NTSB Renews Calls for Cockpit Video Recorders

Noshow · Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:22 am

Cockpit privacy seems a bit a thing of the past? Flights movements are monitored all the time, cockpit actions are recorded, audio and comms are recorded. Pilots get ranked for fuel used and bad landings and such.
It is a logical step to not leave out video anymore. The NTSB thinks it would help. Yes privacy needs to be considered but this goes for CVR audio as well. So limit the use strictly to authorized investigators and legally prevent maintenance and management or similar to listen in whenever they feel like. Open the technology but limit the use cases more to strictly necessary stuff.

zeke · Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:39 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
There is nothing such as meaningless data. All data is something that can be used for something, some of it may not just be relevant to an airline at a certain time, and this is true for all research I have done. Sometimes it is hard to classify a grouping of information and to analyze it until questions become simpler or more nuanced.

There is lots of meaningless data, that is why around a quarter of the time any data scientist spends dealing with data sets is the cleaning the data.

from https://www.datanami.com/2020/07/06/dat ... vey-finds/

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Investigators should not have to work harder just because pilots want to be comfortable in what is already established. As I said, arguably one of the most entitled and spoiled work groups I have come across in my entire life. Everything is about them and not the bigger picture in most situations.

I'm sorry you getting no sympathy from anyone if the sole justification for installing cameras is so investigators don't have to pull overtime in the very rare times that actually do an investigation. Airliners are so safe that an investigator can go through their whole career and never actually investigate an airliner accident.

The reality is employers have been caught time an again abusing a processes for industrial issues, under the guise of it being safety related. Only recently a court ruled that DL management abused the medical system after one of their pilots lodged safety concerns, the pilot lodging the concerns had a PhD in aviation safety.

"A Labor Department tribunal has awarded a Delta pilot $500,000 in a whistleblower case after determining the airline “weaponized” a bogus psychological assessment that grounded her for two years. Speaking for the panel, Administrative Law Judge Scott Morris further determined that the trip to the psychiatrist was retaliation for Karlene Pettit’s drafting a 43-page report detailing alleged safety issues at the airline, and its safety culture. Petitt has a doctorate in aviation safety. "

from https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/tri ... ty-report/

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
This is surely a misrepresentation of facts. Authorities do not want anyone other than authorized staff in the cockpit, and this is something that goes all the way back to 9/11. It has nothing to do with pilots perceived privacy and everything to stop loss of human life due to terrorism.

The reason for doors being installed is irrelevant, it does not change the fact that a cockpit is not a publicly accessible space in flight, it is a locked door, there is every reasonable expectation of privacy. By law, the only person who has a responsibility for what goes on in a cockpit in flight is the pilot in command.

UpNAWAy wrote:
Why should Pilots not be disciplined for doing something wrong? Why do they control flight data and not their employers?

I am not sure where you get this idea that pilots do not undergo a discipline process, both from their employer and the FAA. Employers may demote a person. terminate them, FAA can suspend or cancel a certificate.

Need to keep in mind that under law (14 CFR 91.3 ) it is the pilot in command, and not the employer that is responsible for what goes on in flight, and in an emergency, the pilot in command is permitted to break any rule they deem fit. They are ultimately answerable to the regulator (FAA), not the NTSB, and not the employer if anything goes wrong.

See 14 CFR 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... ec91-3.pdf

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
I do not know why the cockpit is this private place where no company ought to monitor what happens.

Companies do monitor what happens in cockpits, any who suggest otherwise is misrepresenting the situation. Besides, the reason why cameras are being talked about in cockpits is for accident investigation purposes, the fact that you are already talking about them being used by the employer for industrial purposes is exactly why every pilot is skeptical about the misuse of the data after their installation.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Plus, aviation is about safety. All public transport is centered around safety, and once one regulator implements, others will follow.

Ask any driver if they think the installation of traffic and speed cameras actually improves road safety, or is it just government revenue raising. The evidence is there it has not stopped drivers speeding, running stop signals etc.

There is a long list of abuse of power everyone in society has been subjected to where things are done under the guise of "safety", "our safety", "officer safety", "road safety", when safety has nothing to do with it, safety is being used as the excuse to curtail our normal rights. Pilots do not have any form of qualified immunity where public officials do, and public officials can get away with basically anything. Not that long ago the supreme court ruled a person could not sue the police, when the police stole $225,000 during a search, police claimed qualified immunity, and they won, because a court has not previously ruled that police should not know it was not okay to steal during a search. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill ... ee4045c16a

I am sorry one that door is opened to cameras, the data will be abused for purposes other than it was intended for by employers, government officials, and the courts.

TTailedTiger · Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:56 am

"Need to keep in mind that under law (14 CFR 91.3 ) it is the pilot in command, and not the employer that is responsible for what goes on in flight"

Oh really? Operators are allowed to impose even more stringent minimums than those imposed by the FAA. I'd like to see what happens to a pilot that busts those operator imposed minimums in a non-emergency. "But the FAA says....and I get to do whatever I want since I'm the captain..." or "Yeah we had a few drinks during the flight, I'm the captain and I control what goes on during the flight" would have HR waiting in the wings to issue your termination.

zeke · Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:33 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
"Need to keep in mind that under law (14 CFR 91.3 ) it is the pilot in command, and not the employer that is responsible for what goes on in flight"

Oh really? Operators are allowed to impose even more stringent minimums than those imposed by the FAA. I'd like to see what happens to a pilot that busts those operator imposed minimums in a non-emergency. "But the FAA says....and I get to do whatever I want since I'm the captain..." or "Yeah we had a few drinks during the flight, I'm the captain and I control what goes on during the flight" would have HR waiting in the wings to issue your termination.

Read the regulations, it is in black and white, I have made nothing up.

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Every airline in their manuals has a statement reflecting that very legal position, that the pilot is command has the control and responsibility of a flight, and they can deviate from any rule in an emergency. It generally appears in both the Ops Spec and FCOM.

As far as alcohol or drugs, that is also a FAA regulation, Section 91.17.

simairlinenet · Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:56 am

...most [police] officers welcome body cameras. In a new study, Patil points to earlier findings that during the past several years, 95% of large U.S. law enforcement agencies have either committed to or already implemented body cameras, and a majority (66%) of U.S. police officers actively support their adoption, according to a Pew Research Center study.

