In the NTSB's 2021 top-10 most wanted list, Cockpit Video Recorders have resurfaced. The agency believes the video would have helped investigators determine what exactly went wrong in the LionAir, Atlas, and Ethiopian crashes and the human factors involved. Agency also recommended a recorder in the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash report.

ALPA and the FAA oppose this suggestion; ALPA thinks that the video would be misconstrued and FAA has privacy concerns.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/nts ... 10.article

I'm shocked the NTSB can make these demands with a straight face.

There are cars on the road with dozens of cameras, don't expect aircraft to stay free of them for long.

Aesma wrote:

There are cars on the road with dozens of cameras, don't expect aircraft to stay free of them for long.

Exactly.

Welcome to the 21st century

acecrackshot wrote:

I'm shocked the NTSB can make these demands with a straight face.

Why? They have been calling for them for a long time and are completely independent of the FAA or any pilot union. The people at the NTSB couldn’t care less if the pilots don’t want them.

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

FGITD wrote:

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

Well you just addressed the crux of the issue with video in the Cockpit. What is it used for? Who has access to the video? Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes? Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident? Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

I've always mostly agreed, or at the very least have expected it by now. Buses, subways, some trains all have it, and it's an inevitability for airlines.

What's actually important here, and what the pilot unions obviously fear, is how it's used. There can be *no* tolerance for airlines to access these videos without some sort of incident or occurrence reported to the FAA/NTSB before hand (which, as far as I know, is already the case for the CVR and FDR?). Probably some sort of heavy encryption will have to be put into place as well. And I do have heavy dismay for the freaks out there who would work tirelessly to leak these videos to news sources.

What I also wonder is when we'll see this data be streamed in real-time to some archive/database, as to allow for at least some information if the aircraft or recorders are missing. MH370 is an obvious example of how we would have known nothing if it wasn't for the little ACARS data we had to lead investigators to the satellites.

FGITD wrote:

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

.

That is exactly the issue. Like CVR recordings that leak out in a lot of places. The day a video recorder is installed in my cockpit, I will start carrying a package of chewing gum in my flightbag.
But I will probably be long retired when/if this happens.

Well, if you look at how many CVR audios are now in the public domain, the concerns are understandable.
It'd be a goon's wet dream to have cockpit crash vid. Some sick people around.

FGITD wrote:

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

We in the transportation industry live with a lot of intrusion on our privacy, no doubt. But, with every button push, flight control input, and word spoken on the flight deck already digitized, and recorded, I don’t want to hear sentiments such as these “what are you doing up there that’s so secret?” I want to hear how this video would so drastically improve safety that it’s intrusive aspects would be far outweighed by its enhancement of safety. Don’t forget the entertainment value some people find in leaking data that in no way enhances safety, but rather serves the morbid curiosity of some people. How, exactly would a video add any value to the investigation of the helicopter crash in California? There is ample evidence that the pilot attempted to maintain VFR in IMC. And since crashes like this happen from time to time, why is this one more important than any other. Maybe there should be better FDR requirements for civil helicopters before we talk about video. Can a video ascertain more than precise measurements of flight control inputs, engine parameters, flight parameters, etc? And about the badge reader being a hassle, would you rather go through security screening every day? So, yeah, I’m not for it. If someone can make an evidence based argument about how it’s benefits would outweigh the costs, I would love to hear it. Please, no idealistic diatribes about anything that improves safety is worth the cost. We all know that economic, logistical, practicality issues play a large role in an industry that is operated on a profit motive.

acecrackshot wrote:

I'm shocked the NTSB can make these demands with a straight face.

They are recommendations. Why do you find this to be a joke?

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

Bingo! Respect. Great post.

I'm currently teaching partially online everyday. Every single class is on Google Meets and recorded, and you'd better believe there are parents sitting in listening and monitoring. During the regular school day, my door is wide open. Anyone can walk in and observe. I do my job, I'm highly rated, and I graduate kids so I don't mind - again, I do my job. There are cameras everywhere, and if the parents aren't watching online, you'd better believe the kids are recording at various times. Why should the cockpit be any different?

