Cameras & cockpits ...

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Safety officials are stepping up pressure on the Federal Aviation Administration to require video cameras in cockpits so accident investigators will have better information on what causes plane crashes.

The National Transportation Safety Board launched a two-day hearing Tuesday to renew its call for large and small planes to be equipped with crash-resistant cockpit image recorders.

"We need to light the fires," said National Transportation Safety Board member Carol Carmody, who will chair the hearing. The NTSB recommended that the FAA require large aircraft to be equipped with cameras four years ago.

Supporting the idea was Ken Smart of the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch, who said cameras are used on military aircraft in the United Kingdom and are very useful in understanding the human actions that lead to airplane accidents.

Nonetheless, the idea of cameras in the cockpits drew strong opposition from airline pilots.

John David of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots at American Airlines, said having a camera monitor everything they do would affect their ability to perform.

The Air Line Pilots Association, the largest pilots union, issued a statement saying "the benefits of video imaging are vastly overrated, because far more effective and efficient tools exist."

Pilots object to the idea because they're concerned about their privacy and they fear that images, unlike technical data, can give rise to subjective interpretations of pilots' actions in the seconds before a crash.

John Cox, executive air safety chairman of the ALPA, said cameras in the cockpit would be a waste of money.

"We don't get a particularly good product and it's expensive," said Cox before the hearing. "If we have that money we can spend, let's get data that we can use. Objective data."

The safety board maintains that cameras would have helped safety investigators understand the smoke and fire conditions in the cockpit of two deadly plane crashes: Swissair Flight 111 on September 2, 1998, which crashed off the coast of Halifax, Nova Scotia, en route from New York to Geneva, Switzerland; and Valujet Flight 592 on May 11, 1996, which plunged into the Florida Everglades on a flight from Miami to Atlanta.

In both crashes, cameras could have helped investigators understand how the fires started, what the crews did to put them out and whether the crew managed to clear smoke from the cockpit. The safety board said such information might steer them toward modifying firefighting training, procedures or systems.

Cameras would have also helped answer questions about what happened in the cockpit of EgyptAir Flight 990 from New York to Cairo on October 31, 1999. The NTSB said the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit when he disconnected the autopilot, reduced power to the engines, and sent the plane into the Atlantic Ocean off the Nantucket coast. The Egyptian government rejects any suggestion that the co-pilot deliberately crashed the Boeing 767.

Carmody said cameras would have also saved time and money in determining what caused the twin-engine plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone and seven others in Eveleth, Minnesota, on October 25, 2002.

The safety board ultimately found the probable cause of the accident was the pilots' inattention to the aircraft's instruments. The investigation into that crash gave rise to the recommendations that all small planes be equipped with crash-proof cameras.

Carmody said image-recording technology is much less complicated -- and therefore cheaper -- than flight data recorders or cockpit voice recorders.

For small planes that aren't required to have cockpit voice recorders or flight data recorders, "it would give us something," Carmody said.

The Federal Aviation Administration, the agency that would implement the NTSB's recommendations for aviation safety, has taken the first steps in developing technical standards for video recorders.

FAA spokeswoman Diane Spitalieri called the recorders "an extra level of safety for aircraft."

But Cox, the pilots' representative, said interpreting video images is always subjective and therefore cannot lead to safety improvements.

It would be much better, he said, to spend limited dollars on data recorders that record more information about a flight than current recorders do.

"Objective data has served us well," Cox said. "That's where we need to stay focused."

Cox also said legal protections of video images aren't ironclad.

Carmody said the NTSB is required to treat video images the same way it treats cockpit tapes. The board never releases the actual recordings to the public, but makes transcripts available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, put cameras in cockpits but, also, put cameras in every, individual office and cubical at the NTSB and see how long that's tolerated.

I have nothing against safety improvements but this really rubs me the wrong way for some reason.
 
That would have been my guess also Doug. Dont they realize pilots arent going to give the FAA anything or reason to bust them. If cameras where allowed then everytime you had a rough landing or bumpy flight the public would be screaming pull the tapes. I am sure the FAA then would bust a crew.
 
That would have been my guess also Doug. Dont they realize pilots arent going to give the FAA anything or reason to bust them. If cameras where allowed then everytime you had a rough landing or bumpy flight the public would be screaming pull the tapes. I am sure the FAA then would bust a crew. Of course you could always just pull the circuit breaker
 
Interesting. I'd be surprised if it happened though. Not that it's an "invasion of privacy" or anything of the sort, but the benefits seem to be outweighed by the sheer expense of the thing.

Meaning: For every flight that crashes or has an incident, there are several thousand whereon absolutely nothing out of the ordinary occurs.

I don't necessarily see it as a "conspiracy" against pilots in conception, but it most definitely could be used that way in certain circumstances.

Just rambling thoughts.

R2F
 
Agree it's not really an invasion of privacy. My point is an airline pilot is already one of the single most monitored and recorded jobs anyone in the civil sector can have. Do we really need yet another layer of observation?

Plus my biggest concern is what happens if the tapes get released? Yes NTSB says they wont (like CVRs) but things can change. Or, what if the company uses them to "spy" or whatever of crews.

I dunno I just don't like the idea.
 
These all seem to be the very same arguments against having CVR/FDR's installed in the planes

Cost too much
Invasion of privacy
Our employers might use it against us
Family's may see it
No real gain to safety

But how many actual improvements to safety have come from CVR/FDRs, or at least safety recommendations (blame the FAA for not doing more). Can't we all agree that having a greater understanding of Swiss 111 and the others mentioned in the article might save one of our own lives. That in itself makes it worth it to me.