Why is that? Patil’s paper, co-authored by Ethan S. Bernstein of Harvard Business School, finds that police officers’ concerns about a loss of on-the-job autonomy are balanced out when the officers can access their own body camera footage. Police reported that cameras “show the truth from the officers’ perspective” and “protect officers” accused of misconduct.

https://medium.com/texas-mccombs/watch- ... d8c32433c3

Gremlinzzzz · Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:37 pm

zeke wrote:
There is lots of meaningless data, that is why around a quarter of the time any data scientist spends dealing with data sets is the cleaning the data.

from https://www.datanami.com/2020/07/06/dat ... vey-finds/

This is why I said that sometimes questions need to be simpler or more nuanced to make sense of data. There is no good data or bad data, there is just data and what sense you can make of it.

zeke wrote:
I'm sorry you getting no sympathy from anyone if the sole justification for installing cameras is so investigators don't have to pull overtime in the very rare times that actually do an investigation. Airliners are so safe that an investigator can go through their whole career and never actually investigate an airliner accident.

The reality is employers have been caught time an again abusing a processes for industrial issues, under the guise of it being safety related. Only recently a court ruled that DL management abused the medical system after one of their pilots lodged safety concerns, the pilot lodging the concerns had a PhD in aviation safety.

"A Labor Department tribunal has awarded a Delta pilot $500,000 in a whistleblower case after determining the airline “weaponized” a bogus psychological assessment that grounded her for two years. Speaking for the panel, Administrative Law Judge Scott Morris further determined that the trip to the psychiatrist was retaliation for Karlene Pettit’s drafting a 43-page report detailing alleged safety issues at the airline, and its safety culture. Petitt has a doctorate in aviation safety. "

from https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/tri ... ty-report/

Decades ago, scientists needed to manually calculate things to get ANOVA, ANCOVA, p/f values and all sorts of statistical data. Today, all you need is to key in the data and you have all of these in seconds. Decades ago, one could not build a jetliner on using a computer program, or cars. Automation, better software tools and faster, more complex chipsets have ensured that you can model a lot of things in a computer and simulate different scenarios before ever talking to a supplier.

Years ago, we used to have graph books so that any time you ran a scientific experiment you could chart what your results are. For over two decades, there have been programs available for us to feed in that data and see real time where data is headed. One could say that the students coming off university will not have some of the skills we used to have, or the problem solving ability that used to be there. However, should they stay in the dark ages when there are advancements made to ensure that going forward they will be more productive?

Each and every accident that happens needs manpower to investigate and you are damn right that as a taxpayer, I do not want government employees using more money than they should if something goes wrong.

Finally, we have a judicial process exactly for cases as you have mentioned above. Laws exist because humans are an imperfect people who do silly things. The law is there so that order and rule of law can be maintained, and that those in position of power do not abuse their position of privilege. You do not jump the process because it might be abused yet there are tangible benefits; you come up with regulation to ensure that there is no abuse.
One has to wonder why pilots place their 'privacy' over and above the benefits that could come from this in aviation safety. It is narcissism. As a passenger, I do not care for your ill reasoned expectation of privacy, what I care about is whether planes are safe and if they can get even better at this. When I was a kid in the early 80's and 90's, airliners crashing for any number of reasons was common place. Today, they are rare. We all hope for a future where they are almost non existent, and if investigators/regulators can see what happened and it leads to better, then what is society losing? Your 'pricacy?' Society will take that trade any day, every day.

zeke wrote:
The reason for doors being installed is irrelevant, it does not change the fact that a cockpit is not a publicly accessible space in flight, it is a locked door, there is every reasonable expectation of privacy. By law, the only person who has a responsibility for what goes on in a cockpit in flight is the pilot in command.

Your expectation is privacy, but that is not the reason why the door is locked. Why we do things matters more than what we do. This is the basis for training, workplace policies and even the entire judicial process.

That law you cling to is going to be one of many in the future that changes because it needs to change for aviation to get better.

zeke wrote:
Companies do monitor what happens in cockpits, any who suggest otherwise is misrepresenting the situation. Besides, the reason why cameras are being talked about in cockpits is for accident investigation purposes, the fact that you are already talking about them being used by the employer for industrial purposes is exactly why every pilot is skeptical about the misuse of the data after their installation.

What are you doing up there that you do not want seen? Why is this not being answered?

I have been in environments where I was told 'this is what we have hired you for, these are our workplace policies' and I stuck to the thin and narrow road. Just do what is expected of you and be done with it, and should anything go wrong, go to a tribunal or court. This is what every other employee does in a functioning system.

zeke wrote:
Ask any driver if they think the installation of traffic and speed cameras actually improves road safety, or is it just government revenue raising. The evidence is there it has not stopped drivers speeding, running stop signals etc.

There is a long list of abuse of power everyone in society has been subjected to where things are done under the guise of "safety", "our safety", "officer safety", "road safety", when safety has nothing to do with it, safety is being used as the excuse to curtail our normal rights. Pilots do not have any form of qualified immunity where public officials do, and public officials can get away with basically anything. Not that long ago the supreme court ruled a person could not sue the police, when the police stole $225,000 during a search, police claimed qualified immunity, and they won, because a court has not previously ruled that police should not know it was not okay to steal during a search. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill ... ee4045c16a

I am sorry one that door is opened to cameras, the data will be abused for purposes other than it was intended for by employers, government officials, and the courts.

There should be a penalty for those that break the law, or is your insistence that just because people jump lights, or go over the speed limit a good enough reason to get rid of these?

In my country, we have a speed limit of 50km/hr on bridges and a no overtaking rule, no speed cameras. Come and do as you please, yet every once in a while we have buses in accidents because drivers were either speeding, or tried to overtake and you have a head on collision. In one of the neighboring countries, there was a speed limit of 89km/hr set, and it was broken by operators. Government came in with regulation that required speed monitors to be set on buses, each and every violation generated a fine because each and every time a driver went over the limit the government would get a notification. Soon enough, these companies told their drivers that any more fines would be coming off their salary. It caused a fundamental change in behavior.

People do not change because they want, they change because they are forced to, and there are a lot of people that will change for no other reason than they have seen consequence established.

There is a lot wrong with the world we live in, and so long as there is a workplace there will always be someone looking to abuse power. Pilot groups as already mentioned have not had to deal with the scrutiny other have become accustomed to and it is normal that they would resist. However, even here, change will come because change is expected.

Polot · Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:54 pm

zeke wrote:

Ask any driver if they think the installation of traffic and speed cameras actually improves road safety, or is it just government revenue raising. The evidence is there it has not stopped drivers speeding, running stop signals etc.

While I agree speed/red light cameras are mostly for revenue generation there are a lot more cameras out there recording intersections and reading plates than you (and most drivers) realize. They are not being used for the purpose of automatically doling out a ticket when they capture a traffic infraction though.

mxaxai · Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:53 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
What are you doing up there that you do not want seen? Why is this not being answered?

I have been in environments where I was told 'this is what we have hired you for, these are our workplace policies' and I stuck to the thin and narrow road. Just do what is expected of you and be done with it, and should anything go wrong, go to a tribunal or court. This is what every other employee does in a functioning system.