SWADawg wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

Well you just addressed the crux of the issue with video in the Cockpit. What is it used for? Who has access to the video? Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes? Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident? Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

What is it used for?: Accident / Crash investigations.

Who has access to the video?: The NTSB or equivalent body.

Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes?: Yes

Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident?: No.

Next?

We subject our lower paid school bus drivers to having their every move video recorded in addition to the "black box" information.
Propose that for highly paid pilots and the world is ending for some.

Edit: I personally know of a driver fired using that video evidence against him. I don't know how long they are retaining the video recordings but it's longer than a week.

It's not a matter of if, but when. As stated above it's almost everywhere else. Continuing to advocate against cockpit video recorders is becoming a weaker position as the years go by.

There are a couple of rich guys flying around single-pilot in their Citation and Premier biz jets who have several GoPro's stuck around their cockpits to feed material for their successful YouTube channels. There is also an Envoy 2nd officer who is allowed by the company to do cockpit videos on some Part 91 repositioning flights of their EMB-145's to produce video for his YouTube channel. There are also a host of YouTube cockpit videos allowed by foreign airlines.

SwissCanuck wrote:

SWADawg wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

Well you just addressed the crux of the issue with video in the Cockpit. What is it used for? Who has access to the video? Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes? Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident? Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

What is it used for?: Accident / Crash investigations.

Who has access to the video?: The NTSB or equivalent body.

Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes?: Yes

Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident?: No.

Next?

And that's where you're wrong. There have been examples of recordings being misused before the event even reached reportable levels(to the NTSB, etc.).

Many years ago and at the request of a captain, I acted as his representative at a non-union carrier. To make a long story short, the airline chose to download the CVR for a flight that he'd operated and used that recording in a disciplinary action against him in clear violation of the established policy and protocol. Ultimately, the company chose to terminate him.

However, per the disciplinary policy, he appealed to an arbitrator and the arbitrator stopped the hearing after (only) the company presented it's case. The arbitrator noted the violation of the protocol and then immediately awarded the captain his job (yes, before the captain presented his case). If you know how an arbitration normally works, after the parties present their cases, the arbitrator or arbitrators take a few weeks to consider the information, so the immediate award of the captain's position was a harsh slap to the company.

SwissCanuck wrote:

What is it used for?: Accident / Crash investigations.

Who has access to the video?: The NTSB or equivalent body.

Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes?: Yes

Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident?: No.

Next?

Exactly. It seems some have the impression that the way this would be implemented is that some ground staff would just tape a GoPro in there.

Have you ever ended up in the chief pilots office while they play you a recording from the CVR? Why would video be any different? Regulations would need to be drawn up of course, but I doubt anyone would go along with it if it allowed the airline to view every minute of every flight. I wouldn’t agree with that either.

As to whether it would improve safety...I firmly believe that sometimes it’s just easier to see what they saw. I think it would change the overall impression of accidents where the pilot is the major factor to blame, if investigators knew what they were seeing. It makes it real. Not just a lot of what switch was flipped or what direction they were pulling.

FLALEFTY wrote:

There are a couple of rich guys flying around single-pilot in their Citation and Premier biz jets who have several GoPro's stuck around their cockpits to feed material for their successful YouTube channels. There is also an Envoy 2nd officer who is allowed by the company to do cockpit videos on some Part 91 repositioning flights of their EMB-145's to produce video for his YouTube channel. There are also a host of YouTube cockpit videos allowed by foreign airlines.

Yeah but that content by Greg and Max and Steveo and all those Euro airline advertising videos is consensual. and they generally don't record on revenue flights (Max is technically an employee, he only presents repositioning flights I think).
Regardless of position on the NTSB proposal that's a big difference.

SWADawg wrote:

Well you just addressed the crux of the issue with video in the Cockpit. What is it used for? Who has access to the video? Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes? Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident? Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

You are company time, earning company dime. What is there to fear if you are doing the right thing?

seat55a wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

There are a couple of rich guys flying around single-pilot in their Citation and Premier biz jets who have several GoPro's stuck around their cockpits to feed material for their successful YouTube channels. There is also an Envoy 2nd officer who is allowed by the company to do cockpit videos on some Part 91 repositioning flights of their EMB-145's to produce video for his YouTube channel. There are also a host of YouTube cockpit videos allowed by foreign airlines.

