And in conjunction with the fact, that next to no investigation of accidents would have been materially different in outcome and recommendation with some camera pictures, the scale tips towards leaving a bit of privacy.
You do not know that accident investigations would not have been materially different in outcome and recommendation because there is nothing you compare it to. This is not an argument, it is fact.
If there is a chance, even a slight one that aviation will get better with some cameras on the cockpit, common sense states that the expectation of pilot privacy must perish. Our lives on what is a paid service must matter more than your valuation of some kind of privacy.
CRJockey wrote:Actually I have spent far more professional time in my life not being a pilot. And still now, I am not only pilot. So while not arguing your right to feel about pilots whatever way you like, I have seen this sense of entitlement in people. Of all professional levels and in various fields of expertise.
And by the way, me and all my colleagues pretty much liked not having had a camera (not even voice recording, mind you) behind our desks. You know, those that can so tremendously improve safety just in case we make serious mistakes leading to loss of life by opening up the first hole in the swiss cheese model. So yes, people do mind privacy and they should. We are not in communist Romania.
And yes, I do know that accident investigations would not have materially different outcomes most of the time. Because I happen to have been part of some, well informed about many and I can conclude that whenever the root cause has been found, the root cause has been found. No need to see the FO of 4U not opening the door when you can deduct all necessary information from CVR and FDR data. No need to see how the three in the AF447 cockpit did not understand the situation for various reasons when you can deduct the necessary information from CVR and FDR data and, well, common sense. I could go on, but it is tiring me.
But for the sake of argument: I have been involved in trying to understand accidents and near accidents or accidents waiting to happen which were simple but blatant mistakes by maintenance personnel. Are you suggesting as well, we put a camera (or personal VR) on every mechanic just in case?
So whatever you feel you are entitled to as a paying customer, you are not. And life, as usual, is about keeping a balance. Flying is so incredibly safe, in my opinion as a professional in the industry and a pilot, putting cameras in cockpits do only little for improving anything, but have a whole lot of reason not to be there. The balance is not right.
But of course, you and your (kinda strong) opinion are valid just as well, everybody can have one.
And the NTSB might lobby for cameras just as unions and pilots representatives as well as regulation about privacy might lobby against it, for good reason. If that makes you feel unsafe in plane, please drive. But beware, it is kinda dangerous.
CRJockey wrote:...putting cameras in cockpits do only little for improving anything, but have a whole lot of reason not to be there. The balance is not right.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:CRJockey wrote:Actually I have spent far more professional time in my life not being a pilot. And still now, I am not only pilot. So while not arguing your right to feel about pilots whatever way you like, I have seen this sense of entitlement in people. Of all professional levels and in various fields of expertise.
And by the way, me and all my colleagues pretty much liked not having had a camera (not even voice recording, mind you) behind our desks. You know, those that can so tremendously improve safety just in case we make serious mistakes leading to loss of life by opening up the first hole in the swiss cheese model. So yes, people do mind privacy and they should. We are not in communist Romania.
And yes, I do know that accident investigations would not have materially different outcomes most of the time. Because I happen to have been part of some, well informed about many and I can conclude that whenever the root cause has been found, the root cause has been found. No need to see the FO of 4U not opening the door when you can deduct all necessary information from CVR and FDR data. No need to see how the three in the AF447 cockpit did not understand the situation for various reasons when you can deduct the necessary information from CVR and FDR data and, well, common sense. I could go on, but it is tiring me.
But for the sake of argument: I have been involved in trying to understand accidents and near accidents or accidents waiting to happen which were simple but blatant mistakes by maintenance personnel. Are you suggesting as well, we put a camera (or personal VR) on every mechanic just in case?
So whatever you feel you are entitled to as a paying customer, you are not. And life, as usual, is about keeping a balance. Flying is so incredibly safe, in my opinion as a professional in the industry and a pilot, putting cameras in cockpits do only little for improving anything, but have a whole lot of reason not to be there. The balance is not right.
But of course, you and your (kinda strong) opinion are valid just as well, everybody can have one.
And the NTSB might lobby for cameras just as unions and pilots representatives as well as regulation about privacy might lobby against it, for good reason. If that makes you feel unsafe in plane, please drive. But beware, it is kinda dangerous.
I am not working in aviation, but I have had the opportunity to work with catering companies. I have friends that work at the terminals and several that work as flight attendants, I had a late uncle who ran an entire operation for what used to be a major market for one airline.
It is a highly regulated industry and it should be. I would have cameras everywhere not called the passenger cabin if it were my airline. You are being entrusted with equipment that costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. You are operating equipment that needs one to make the right decision should something go wrong to save lives. This is monumental responsibility and we are sitting here arguing how much pilot privacy is? I have seen accident investigations where something shortcuts in maintenance led to horrible loss of life, where manufacturing errors that were avoidable or not dealt with on time led to the same. I would have cameras absolutely everywhere.
Maybe I come from the medical field where a mistake in how samples are collected, analyzed and justified has huge ramifications and we value detail. Maybe I have experience in finance and once saw how an extra zero and non balancing accounts had us going through almost 100,000 transactions to understand if it was a singular mistake or mistakes that piled up in the IPO process.
Employees are monitored not because it is the best thing to do but because it is the right thing to do. People can be greedy (and as a business owner, I know what too much freedom leads to; I lost way too much cash), people can be careless (and I have seen this each and every place I have worked), and sometimes, honest people doing their best make mistakes. Monitoring tends to lessen instances of greed and lack of care.This is not the only thing they achieve though. Doctors will tell you they do not like being baby sat through operations, but the monitoring is for the benefit of the patient and not the doctor. It adds cost, but who cares? Banks implement technology and at great cost, but it is for the benefit of the client and the food industry does a lot of testing to ensure that they get it right and avoid contaminated product in the market, all at great cost.
If everyone is taking such measures, what makes it so pervasive that we cannot have cameras in the cockpit even for marginal gains (aviation safety is a marginal gain business)?
Virtual737 wrote:CRJockey wrote:...putting cameras in cockpits do only little for improving anything, but have a whole lot of reason not to be there. The balance is not right.
Out of interest, do you think the reasons not to add the cameras would also apply to locomotives where they have already been installed? If so, would you mind elaborating? Not a loaded question in any way.
Thanks.
CRJockey wrote:
Interesting question I can hardly answer, unfortunately. My experience with rail safety is marginal and I fear I am not really qualified to answer.
Do cameras in locos exist across the board over all continents, as FDR, CVR do in aviation? Do loco data recorders exist? I guess yes but have no idea.
Why do they exist in the first place in locos? Not as strong a lobby against it as pilots?
I suggest if, as in aviation, reasonable means exist to identify root causes for accidents with equal precision, cameras shouldn't have a place either. Privacy is a human right after all, not a right for a certain profession.
CRJockey wrote:Virtual737 wrote:Out of interest, do you think the reasons not to add the cameras would also apply to locomotives where they have already been installed? If so, would you mind elaborating? Not a loaded question in any way.
Thanks.
Interesting question I can hardly answer, unfortunately. My experience with rail safety is marginal and I fear I am not really qualified to answer.
Do cameras in locos exist across the board over all continents, as FDR, CVR do in aviation? Do loco data recorders exist? I guess yes but have no idea.
Why do they exist in the first place in locos? Not as strong a lobby against it as pilots?