This seems like a variant of the "you've got nothing to hide" argument, which is a fallacy. Anything you do and say can be used against you.

In a functioning judicial system, where the individual is protected from the abuse of power by authorities or corporations, surveillance may not be a huge deal. But there are many countries, and many employers, who do not care for such laws. Just recently, Wizz Air illegally terminated pilots, which was only revealed thanks to a secret recording of the board meeting. Cathay Pacific has fired employees for participating in anti-government protests.

At a minimum, cockpit video recordings should be encrypted so that only authorised accident investigators can access the footage. Not airlines, not police officers, not airport authorities. Protection by the law alone is insufficient.

Gremlinzzzz · Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:34 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
What are you doing up there that you do not want seen? Why is this not being answered?

I have been in environments where I was told 'this is what we have hired you for, these are our workplace policies' and I stuck to the thin and narrow road. Just do what is expected of you and be done with it, and should anything go wrong, go to a tribunal or court. This is what every other employee does in a functioning system.

This seems like a variant of the "you've got nothing to hide" argument, which is a fallacy. Anything you do and say can be used against you.

In a functioning judicial system, where the individual is protected from the abuse of power by authorities or corporations, surveillance may not be a huge deal. But there are many countries, and many employers, who do not care for such laws. Just recently, Wizz Air illegally terminated pilots, which was only revealed thanks to a secret recording of the board meeting. Cathay Pacific has fired employees for participating in anti-government protests.

At a minimum, cockpit video recordings should be encrypted so that only authorised accident investigators can access the footage. Not airlines, not police officers, not airport authorities. Protection by the law alone is insufficient.

I am telling you that pilots, whether they like it or not will eventually be in a situation where a lot of workers currently are. It is just the normal progression of things and this privacy that they demand to have will over time disappear.

If you are working for someone, they would want to know what it is you do. This is only natural. Accident investigators want to see what is happening so that their work is made easier and some selfish, entitled individuals think that the cockpit should be treated the same way a bedroom is. Pilots are so lucky that there is more demand for pilots than there is supply, otherwise, a lot of the excesses they enjoy would have long ago dissipated.

I also love how this issue is being conflated to others. Guess what, there are bad employers in all industries and that does not mean that these industries should not advance in efficiency or safety. As I said, if cameras can make transport safer, so be it even if it comes at the risk of 'cockpit' privacy.

Plus, so what if companies use video feed to discipline pilots if they go against set regulation? This happens in most industries. Get in the plane, fly the tube, monitor instruments, land the tube, file paperwork, wait for a salary. Keep on the thin and narrow, this is really not that hard.

zeke · Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:38 pm

simairlinenet wrote:

https://medium.com/texas-mccombs/watch- ... d8c32433c3

Police body cams are a very poor example, besides being public servants mainly operating in public areas, they are not on all the time, officers do cover the microphone and turn the camera off when they want. There is also areas where they are not allowed to wear them like inside court rooms. They dont record inside their vehicles, or other times like at the office. Only a very small snapshot of a days shift if on the camera. Flight crew have no access to CVR or FDR data.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
This is why I said that sometimes questions need to be simpler or more nuanced to make sense of data. There is no good data or bad data, there is just data and what sense you can make of it.

Bad data does exist, those that have been involved in engineering are well aware of the pitfalls.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Decades ago, scientists needed to manually calculate things to get ANOVA, ANCOVA, p/f values and all sorts of statistical data. Today, all you need is to key in the data and you have all of these in seconds. Decades ago, one could not build a jetliner on using a computer program, or cars. Automation, better software tools and faster, more complex chipsets have ensured that you can model a lot of things in a computer and simulate different scenarios before ever talking to a supplier.

No relevance to the topic being discussed.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Each and every accident that happens needs manpower to investigate and you are damn right that as a taxpayer, I do not want government employees using more money than they should if something goes wrong.

Sorry you are making up issues that don't exist. Airliner accidents are very rare events, FDRs are digital these days, we can download the data from them in minutes (it can be more time consuming if the memory module is damaged), and the have a full aircraft and cockpit animation generated from that data in very little time. Realistically, an hour after the data is downloaded we can know why an accident has happened. Investigations take ages not because of this, it is getting the back story as to why this happened, and that involves detective work looking at maintenance records, manuals, talking to manufacturers, and working across international borders.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
One has to wonder why pilots place their 'privacy' over and above the benefits that could come from this in aviation safety.

There has been no demonstrated case how they would improve safety.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
As a passenger, I do not care for your ill reasoned expectation of privacy, what I care about is whether planes are safe and if they can get even better at this.

Protecting ones rights is not narcissism, it is a protection afforded to everyone under the law. Passengers have no right to know anything about the crew, they have no right to the crews names, age, gender, phone numbers, photos, passport, rosters, crew ID etc. Likewise as a Captain I have no right to passenger information, I have no access to the names of the people onboard.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Your expectation is privacy, but that is not the reason why the door is locked. Why we do things matters more than what we do. This is the basis for training, workplace policies and even the entire judicial process.

The reason why the door is locked is irrelevant, the fact that it is locked when in use and not accessible to the public is the only relevant test. Same applies to crew bunks and occupied toilets. One of the biggest threats to any passenger flight is a fire in the cabin, yet there are hundreds of cases each year of people smoking in toilets in flight. The right to privacy in the toilet is greater than the safety benefit of installing cameras.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
That law you cling to is going to be one of many in the future that changes because it needs to change for aviation to get better.

The regulation will never change, that regulation is in law in every ICAO state around the world, the reason for that it is part of the Chicago Convention rules of the air. The exact wording in the convention is "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.". The driver of a car has the same final responsibility, so has the master of a ship, and on the road and on the water, the person responsible is allowed under law to break the rules in the event of an emergency.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
What are you doing up there that you do not want seen? Why is this not being answered?

Get used to not getting an answer, you have no right to know.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
I have been in environments where I was told 'this is what we have hired you for, these are our workplace policies' and I stuck to the thin and narrow road. Just do what is expected of you and be done with it, and should anything go wrong, go to a tribunal or court. This is what every other employee does in a functioning system.

Again you are clearly indicating the cameras should be used for industrial reasons and not for accident investigation, that is the exact misuse of that data that crews have seen time and again. You maybe familiar with the saying from Rita Mae Brown, 'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.'.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Government came in with regulation that required speed monitors to be set on buses, each and every violation generated a fine because each and every time a driver went over the limit the government would get a notification. Soon enough, these companies told their drivers that any more fines would be coming off their salary. It caused a fundamental change in behavior.

That sort of data monitoring is already done by airlines for every limit, and every procedural requirement. I think the aircraft I fly dumps around 50gb of data for thousands of parameters in high resolution automatically every flight. One of the biggest challenges airlines now have is how to manage that data.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
People do not change because they want, they change because they are forced to, and there are a lot of people that will change for no other reason than they have seen consequence established.