Yeah but that content by Greg and Max and Steveo and all those Euro airline advertising videos is consensual. and they generally don't record on revenue flights (Max is technically an employee, he only presents repositioning flights I think).
Regardless of position on the NTSB proposal that's a big difference.

What is funny about P1D and Citation Max is that they put up YouTube videos, but block their tails. Technically, ops by P1D and Max are Part 91, even if there are clients aboard, so they can film in the cockpit all they want. Steveo actually got into hot water with the FAA for his filming of his Caravan cargo flights from FXE to out islands in the Bahamas, which were under Part 135 (and a no-no). However, his TBM flights usually only chauffeurs the corporate owners, which falls under Part 91.

The Euro airline cockpit videos are obviously done with the consent of the crew and blessing of airline involved. However, these cockpit videos would not be allowed to be filmed here in the US because they would fall under Part 121/135 rules. The Envoy 1st Officer has crew consent and company approval when he takes cockpit videos on Part 91 reposition flights.

And then there is this cockpit video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovUy-c3EcyI

arcticcruiser wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

.

That is exactly the issue. Like CVR recordings that leak out in a lot of places. The day a video recorder is installed in my cockpit, I will start carrying a package of chewing gum in my flightbag.
But I will probably be long retired when/if this happens.

Tampering with flight equipment is usually a pretty severe penalty. I doubt you would ever cover up an installed safety device with a pack of gum. And if you did, you don't deserve to be flying a plane full of people. You can disagree with it all you want. You can fight it all you want. But you shouldn't advocate for actions like covering a camera with gum because you are unhappy with what would be decided. That's no better (probably worse due the responsibility you hold) than someone tampering with or disabling a smoke detector.

SWADawg wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

Well you just addressed the crux of the issue with video in the Cockpit. What is it used for? Who has access to the video? Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes? Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident? Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

I was going to respond but SwissCanuck gets to the point.

SwissCanuck wrote:

SWADawg wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I have to agree. Why is the cockpit deemed this bastion of pilot privacy, that we dare not video record? What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

Provided it’s like a FDR and not accessible unless an investigation requires it, I can’t see an issue.

Meanwhile working on the ground I can’t even so much as walk through a door without the airport knowing my full life’s story, and 4 different cameras watch me fumble with the badge reader.

Well you just addressed the crux of the issue with video in the Cockpit. What is it used for? Who has access to the video? Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes? Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident? Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

What is it used for?: Accident / Crash investigations.

Who has access to the video?: The NTSB or equivalent body.

Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes?: Yes

Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident?: No.

Next?

I am with SwissCanuck here, any reasonable concern can be legislated out when codified. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

32andBelow wrote:

The airlines maintain the systems so they would have access. That’s the main concern by pilot groups

Just because they have access, doesn't mean they can do it (or would be able to do it). These concerns can all be addressed via legislation and/or force policy.

FlyHossD wrote:

And that's where you're wrong. There have been examples of recordings being misused before the event even reached reportable levels(to the NTSB, etc.).

Many years ago and at the request of a captain, I acted as his representative at a non-union carrier. To make a long story short, the airline chose to download the CVR for a flight that he'd operated and used that recording in a disciplinary action against him in clear violation of the established policy and protocol. Ultimately, the company chose to terminate him.

However, per the disciplinary policy, he appealed to an arbitrator and the arbitrator stopped the hearing after (only) the company presented it's case. The arbitrator noted the violation of the protocol and then immediately awarded the captain his job (yes, before the captain presented his case). If you know how an arbitration normally works, after the parties present their cases, the arbitrator or arbitrators take a few weeks to consider the information, so the immediate award of the captain's position was a harsh slap to the company.

Well is sounds like the system worked exactly as it should have. A company tried to do something against the law/policy and the arbitrator prevented it. Same can be applied to video.