Keep the airlines from getting their hands on the tapes, make it illegal from having them played to the public (just like CVR/FDR's) and install them as planes go in for MX.

My 2 cents.
 
I don't know, highspeed. The voice recorders and flight recorders offer so much valuable information as it is. I just don't see the need.

It may be a "want", but definitely not a "need", IMHO.

And as I said, it's NOT an invasion of privacy as it is my understanding that an employee's "privacy" is pretty much nil when he/she is on the company's time.

My issue is that it's a waste of money. The benefits are outweighed by the expense. Air travel is just getting back to being somewhat affordable. You can guarantee the cost of installation, upkeep and monitoring will be passed along to the consumer.

I just don't see how it's going to make a big difference.

But, what do I know? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
It's my basic understanding the flight data recorders in addition voice recordings record hundreds of parameters and conditions within the actual flight itself. It just seems frivolous to install cameras when so many elements can be decoded from the current FDRs. Not to mention the reasons aforementioned about (i.e. family and employers viewing the tapes). I don't know it just seems like a dumb and pointless idea from numerous angles.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Fine, put cameras in cockpits but, also, put cameras in every, individual office and cubical at the NTSB and see how long that's tolerated.

I have nothing against safety improvements but this really rubs me the wrong way for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point. But at the same time, if a NTSB official's computer crashes, 50+ people don't die. If cameras in the cockpit can provide the missing piece of the puzzle then I am all for it.

As for the cost.....People can just bear the $10 tax added onto a $199 roundtrip fare from NYC to LAX. Afterall, isn't that about the cost of two specialty coffees? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
It's my basic understanding the flight data recorders in addition voice recordings record hundreds of parameters and conditions within the actual flight itself. It just seems frivolous to install cameras when so many elements can be decoded from the current FDRs. Not to mention the reasons aforementioned about (i.e. family and employers viewing the tapes). I don't know it just seems like a dumb and pointless idea from numerous angles.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cameras would have helped in solving the Swiss Air crash that went down off the coast of Nova Scotia.
 
How?

(not trying to be a smartarse - just curious as to why that's been said twice)?

Expound if you don't mind.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fine, put cameras in cockpits but, also, put cameras in every, individual office and cubical at the NTSB and see how long that's tolerated.

I have nothing against safety improvements but this really rubs me the wrong way for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point. But at the same time, if a NTSB official's computer crashes, 50+ people don't die. If cameras in the cockpit can provide the missing piece of the puzzle then I am all for it.

As for the cost.....People can just bear the $10 tax added onto a $199 roundtrip fare from NYC to LAX. Afterall, isn't that about the cost of two specialty coffees? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know though...I think you have to weigh the pros and the cons. The vast majority of the time, the NTSB is able to determine the cause of a crash and implement safety measures to ensure it doesn't happen again. I don't know if you are a pilot or not, but I think you have to think from a pilot's perspective on this one. Would you want your final moments recorded so vividly as in a movie? Would you want your employer to have a constant look into your office as you go about your day to day routine? Would you want your family to see, not just hear, but see your final moments? And would you want tapes of the final moments of a flight crew broadcasted all over for the world to see if God forbid someone got a hold of them? I wouldn't. I think the current FDRs are sufficient for crash investigation.
 
How would cameras found the determining factor of the crash for SR111? The pilots reported smoke and an odour in the cockpit. It was determined that there was a fire, but the fire was started from internal wiring and systems of the aircraft. So how would a camera in the cockpit determine which wires and systems were at fault?
 
And what would they see other than a cockpit full of smoke (i.e. the camera wouldn't see anything other than smoke ... an IR camera is a different story but those aren't being proposed).
 
Honestly, the first thing that came to mind was that somebody high up has a morbid obsession with watching death.
 
ILS,

I don't agree with you that the added horror of your family seeing your last few moments is worse than listening to your last few moments. As you already know, CVR recordings have been leaked to a worldwide audience so video recordings might very well be leaked as well. Again, I think hearing a person's final words/screams is much more traumatic than seeing a video of a plane crashing. (Ok, thinking about this sends a chill up my spine)

I can't see your Big Brother point of view either. Cameras are already installed in banks, retail stores, and many "cubicle" jobs watching employees and customers. I've worked under the "watchful eye of 'Big Brother'" and I didn't feel this overriding tension of being watched/monitored. My morale didn't suffer because of it, but perhaps if an employee fooled around at work then his would.

R2F,

A picture is worth a thousand words? Ok, maybe that was a bit of a generalization when applied to aviation accident investigations, but if investigators had been able to see what actually happened in that Swiss Air cockpit they would not have wasted so much of their time/effort trying to piece together the fire. The smoke and the reaction of the pilots would have been visible and the focus of the investigation could have immediately been focused on the true cause. I saw a documentary on this accident and the tremendous effort put forth to solve it. Wouldn't a lot of $$$ have been saved if investigators knew exactly what to look for from the beginning?
 
Again - Ramblin' Wreck.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ... not tryin' to be a smartass, but how would a camera have been able to see through smoke?
 
Cameras would have helped investigators to form a better visualization of what was occurring in the Swiss Air case. Yes, smoke was reported by the pilots. However, they did not know where it was coming from until the last few minutes and they also did not report where the fire was because they were busy flying/fighting it. Investigators were stumped for a long time until they were able to piece together burnt wiring insulation to figure out that the fire was located above the cabin overhead. They concluded that smoke was not present in the passenger compartment because the air circulation system was preventing the smoke from entering the cabin, but that the circulating air was feeding the fire raging above the cockpit. When the pilots realized the raging fire above them, they reacted by unsuccessfully flying/combating the fire. This conclusion would have been "fast-forwarded" had there been video.
 
Back
Top