This is a red herring, there is no systemic issue of pilots violating rules, I have some sort of check made on me every 12 weeks or so, every flight I do the data is downloaded from it. Airlines are already closely monitoring pilots for policy and procedures.

mxaxai · Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:57 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
I also love how this issue is being conflated to others. Guess what, there are bad employers in all industries and that does not mean that these industries should not advance in efficiency or safety. As I said, if cameras can make transport safer, so be it even if it comes at the risk of 'cockpit' privacy.

Plus, so what if companies use video feed to discipline pilots if they go against set regulation? This happens in most industries. Get in the plane, fly the tube, monitor instruments, land the tube, file paperwork, wait for a salary. Keep on the thin and narrow, this is really not that hard.

The fact that bad conditions exist elsewhere is no reason to make life more difficult for pilots. In fact, it should be a warning what they could expect if they're not cautious.
There's a difference between recording technical parameters and video / audio.

Surveillance should be limited to the absolute minimum necessary. The gathered data should only be accessible to those who need it to improve safety, not those who exploit it and abuse their power.

aemoreira1981 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:06 pm

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.

Armodeen · Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:07 pm

Welcome to the modern world. Everyone is judged by their actions when something goes wrong, and pilots will just have to accept that also. It's a feature that will indeed provide insights in the event of an accident, but would also be useful in training situations etc.

I imagine in the first instance access would be along the same lines as the CVR. The privacy concerns are FAR FAR less than medical providers, and they are increasingly wearing police style body cameras these days. The rules around viewing the footage are strict.

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.

zeke · Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:39 pm

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.

NTSB published a report a long time ago. I’m sorry if you cannot understand the risk of operating into an airport with parallel runways at night doing a visual approach, where the airport turned off the runway lights and no illuminated runway closure markings on one runway so the visual picture seen by the pilots are two areas that look like parallel runways, the open runway and the taxiway.

The style of event event is very predictable and has happened many times before. Australia for example have had events like this where aircraft line up with the wrong airport (Essendon instead of Melbourne). Their solution is an ATC procedure not to offer a visual approach to an international crew, day or night.

While the crew were ultimately responsible for this, if ATC had cleared the AC crew for an ILS approach instead of the visual, the event would not have happened. The other issue is the whole NOTAM system does not work, and the people over at the OPSGROUP are making progress on getting that changed.

goboeing · Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:16 pm

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.

Gremlinzzzz · Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:45 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
I also love how this issue is being conflated to others. Guess what, there are bad employers in all industries and that does not mean that these industries should not advance in efficiency or safety. As I said, if cameras can make transport safer, so be it even if it comes at the risk of 'cockpit' privacy.

Plus, so what if companies use video feed to discipline pilots if they go against set regulation? This happens in most industries. Get in the plane, fly the tube, monitor instruments, land the tube, file paperwork, wait for a salary. Keep on the thin and narrow, this is really not that hard.

The fact that bad conditions exist elsewhere is no reason to make life more difficult for pilots. In fact, it should be a warning what they could expect if they're not cautious.
There's a difference between recording technical parameters and video / audio.

Surveillance should be limited to the absolute minimum necessary. The gathered data should only be accessible to those who need it to improve safety, not those who exploit it and abuse their power.

The benefits of improving tech and their implementation, their benefits to society far outweigh the negatives.

32andBelow · Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:50 pm

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

mxaxai · Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:03 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
The benefits of improving tech and their implementation, their benefits to society far outweigh the negatives.

There are plenty of examples of tech that was used to the detriment of society. Cameras are no exception.

twinotter · Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:39 pm

zeke wrote:
Protecting ones rights is not narcissism, it is a protection afforded to everyone under the law. Passengers have no right to know anything about the crew, they have no right to the crews names, age, gender, phone numbers, photos, passport, rosters, crew ID etc. Likewise as a Captain I have no right to passenger information, I have no access to the names of the people onboard.

What is your opinion of video monitoring systems in the aircraft cabin, like Airbus' CVMS?

Gremlinzzzz · Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:40 pm

zeke wrote:
simairlinenet wrote:

https://medium.com/texas-mccombs/watch- ... d8c32433c3

Police body cams are a very poor example, besides being public servants mainly operating in public areas, they are not on all the time, officers do cover the microphone and turn the camera off when they want. There is also areas where they are not allowed to wear them like inside court rooms. They dont record inside their vehicles, or other times like at the office. Only a very small snapshot of a days shift if on the camera. Flight crew have no access to CVR or FDR data.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
This is why I said that sometimes questions need to be simpler or more nuanced to make sense of data. There is no good data or bad data, there is just data and what sense you can make of it.

Bad data does exist, those that have been involved in engineering are well aware of the pitfalls.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Decades ago, scientists needed to manually calculate things to get ANOVA, ANCOVA, p/f values and all sorts of statistical data. Today, all you need is to key in the data and you have all of these in seconds. Decades ago, one could not build a jetliner on using a computer program, or cars. Automation, better software tools and faster, more complex chipsets have ensured that you can model a lot of things in a computer and simulate different scenarios before ever talking to a supplier.

No relevance to the topic being discussed.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Each and every accident that happens needs manpower to investigate and you are damn right that as a taxpayer, I do not want government employees using more money than they should if something goes wrong.

Sorry you are making up issues that don't exist. Airliner accidents are very rare events, FDRs are digital these days, we can download the data from them in minutes (it can be more time consuming if the memory module is damaged), and the have a full aircraft and cockpit animation generated from that data in very little time. Realistically, an hour after the data is downloaded we can know why an accident has happened. Investigations take ages not because of this, it is getting the back story as to why this happened, and that involves detective work looking at maintenance records, manuals, talking to manufacturers, and working across international borders.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
One has to wonder why pilots place their 'privacy' over and above the benefits that could come from this in aviation safety.

There has been no demonstrated case how they would improve safety.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
As a passenger, I do not care for your ill reasoned expectation of privacy, what I care about is whether planes are safe and if they can get even better at this.

Protecting ones rights is not narcissism, it is a protection afforded to everyone under the law. Passengers have no right to know anything about the crew, they have no right to the crews names, age, gender, phone numbers, photos, passport, rosters, crew ID etc. Likewise as a Captain I have no right to passenger information, I have no access to the names of the people onboard.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Your expectation is privacy, but that is not the reason why the door is locked. Why we do things matters more than what we do. This is the basis for training, workplace policies and even the entire judicial process.

The reason why the door is locked is irrelevant, the fact that it is locked when in use and not accessible to the public is the only relevant test. Same applies to crew bunks and occupied toilets. One of the biggest threats to any passenger flight is a fire in the cabin, yet there are hundreds of cases each year of people smoking in toilets in flight. The right to privacy in the toilet is greater than the safety benefit of installing cameras.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
That law you cling to is going to be one of many in the future that changes because it needs to change for aviation to get better.