My only problem with cameras in the cockpit are the fact that people behave differently on camera. In some instances that is good; but I do not want a pilot second guessing his judgment in an emergency based on how the camera footage will judge his performance. Live or die.

We had a training module not too long ago that had pilots “fake” a scenario to teach us the importance of accurate weight numbers we send in. I believe those two probably perform better when they aren’t on camera.

On a different thread, the overall opinion is there's a small chance of the Covid vaccine doing any harm to individuals. Everyone should accept the vaccine for the greater good.

Although only a small chance cockpit video recorders would result in harm to individuals (possible misuse), versus the greater good, and already widely used in other transport industries, not acceptable.

When I go round the shops, I am going to frequently be 'on camera'.

Most of the time, I do not even think about it.

Would it be any different with cockpit video

IMO, pilots would hardly be aware that it was happening.

smartplane wrote:

On a different thread, the overall opinion is there's a small chance of the Covid vaccine doing any harm to individuals. Everyone should accept the vaccine for the greater good.

Although only a small chance cockpit video recorders would result in harm to individuals (possible misuse), versus the greater good, and already widely used in other transport industries, not acceptable.

There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who prefer to enjoy the benefits of society and the greater good but refuse to contribute to it in such a way.

Have non-US regulatory authorities advocated for cameras?

Some would say it's slippery slope, but I got news for you we have already slid off the edge into the abyss. Our cars are watching us to make sure we are at "10-2" with eyes on the road. My phone is always listening and pushing ads and videos my way, we let Alexa and the rest of the tech ilk into our daily life's without batting an eye.

I hardly think cameras in the cockpit is (especially in this day of age) would be giving up any civil liberties. Dare I say, it's much to do about nothing? I always feel like someone is watching me...

arcticcruiser wrote:

The day a video recorder is installed in my cockpit, I will start carrying a package of chewing gum in my flightbag.

What is it people love to say around here? If you don't like it, you are welcome to go work somewhere else...

SWADawg wrote:

Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

As with police bodycams, the potentially-surveilled always worry about how it might hurt them as opposed to how it might help them.

Did that guy whip out his schlong at altitude or not? If he did, then it would have been on video and he would have potentially been punished (used for disciplinary reasons outside an accident).

But if he didn't, it would have proven that he didn't. Just like that police video camera did when a woman said, entirely-believably, that a cop molested her on the way to a police station. Very-believable, professional woman with no obvious axe to grind (other than that she had been arrested). They had the whole video from the time she was pulled over until she was deposited at the jail. Guy was 1000-percent professional the whole time, and her detailed story turned out to be a very-plausible total lie. Absent the video, he likely would have been toast.

hayzel777 wrote:

The agency believes the video would have helped investigators determine what exactly went wrong in the LionAir, Atlas, and Ethiopian crashes and the human factors involved. Agency also recommended a recorder in the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash report.

I find that quite offensive comment to make considering the NTSB is not the agency investigating two of those events.

SuseJ772 wrote:

Just because they have access, doesn't mean they can do it (or would be able to do it). These concerns can all be addressed via legislation and/or force policy.

This is a very myopic viewpoint, outside the US there are not the same workplace protections for employees, there is not the same protections for CVR and FDR data. Even the idea of legislation as you know it in the US does not exist in many parts of the world.

The aircraft investigation process in many parts of the world is a criminal and or military investigation. The NTSB has no jurisdiction outside of the US, and if for example a US carrier had an accident in ICN or NRT, it’s a criminal investigation by the local police, not an aviation safety body. They are not there to promote safety, there are there to convict. The rules that are in the US only apply within the US.

I know airlines today that pay local pilots to come in and listen to the CVR to make demerit payments taken off expat contract pilots, similar happens with FDR data.

This is nothing like a school bus or a classroom teacher in the USA, no one is taking that daily footage, reviewing it, and then being used as the basis of having their pay adjusted down. No one is taking that footage to a different jurisdiction and applying different laws to it.

SuseJ772 wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

And that's where you're wrong. There have been examples of recordings being misused before the event even reached reportable levels(to the NTSB, etc.).

Many years ago and at the request of a captain, I acted as his representative at a non-union carrier. To make a long story short, the airline chose to download the CVR for a flight that he'd operated and used that recording in a disciplinary action against him in clear violation of the established policy and protocol. Ultimately, the company chose to terminate him.

However, per the disciplinary policy, he appealed to an arbitrator and the arbitrator stopped the hearing after (only) the company presented it's case. The arbitrator noted the violation of the protocol and then immediately awarded the captain his job (yes, before the captain presented his case). If you know how an arbitration normally works, after the parties present their cases, the arbitrator or arbitrators take a few weeks to consider the information, so the immediate award of the captain's position was a harsh slap to the company.

Well is sounds like the system worked exactly as it should have. A company tried to do something against the law/policy and the arbitrator prevented it. Same can be applied to video.

Until it makes it on the internet. Then they're crucified in the court of public opinion.

A camera in the cockpit adds no safety to the people being video'd.

zeke wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

The agency believes the video would have helped investigators determine what exactly went wrong in the LionAir, Atlas, and Ethiopian crashes and the human factors involved. Agency also recommended a recorder in the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash report.

I find that quite offensive comment to make considering the NTSB is not the agency investigating two of those events.

This is the exact quote from the NTSB website:

Commercial airliners are required to have only flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders, commonly called “black boxes”, but the NTSB has long called for cockpit image recorders, as well. Such video would have been extremely helpful in determining flight crew actions in recent crashes in Texas, Indonesia, and Ethiopia.

They're just using it as an example.

zeke wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

The agency believes the video would have helped investigators determine what exactly went wrong in the LionAir, Atlas, and Ethiopian crashes and the human factors involved. Agency also recommended a recorder in the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash report.

I find that quite offensive comment to make considering the NTSB is not the agency investigating two of those events.

SuseJ772 wrote:

Just because they have access, doesn't mean they can do it (or would be able to do it). These concerns can all be addressed via legislation and/or force policy.

This is a very myopic viewpoint, outside the US there are not the same workplace protections for employees, there is not the same protections for CVR and FDR data. Even the idea of legislation as you know it in the US does not exist in many parts of the world.

The aircraft investigation process in many parts of the world is a criminal and or military investigation. The NTSB has no jurisdiction outside of the US, and if for example a US carrier had an accident in ICN or NRT, it’s a criminal investigation by the local police, not an aviation safety body. They are not there to promote safety, there are there to convict. The rules that are in the US only apply within the US.

I know airlines today that pay local pilots to come in and listen to the CVR to make demerit payments taken off expat contract pilots, similar happens with FDR data.

This is nothing like a school bus or a classroom teacher in the USA, no one is taking that daily footage, reviewing it, and then being used as the basis of having their pay adjusted down. No one is taking that footage to a different jurisdiction and applying different laws to it.

THIS! No accident investigation would have been markedly changed by videos and there are no legal safeguards against police using them against pilots, domestic or international.

Antarius wrote:

There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who prefer to enjoy the benefits of society and the greater good but refuse to contribute to it in such a way.

Take for example the Atlas crash, was the 767 grounded, was the airline grounded, where there design changes made to the 767 ?

What exactly is this greater good that you claim would have come from cameras on the flight deck for this accident that the NTSB cited as a justification for their installation?

They know exactly what happened to the aircraft, we know why it crashed. The FDR and CVR gave them that information.

SuseJ772 wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

And that's where you're wrong. There have been examples of recordings being misused before the event even reached reportable levels(to the NTSB, etc.).

Many years ago and at the request of a captain, I acted as his representative at a non-union carrier. To make a long story short, the airline chose to download the CVR for a flight that he'd operated and used that recording in a disciplinary action against him in clear violation of the established policy and protocol. Ultimately, the company chose to terminate him.