The regulation will never change, that regulation is in law in every ICAO state around the world, the reason for that it is part of the Chicago Convention rules of the air. The exact wording in the convention is "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.". The driver of a car has the same final responsibility, so has the master of a ship, and on the road and on the water, the person responsible is allowed under law to break the rules in the event of an emergency.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
What are you doing up there that you do not want seen? Why is this not being answered?

Get used to not getting an answer, you have no right to know.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
I have been in environments where I was told 'this is what we have hired you for, these are our workplace policies' and I stuck to the thin and narrow road. Just do what is expected of you and be done with it, and should anything go wrong, go to a tribunal or court. This is what every other employee does in a functioning system.

Again you are clearly indicating the cameras should be used for industrial reasons and not for accident investigation, that is the exact misuse of that data that crews have seen time and again. You maybe familiar with the saying from Rita Mae Brown, 'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.'.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Government came in with regulation that required speed monitors to be set on buses, each and every violation generated a fine because each and every time a driver went over the limit the government would get a notification. Soon enough, these companies told their drivers that any more fines would be coming off their salary. It caused a fundamental change in behavior.

That sort of data monitoring is already done by airlines for every limit, and every procedural requirement. I think the aircraft I fly dumps around 50gb of data for thousands of parameters in high resolution automatically every flight. One of the biggest challenges airlines now have is how to manage that data.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
People do not change because they want, they change because they are forced to, and there are a lot of people that will change for no other reason than they have seen consequence established.

This is a red herring, there is no systemic issue of pilots violating rules, I have some sort of check made on me every 12 weeks or so, every flight I do the data is downloaded from it. Airlines are already closely monitoring pilots for policy and procedures.

I will be clear. In time, video cameras will make their way into the cockpit and they will begin as a tool to analyze crashes. Over time, they will be a tool used by airlines to monitor what goes on in the cockpit. It is something that may change how regulators and manufacturers react to data, thus improved training etc.

It may take time to evolve, but eventually it will get there. Pilots may strike (a popular tool), even go to court. However, once regulations are in place, you will work and with time you will come to accept your work being reviewed even if it is through random picks. You will be like any other employee that has to answer to a higher office.

mxaxai wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
The benefits of improving tech and their implementation, their benefits to society far outweigh the negatives.

There are plenty of examples of tech that was used to the detriment of society. Cameras are no exception.

If you think pilot entitlement is a greater concern than safety then I have no words.

Cameras will make their way into the cockpit. It may take quite some time, but it will get there and once it is there, its use will go beyond safety. If we are still alive, we will see that it is not the end of the world.

All that is needed is pilots to acclimate and accept that even as they fight it, camera use is inevitable.

garpd · Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:14 pm

IMO, any aircraft that carries fee paying passengers, be it a Cessna Caravan or an A380 should have a voice, data and video recording of the cockpit. Any argument against such is meaningless. The worth of having a CVR and FDR recording of what is said and what the plane is doing or is told to do has been proven over and over. Video could help in situations where nothing is said and yet something happens. A moment where the crew could be seen to be distracted shortly before a CFIT event, for example. Or a pilot suicide where nothing is said, but the video shows them clearly manipulating the controls leading to the crash. An unconscious crew, leading to fuel exhaustion and eventual crash. Video would confirm what we think happened.

The notion video should not be allowed because it could be used to monitor pilots is laughable.
I bet we would hear the same arguments for CVR and FDR installations if we were able to travel back in time and listen into chit chat in crew rooms, when they were first introduced.

And honestly, no one outside the pilot unions cares. You're on the job. On company time. Billions of people around the world are monitored at work. Why should pilots be exempt? At least for the countless billions already being monitored on video, if they make a mistake, it doesn't tend to end the lives of 150 or so people.

If there is even a 10% chance that a video recording of the final moments in the cockpit can shed light on a situation and clear up an unknown sound, voice, event, etc, then it is worth it.
If it helps identify a trend that is leading to serious mistakes, even non fatal ones, then it is worth it.

There is no intelligent reason NOT to have video recordings of the flight deck feed into a separate "black box". Technology is advanced far enough that video data is just as easily protected on a chip as is voice and data. So the argument that the video would be unusable after a crash is moot.

"The expense": Nope, try again; Airlines will survive. Installing CVRs and FDRs didn't kill them. Installing some cameras and a suitable blackbox won't either. And besides, once mandated, they come with the dang plane anyway.

"Can be used to spy on pilots" - Like the CVR can't already be used for that? Should we uninstall those? You know what, lets take the FDR out too, so there is no recording of you incorrectly setting up the autopilot leading to an inflight upset (or heaven forbid, a crash event). Yes, ridiculous. And so is the spying argument.

Gremlinzzzz · Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:46 pm

garpd wrote:
IMO, any aircraft that carries fee paying passengers, be it a Cessna Caravan or an A380 should have a voice, data and video recording of the cockpit. Any argument against such is meaningless. The worth of having a CVR and FDR recording of what is said and what the plane is doing or is told to do has been proven over and over. Video could help in situations where nothing is said and yet something happens. A moment where the crew could be seen to be distracted shortly before a CFIT event, for example. Or a pilot suicide where nothing is said, but the video shows them clearly manipulating the controls leading to the crash. An unconscious crew, leading to fuel exhaustion and eventual crash. Video would confirm what we think happened.

The notion video should not be allowed because it could be used to monitor pilots is laughable.
I bet we would hear the same arguments for CVR and FDR installations if we were able to travel back in time and listen into chit chat in crew rooms, when they were first introduced.

And honestly, no one outside the pilot unions cares. You're on the job. On company time. Billions of people around the world are monitored at work. Why should pilots be exempt? At least for the countless billions already being monitored on video, if they make a mistake, it doesn't tend to end the lives of 150 or so people.

If there is even a 10% chance that a video recording of the final moments in the cockpit can shed light on a situation and clear up an unknown sound, voice, event, etc, then it is worth it.
If it helps identify a trend that is leading to serious mistakes, even non fatal ones, then it is worth it.

There is no intelligent reason NOT to have video recordings of the flight deck feed into a separate "black box". Technology is advanced far enough that video data is just as easily protected on a chip as is voice and data. So the argument that the video would be unusable after a crash is moot.

"The expense": Nope, try again; Airlines will survive. Installing CVRs and FDRs didn't kill them. Installing some cameras and a suitable blackbox won't either. And besides, once mandated, they come with the dang plane anyway.

"Can be used to spy on pilots" - Like the CVR can't already be used for that? Should we uninstall those? You know what, lets take the FDR out too, so there is no recording of you incorrectly setting up the autopilot leading to an inflight upset (or heaven forbid, a crash event). Yes, ridiculous. And so is the spying argument.