However, per the disciplinary policy, he appealed to an arbitrator and the arbitrator stopped the hearing after (only) the company presented it's case. The arbitrator noted the violation of the protocol and then immediately awarded the captain his job (yes, before the captain presented his case). If you know how an arbitration normally works, after the parties present their cases, the arbitrator or arbitrators take a few weeks to consider the information, so the immediate award of the captain's position was a harsh slap to the company.

Well is sounds like the system worked exactly as it should have. A company tried to do something against the law/policy and the arbitrator prevented it. Same can be applied to video.

Not entirely.

First, the company violated their own protocol and policy. The recordings were expressedly for incident and accident investigations - NOT disciplinary actions.

Second and to elaborate, the company not only misused the CVR, they also played the recording to a couple of dozen of line check airmen to try to create support for their use (or misuse) of the CVR and to support their decision to terminate the captain. The crux of the matter wasn't what was said by the captain or first officer, but the sound of the engines. They alleged that the captain used excess power despite no analysis of what power that sound level represented. We specifically requested such an analysis and the company refused.

But again, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the captain over the misuse of the CVR. In the meantime, he and his family went about 10-11 weeks without an income. So no, it's not OK.

zeke wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who prefer to enjoy the benefits of society and the greater good but refuse to contribute to it in such a way.

Take for example the Atlas crash, was the 767 grounded, was the airline grounded, where there design changes made to the 767 ?

What exactly is this greater good that you claim would have come from cameras on the flight deck for this accident that the NTSB cited as a justification for their installation?

They know exactly what happened to the aircraft, we know why it crashed. The FDR and CVR gave them that information.

And this is the only crash that's ever happened?

FlyHossD wrote:

SuseJ772 wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

And that's where you're wrong. There have been examples of recordings being misused before the event even reached reportable levels(to the NTSB, etc.).

Many years ago and at the request of a captain, I acted as his representative at a non-union carrier. To make a long story short, the airline chose to download the CVR for a flight that he'd operated and used that recording in a disciplinary action against him in clear violation of the established policy and protocol. Ultimately, the company chose to terminate him.

However, per the disciplinary policy, he appealed to an arbitrator and the arbitrator stopped the hearing after (only) the company presented it's case. The arbitrator noted the violation of the protocol and then immediately awarded the captain his job (yes, before the captain presented his case). If you know how an arbitration normally works, after the parties present their cases, the arbitrator or arbitrators take a few weeks to consider the information, so the immediate award of the captain's position was a harsh slap to the company.

Well is sounds like the system worked exactly as it should have. A company tried to do something against the law/policy and the arbitrator prevented it. Same can be applied to video.

Not entirely.

First, the company violated their own protocol and policy. The recordings were expressedly for incident and accident investigations - NOT disciplinary actions.

Second and to elaborate, the company not only misused the CVR, they also played the recording to a couple of dozen of line check airmen to try to create support for their use (or misuse) of the CVR and to support their decision to terminate the captain. The crux of the matter wasn't what was said by the captain or first officer, but the sound of the engine. They alleged that the captain used excess power despite no analysis of what power that sound level represented. We specifically requested such an analysis and the company refused.

But again, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the captain over the misuse of the CVR. In the meantime, he and his family went about 10-11 weeks without an income. So no, it's not OK.

This still doesn't mean that a CVR is a bad idea. It means some people abused their power, something that occurs without video or audio recording also. The key takeaway is having good protocols and checks and balances. The CVR is accepted and useful and video should be treated similarly.

The potential for rare abuse should not deter a broader good decision.

Western727 wrote:

It's not a matter of if, but when. As stated above it's almost everywhere else. Continuing to advocate against cockpit video recorders is becoming a weaker position as the years go by.

It will be a weaker position when someone makes a case for how it will improve safety. Just you saying that it’s a good idea is a very weak position. Give us arguments on how it improves safety. And I don’t care if your work requires zoom meetings, tell us why this improves aviation safety.

Antarius wrote:

This still doesn't mean that a CVR is a bad idea. It means some people abused their power, something that occurs without video or audio recording also. The key takeaway is having good protocols and checks and balances. The CVR is accepted and useful and video should be treated similarly.

The potential for rare abuse should not deter a broader good decision.