Well said.

You also look at the arguments being put forward and they are so poor, and not well thought out. 'We expect privacy because of the locked cockpit door' or 'management cannot be trusted with this data' or 'show us evidence that it will lead to better safety' or 'it will be expensive and we do not need planes hauling extra kilos of equipment' or 'cases are being solved without it so where is the need, and why cant investigators put in more time?' or 'we will be disciplined for reading newspapers during cruise.'

People who are doing the right thing, under the employ of someone else even when they are not handling expensive equipment have come to understand for the longest time that they are monitored and their productivity analyzed. Fly the damn plane, monitor the systems when autopilot is on.
You can read newspapers and have your privacy at your own time, outside company property (and this includes jets) or airports.

mxaxai · Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:08 pm

garpd wrote:
"Can be used to spy on pilots" - Like the CVR can't already be used for that? Should we uninstall those? You know what, lets take the FDR out too, so there is no recording of you incorrectly setting up the autopilot leading to an inflight upset (or heaven forbid, a crash event). Yes, ridiculous. And so is the spying argument.

FDR data is easy to analyse, it's directly related to the pilot's performance. Speech, on the other hand, already contains very personal information - a person's emotional state, their political views, their personality, their intentions. All of this is easily used by a malicious employer to harass or fire a pilot. It also makes the CVR invaluable for accident investigations, of course.

Video amplifies this, given the importance of non-verbal communication. At the same time, non-verbal cues can be difficult to interpret and are easy to misconstrue. Is the pilot focused, bored or tired? Is he happy, or drunk? Simply choose the latter and you can justify firing him without any real evidence.

Yes, some employees elsewhere are monitored too. So what? Some employers expect their workers to pee in bottles rather than permit toilet breaks - easily monitored via cameras and GPS. But should it be introduced at your workplace?

I can see the value to find the cause of an accident but it is essential that the footage is only used for that purpose.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:36 pm

The willingness of people to promote Orwellian, Big Brotherism is amazing, only exceeded by their submission to it.

Ertro · Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:44 pm

Making comparisons to other workplaces is perhaps flawed if talking only about cameras. I would guess 90% of workplaces have been under management monitoring even well before cameras were even invented. If I think about my professional life I have been constantly under management monitoring in my all kinds of behaviour in regular office setting. Open floorplan offices, windows to hallway from every room, constant meetings, customer visits etc etc I would be required to act all kinds of professional 100% of the time in regular office work when manager or random coworker could at any time see me if I at any time am doing something nonprofessional and word could get around also to management. So I am acting 100% of the time professionally and I guess that is the norm everywhere.

What I have gathered from the discussion is that there is something strange going on in the cockpit and I have no wish to know what exactly that is but I can now know it is something that is not going to approved by management. The closed door argument I don't think flies because it is not YOUR closed door but rather company owned closed door in company owned place of work and I think company has all the right to monitor everything in premises they own excluding places like toilets where private bodyparts could be seen and company has the right to not allow things they do not condone happening in workplaces. If firing persons that do not act professionally, well that is what happens in 90% of all other professions out there whether that is in regular office work or everywhere else.

I agree cameras will feel intrusive and if company would install camera looking into my desk in open office where everybody could see me anyhow I would be outraged. I hope that is all there is on this subject, because all the BS arguments trying to sound convincing make me instead feel in favour of the cameras if there is actually something unprofessional going on that the company must not find out what that is. That is not going to be the argument I would be making if there would be a danger of cameras pointing at me. Orwellian could be an argument I would be making as well as the argument that everybody is acting professionally anyway so there would be zero benefit for management to spend time looking at the cameras.

But since there are so many professions that do have cameras I could guess people get used to it quite quickly like office desks without walls all around them and after couple of weeks it is nothing to think about.

889091 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:56 pm

Europe currently has one of the strictest data protection laws in place - GDPR.

How would it work, if let's say the rule gets implemented in the US and the aircraft is on a transatlantic flight to Europe. Would the circuit breakers of the video surveillance system need to be pulled once it enters the airspace of a country/region where legislation deems it to be illegal?

Just curious.

garpd · Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:35 pm

mxaxai wrote:
.....

I can see the value to find the cause of an accident but it is essential that the footage is only used for that purpose.

Completely agree on that part.

11C · Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:32 pm

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

Yes FOQA data, and the rankings are posted in the crew room every quarter. Forgive me, but there is so much absurd dung being flung here that I had to join in.

F9Animal · Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:54 pm

I think it is something that is so imperative in today's world! As a professional driver myself, the vehicles I operate have dash cams and cameras on the vehicles. When we make mistakes or have accidents, we review the footage to ensure we don't make the same mistake again. It's a very good training tool as well!

I think it would be very helpful for aviation as well.

kiowa · Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:18 am

garpd wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
.....

I can see the value to find the cause of an accident but it is essential that the footage is only used for that purpose.

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.

zeke · Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:11 am

twinotter wrote:
What is your opinion of video monitoring systems in the aircraft cabin, like Airbus' CVMS?

I see it as having limited value in cargo compartments however the space requirements when loaded make them ineffective, I dont see the value in the cabin.

zeke · Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:29 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
You also look at the arguments being put forward and they are so poor, and not well thought out. 'We expect privacy because of the locked cockpit door' or 'management cannot be trusted with this data' or 'show us evidence that it will lead to better safety' or 'it will be expensive and we do not need planes hauling extra kilos of equipment' or 'cases are being solved without it so where is the need, and why cant investigators put in more time?' or 'we will be disciplined for reading newspapers during cruise.'

These are not arguments, they are statements of facts. You are posting so much uninformed opinion on this thread it is very unhelpful. Pilots are already highly monitored and constantly tested, accidents are already being investigated. The NTSB has no unresolved cases of an airliner investigation in recent history.

You are also talking in circles, the NTSB has suggested cameras for accident investigation, and you have stated multiple times this should then be used by employers to monitor pilots. That is exactly the reason why they will never get installed unless the data can somehow be encrypted so it can never be used in any setting except for accident investigation. That means no public viewing at a accident hearing, not being used by employers, not being used by police, not being used in courts.

The fundamental statement made in every accident report is the report is not to attribute blame to anyone, where it is clear from your posts all you want to do is have someone to blame.

Generally speaking, there is no significant investigation of any general aviation crash, normally an effort will only be made into commercial operations, be it on demand or schedule.

Gremlinzzzz · Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:53 am

zeke wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
You also look at the arguments being put forward and they are so poor, and not well thought out. 'We expect privacy because of the locked cockpit door' or 'management cannot be trusted with this data' or 'show us evidence that it will lead to better safety' or 'it will be expensive and we do not need planes hauling extra kilos of equipment' or 'cases are being solved without it so where is the need, and why cant investigators put in more time?' or 'we will be disciplined for reading newspapers during cruise.'

These are not arguments, they are statements of facts. You are posting so much uninformed opinion on this thread it is very unhelpful. Pilots are already highly monitored and constantly tested, accidents are already being investigated. The NTSB has no unresolved cases of an airliner investigation in recent history.

You are also talking in circles, the NTSB has suggested cameras for accident investigation, and you have stated multiple times this should then be used by employers to monitor pilots. That is exactly the reason why they will never get installed unless the data can somehow be encrypted so it can never be used in any setting except for accident investigation. That means no public viewing at a accident hearing, not being used by employers, not being used by police, not being used in courts.

The fundamental statement made in every accident report is the report is not to attribute blame to anyone, where it is clear from your posts all you want to do is have someone to blame.

Generally speaking, there is no significant investigation of any general aviation crash, normally an effort will only be made into commercial operations, be it on demand or schedule.

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?

scbriml · Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:42 am

Ertro wrote:
Making comparisons to other workplaces is perhaps flawed if talking only about cameras. I would guess 90% of workplaces have been under management monitoring even well before cameras were even invented. If I think about my professional life I have been constantly under management monitoring in my all kinds of behaviour in regular office setting. Open floorplan offices, windows to hallway from every room, constant meetings, customer visits etc etc I would be required to act all kinds of professional 100% of the time in regular office work when manager or random coworker could at any time see me if I at any time am doing something nonprofessional and word could get around also to management. So I am acting 100% of the time professionally and I guess that is the norm everywhere.

Not only that, at my company we were always told that phone, email and Internet could be used for (limited) personal purposes, but we were made aware that we should have no expectation of privacy - all phone calls were recorded, and all email/internet activity was logged. A small number of folks were fired each year for doing stupid things like running a private business out of their office. We were also subject to random drug/alcohol tests with a zero-tolerance policy (no counselling and rehab, just sacked on the spot) and cameras in public areas of office buildings.

Cameras in the cockpit will happen. Probably in the military first - good luck resisting that!

TWACaptain · Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:42 am

Nothing that Wrigley's crewing gum can't take care of.

mxaxai · Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:04 pm

kiowa wrote:
garpd wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
.....

I can see the value to find the cause of an accident but it is essential that the footage is only used for that purpose.

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.

It's also the stuff people on Youtube will love, those who love watching someone spill their brains.

scbriml wrote:
We were also subject to random drug/alcohol tests with a zero-tolerance policy (no counselling and rehab, just sacked on the spot) and cameras in public areas of office buildings.

That's something unique to the US, in my experience. Nowhere else are employers so involved with the healthcare and private affairs of their employees.

Similarly, many places worldwide have stricter privacy laws, like the EU. There, employers may not read private mails - even if they're on your corporate mail account. Similarly, video and audio recordings are not permitted. The only exception is if the employer has a reason to suspect criminal activities (such as stealing at work) or if it directly improves health and safety (like GPS trackers on cash transports). Even so, abuse of the data for other purposes is forbidden and the employer must protect the data from unauthorised access.

On the other hand, you have places like China where anything you do may be recorded and used to create a social score, or to throw you in jail if someone feels like it.

With cameras on aircraft, it's unlikely to be restricted to US airspace. So you'll need a solution that's compatible with both approaches to privacy. At the very minimum, on-board encryption should be required to prevent HR or nosy mechanics from accessing personal data.

11C · Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:26 pm

scbriml wrote:
Ertro wrote:
Making comparisons to other workplaces is perhaps flawed if talking only about cameras. I would guess 90% of workplaces have been under management monitoring even well before cameras were even invented. If I think about my professional life I have been constantly under management monitoring in my all kinds of behaviour in regular office setting. Open floorplan offices, windows to hallway from every room, constant meetings, customer visits etc etc I would be required to act all kinds of professional 100% of the time in regular office work when manager or random coworker could at any time see me if I at any time am doing something nonprofessional and word could get around also to management. So I am acting 100% of the time professionally and I guess that is the norm everywhere.

Not only that, at my company we were always told that phone, email and Internet could be used for (limited) personal purposes, but we were made aware that we should have no expectation of privacy - all phone calls were recorded, and all email/internet activity was logged. A small number of folks were fired each year for doing stupid things like running a private business out of their office. We were also subject to random drug/alcohol tests with a zero-tolerance policy (no counselling and rehab, just sacked on the spot) and cameras in public areas of office buildings.

Cameras in the cockpit will happen. Probably in the military first - good luck resisting that!

I find it baffling that people see this as inevitable, especially in the military. It won’t take luck to keep this from getting implemented, just facts, and cost. Nobody has made a compelling, specific case for how video could have led to a finding for any accident involving a part 121 air carrier that wouldn’t have otherwise been resolved using the existing sources of data. Just accepting loss of privacy as inevitable is pathetic. What we have that maybe more people should consider having, is a voice (union). Wow, imagine having the temerity to think that your opinion should matter in the workplace. Shocking, isn’t it?

11C · Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:42 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
zeke wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
You also look at the arguments being put forward and they are so poor, and not well thought out. 'We expect privacy because of the locked cockpit door' or 'management cannot be trusted with this data' or 'show us evidence that it will lead to better safety' or 'it will be expensive and we do not need planes hauling extra kilos of equipment' or 'cases are being solved without it so where is the need, and why cant investigators put in more time?' or 'we will be disciplined for reading newspapers during cruise.'

These are not arguments, they are statements of facts. You are posting so much uninformed opinion on this thread it is very unhelpful. Pilots are already highly monitored and constantly tested, accidents are already being investigated. The NTSB has no unresolved cases of an airliner investigation in recent history.

You are also talking in circles, the NTSB has suggested cameras for accident investigation, and you have stated multiple times this should then be used by employers to monitor pilots. That is exactly the reason why they will never get installed unless the data can somehow be encrypted so it can never be used in any setting except for accident investigation. That means no public viewing at a accident hearing, not being used by employers, not being used by police, not being used in courts.

The fundamental statement made in every accident report is the report is not to attribute blame to anyone, where it is clear from your posts all you want to do is have someone to blame.

Generally speaking, there is no significant investigation of any general aviation crash, normally an effort will only be made into commercial operations, be it on demand or schedule.
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.

889091 · Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:46 pm

mxaxai 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.

It's also the stuff people on Youtube will love, those who love watching someone spill their brains.
scbriml wrote:
We were also subject to random drug/alcohol tests with a zero-tolerance policy (no counselling and rehab, just sacked on the spot) and cameras in public areas of office buildings.

That's something unique to the US, in my experience. Nowhere else are employers so involved with the healthcare and private affairs of their employees.