I'd have to disagree. In this hyper-connected, 24/7 news cycle age, there's tremendous pressure to release CVR recordings and FDR data; videos would be even more appealing to those who take joy in the misfortune of others.

Have we forgotten this?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V8zkhfDGMw

32andBelow wrote:

SwissCanuck wrote:

SWADawg wrote:

Well you just addressed the crux of the issue with video in the Cockpit. What is it used for? Who has access to the video? Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes? Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident? Too many questions and not enough evidence to show that video wouldn’t be used to discipline crews for something based on video that was taken while at cruise altitude for example.

What is it used for?: Accident / Crash investigations.

Who has access to the video?: The NTSB or equivalent body.

Does the video erase like the CVR does after about 90 minutes?: Yes

Will said video be used for disciplinary action against a crew outside of an accident?: No.

Next?

The airlines maintain the systems so they would have access. That’s the main concern by pilot groups

Is that any different to CVR and FDR today?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

zeke wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

The agency believes the video would have helped investigators determine what exactly went wrong in the LionAir, Atlas, and Ethiopian crashes and the human factors involved. Agency also recommended a recorder in the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash report.

I find that quite offensive comment to make considering the NTSB is not the agency investigating two of those events.

SuseJ772 wrote:

Just because they have access, doesn't mean they can do it (or would be able to do it). These concerns can all be addressed via legislation and/or force policy.

This is a very myopic viewpoint, outside the US there are not the same workplace protections for employees, there is not the same protections for CVR and FDR data. Even the idea of legislation as you know it in the US does not exist in many parts of the world.

The aircraft investigation process in many parts of the world is a criminal and or military investigation. The NTSB has no jurisdiction outside of the US, and if for example a US carrier had an accident in ICN or NRT, it’s a criminal investigation by the local police, not an aviation safety body. They are not there to promote safety, there are there to convict. The rules that are in the US only apply within the US.

I know airlines today that pay local pilots to come in and listen to the CVR to make demerit payments taken off expat contract pilots, similar happens with FDR data.

This is nothing like a school bus or a classroom teacher in the USA, no one is taking that daily footage, reviewing it, and then being used as the basis of having their pay adjusted down. No one is taking that footage to a different jurisdiction and applying different laws to it.

THIS! No accident investigation would have been markedly changed by videos and there are no legal safeguards against police using them against pilots, domestic or international.

Especially in the case of an international aviation incident. Many countries criminalize accidents, and tend to politicize their investigative findings to “make the boss happy.”

hayzel777 wrote:

They're just using it as an example.

From that quote, a camera in the cockpit would have had zero safety improvement with those Max crashes, it took the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to uncover the real reason for that design feature to be certified.

The NTSB has failed to produce a business case where cameras would improve safety. Cameras don’t come at zero cost, someone has to design them, certify them, install them, maintain them.

To put this in perspective, how many people have died from shootings in one city say Chicago in the past 5 years, and how many have died airliner accidents ? Does the high coverage of CCTV in Chicago actually improve gun safety ? Are fewer people being shot ? Does CCTV actually stop guns from getting into peoples hands ?

Antarius wrote:

And this is the only crash that's ever happened?

Of course it isn’t, can you cite an airliner accident in recent history where the NTSB has been unable to determine the cause by using their existing methods and techniques?

zeke wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

They're just using it as an example.

From that quote, a camera in the cockpit would have had zero safety improvement with those Max crashes, it took the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to uncover the real reason for that design feature to be certified.

The NTSB has failed to produce a business case where cameras would improve safety. Cameras don’t come at zero cost, someone has to design them, certify them, install them, maintain them.

To put this in perspective, how many people have died from shootings in one city say Chicago in the past 5 years, and how many have died airliner accidents ? Does the high coverage of CCTV in Chicago actually improve gun safety ? Are fewer people being shot ? Does CCTV actually stop guns from getting into peoples hands ?

Terrible argument. That's like saying "since more people die in Chicago due to guns, why bother with a CVR or FDR". The death toll without CVR/FDR will still be lower than gun violence.