Similarly, many places worldwide have stricter privacy laws, like the EU. There, employers may not read private mails - even if they're on your corporate mail account. Similarly, video and audio recordings are not permitted. The only exception is if the employer has a reason to suspect criminal activities (such as stealing at work) or if it directly improves health and safety (like GPS trackers on cash transports). Even so, abuse of the data for other purposes is forbidden and the employer must protect the data from unauthorised access.

On the other hand, you have places like China where anything you do may be recorded and used to create a social score, or to throw you in jail if someone feels like it.

With cameras on aircraft, it's unlikely to be restricted to US airspace. So you'll need a solution that's compatible with both approaches to privacy. At the very minimum, on-board encryption should be required to prevent HR or nosy mechanics from accessing personal data.

You actually raise an interesting point mxaxai. How are current CVR recordings validated to ensure that it is correctly recording the audio in the flight deck? Who is actually authorised to perform these validation checks (if at all)? I do not believe the voice data is encrypted, so does the CVR, in its current shape and form, actually comply with the European GDPR? Are we opening a Pandora's box here?

Virtual737 · Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:13 pm

zeke wrote:

There are no unsolved airliner accidents in recent history investigated by the NTSB.

Isn't it more accurate to say that there are no airliner accidents in recent history that did not reach a conclusion based on the information available? IIRC the Lion Air MAX accident had investigators making assumptions as to when and how manual trim was attempted and there was uncertainty based on the phraseology used by the crew. A video would have cleared that up pretty easily.

zeke wrote:

You will find that in most jurisdictions that a cockpit is not deemed to be a public space, nor is it accessible to the public in flight, in fact there are rules in place specially preventing public access in flight. Therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy from the public does exist.

...and that locked cockpit door gives you more than reasonable privacy. If the video was live streamed to the airline or available on an IFE channel I would be on the other side of the fence.

I totally get why pilots will see it as an intrusion and I see lots of (some potentially valid and others not) reasons given here as to why it will not improve safety. Give us some reasons as to why it would reduce safety and I'd likely change my opinion.

It is 2021 and video technology is a wonderful tool. Well worded contracts (and the labour unions is many areas) could sort out the "but what if my company uses it for this..." scenarios. Having said that, if the pilots were doing what they were supposed to be doing then the company would have no reason to use the videos in disciplinaries. On the flip side, the video might actually back up the accused log of events.

Gremlinzzzz · Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:14 pm

11C wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
zeke wrote:

These are not arguments, they are statements of facts. You are posting so much uninformed opinion on this thread it is very unhelpful. Pilots are already highly monitored and constantly tested, accidents are already being investigated. The NTSB has no unresolved cases of an airliner investigation in recent history.

You are also talking in circles, the NTSB has suggested cameras for accident investigation, and you have stated multiple times this should then be used by employers to monitor pilots. That is exactly the reason why they will never get installed unless the data can somehow be encrypted so it can never be used in any setting except for accident investigation. That means no public viewing at a accident hearing, not being used by employers, not being used by police, not being used in courts.

The fundamental statement made in every accident report is the report is not to attribute blame to anyone, where it is clear from your posts all you want to do is have someone to blame.

Generally speaking, there is no significant investigation of any general aviation crash, normally an effort will only be made into commercial operations, be it on demand or schedule.
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.

You have no privacy on company time. That they extend it, is a favor they pass onto you.

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.

DarQuiet · Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:24 pm

889091 wrote:
How are current CVR recordings validated to ensure that it is correctly recording the audio in the flight deck? Who is actually authorised to perform these validation checks (if at all)? I do not believe the voice data is encrypted, so does the CVR, in its current shape and form, actually comply with the European GDPR? Are we opening a Pandora's box here?

Not really. This is not a secret

There are ICAO, FAA, EASA references that require CVR to undergo "annual" examination of recorder signal by "replay" of CVR recording. Whoever's voice to be heard on the replay is not important for the purpose of annual test.

How is it done?

A line maintenance mechanic/engineer will use a tool (e.g. HHMPI - Handheld Multipurpose Interface by flightdata aero) that can download encrypted raw file from CVR. This task takes at least 15mins and can be longer depending on length of downloaded audio (max of 2 hours).

Either the line maintenance or the airline avionics engineer will send the downloaded encrypted raw file of CVR to an authorized facility (e.g. flightdata aero) who will perform the examination as per the required passing parameters (audio frequency/wavelength, decibel, channels, etc.).

The authorized facility will generate and release the CVR test report to owner of the encrypted file for the avionics engineer/line maintenance to review if CVR troubleshooting/replacement is required or another year of operation is achieved. The report may even be requested by the governing Civil Aviation Authority but each countries/territories are different...

KingOrGod · Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:06 pm

FGITD wrote:
What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

a LOT of stuff worth hiding. The things I have seen... It's most certainly not always a professional at the controls... And they're the ones screaming the loudest for privacy...

2175301 · Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:23 pm

KingOrGod wrote:
FGITD wrote:
What are you guys doing up there that’s so secret?

a LOT of stuff worth hiding. The things I have seen... It's most certainly not always a professional at the controls... And they're the ones screaming the loudest for privacy...

I think this is a key reason some people are objecting. It's been a few years since they have been posted here on Anet... but, there have been videos posted here on Anet with at least semi striptease to the topless state of female flight attendants for the enjoyment of the male pilot and copilot. It does not take to much imagination to understand that similar activities could have gone farther which were not posted to the internet. I have seen videos (not sure if posted here) with a flight attendant "acting" as if they were in control of the aircraft mid flight without another person in the other seat.

Now what would have happened had a significant event occurred during those times....

I doubt any professional acting pilot or copilot has anything to worry about should they install video monitoring.... At the same time... it would likely restrict the kinds of "fun and games" that has gone on in some cockpits.

Have a great day,

dr1980 · Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:56 pm

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. It will happen eventually. They’re already on buses, trains, trucks etc, plus everywhere else in society, it just makes too much sense. The concerns raised by pilot groups frankly don’t hold any water when compared to the potential safety and accident investigation benefits.

acecrackshot · Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:48 pm

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.

OpsCheckNML · Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:52 pm

No more sleeping in the cockpit. If you have the ability to physically harm other people on the job. People under surveillance tend to do the right thing more often than not. Police have to wear body cameras so why not Pilots? They get paid too much not to be watched with 80 million dollar company assets. I'm a mechanic and we have cameras watching us while we are on the computer and all-around our shop.

armagnac2010 · Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:07 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Resisting video recording is only short sighted corporatism.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:19 am

#5 is very much NOT SMS.

Chemist · Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:49 am

kiowa wrote:
garpd wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
.....

I can see the value to find the cause of an accident but it is essential that the footage is only used for that purpose.

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?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net