FAA reauthorization bill includes Cockpit Video Recorders! 👎

[MikeD]

That's fine and all, but for 121 flying video/cams don't belong up in our bidness.

Devils advocate question here, but why? How is 121 different from what I do, in terms of, they are both flying. Curious why 121 would be singled out from all other flight operations?

The biggest reason against, that I can see, is data misuse; something that is supposed to be used for safety, being used for punitive actions. Of course, that can happen with a CVR too, even though it shouldn’t.

For reference, where the systems are installed in our birds, for the cockpit, the instrument front panel and center console can be seen. You can see the pilot’s hands, but can’t really see the pilot unless they lean forward into the field of view.

 

[bike21]

To be fair, I don't think they belong in any cockpit for obvious potential punitive and privacy related issues. Our employers, pax and the feds either implicitly trust us or they don't. We already have a ton of data fed to the mother ship for every flight (we have a new app that we can go back and see all kinds of crazy metrics) and video is a step too far. Not to mention it is another cost added to the bottom line which has little additional value. I'd rather resources be spent on fixing the NOTAM system or installing secondary barriers for instance that could actually save lives vs. PilotTube.

My initial comment was directed more toward individaul 91 ops setting their own rules, but yeah I don't really like it for that either.

 

[MikeD]

To be fair, I don't think they belong in any cockpit for obvious potential punitive and privacy related issues. Our employers, pax and the feds either implicitly trust us or they don't. We already have a ton of data fed to the mother ship for every flight (we have a new app that we can go back and see all kinds of crazy metrics) and video is a step too far. Not to mention it is another cost added to the bottom line which has little additional value. I'd rather resources be spent on fixing the NOTAM system or installing secondary barriers for instance that could actually save lives vs. PilotTube.

My initial comment was directed more toward individaul 91 ops setting their own rules, but yeah I don't really like it for that either.

Those are all fair arguments, I agree. Especially as you mention, in your case there’s already info being down/uploaded constantly in real time. For us, I don’t know if they were ordered specifically, or if they were standard package in the birds. I haven’t yet seen any instance of video being regularly downloaded for any good or bad purpose. However we have had a few incidents happen one after another in the past few weeks, resulting in aircraft damage, and I’m curious what the video may have shown, if anything other than what is known. But those particular aircraft are all older ones that may not have been retrofitted.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I don't even care too much about the punitive stuff. What I DO care about is some family watching their father/mother die on YouTube when it inevitably leaks 90 seconds after the NTSB takes posession of it.

We already can listen to CVRs from accidents, or ATC transmissions on LiveATC. There's no good reason to have to watch it in real time.

DFDRs can offer a thousand data points regarding what the position of any flight control or switch is.

 

[Richman]

If they’d lock ALL the data down, Canadian style, eh, maybe there’s a conversation.

But until then, take off, eh?

 

[Apophis]

Devils advocate question here, but why? How is 121 different from what I do, in terms of, they are both flying. Curious why 121 would be singled out from all other flight operations?

The biggest reason against, that I can see, is data misuse; something that is supposed to be used for safety, being used for punitive actions. Of course, that can happen with a CVR too, even though it shouldn’t.

For reference, where the systems are installed in our birds, for the cockpit, the instrument front panel and center console can be seen. You can see the pilot’s hands, but can’t really see the pilot unless they lean forward into the field of view.

Come on man, you should know that if something CAN be abused, it absolutely WILL be abused. Remember back when the TSA implemented those milimeter-wave nudey scanners at airports nationwide? How many times were we assured that the photos couldn't be stored or used inappropriately. It wasn't more than several weeks before that was proven to be false.

My company (actually FedEx mandated it, since they own the aircraft) has a similar camera system installed in the Caravan fleet. I don't want this • anywhere near a 121 flight deck.

Sorry.

 

[MikeD]

Come on man, you should know that if something CAN be abused, it absolutely WILL be abused. Remember back when the TSA implemented those milimeter-wave nudey scanners at airports nationwide? How many times were we assured that the photos couldn't be stored or used inappropriately. It wasn't more than several weeks before that was proven to be false.

My company (actually FedEx mandated it, since they own the aircraft) has a similar camera system installed in the Caravan fleet. I don't want this • anywhere near a 121 flight deck.

Sorry.

And that is the argument that I’m in agreement with. I was just curious what the various arguments against were, and there are some very legit ones.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Devils advocate question here, but why? How is 121 different from what I do, in terms of, they are both flying. Curious why 121 would be singled out from all other flight operations?

The biggest reason against, that I can see, is data misuse; something that is supposed to be used for safety, being used for punitive actions. Of course, that can happen with a CVR too, even though it shouldn’t.

For reference, where the systems are installed in our birds, for the cockpit, the instrument front panel and center console can be seen. You can see the pilot’s hands, but can’t really see the pilot unless they lean forward into the field of view.

Because you do flaps 2 = dangerous kind of flying!

 

[Kingairer]

Age 67 passed the house committee now onto the Senate. Music is slowing.

 

[chrisreedrules]

Age 67 passed the house committee now onto the Senate. Music is slowing.

Maybe. If ICAO doesn’t pass age 67 then it creates a whole lot of headaches for legacy airlines. How they choose to treat that headache may surprise some.

 

[Hiboglossi]

Age 67 passed the house committee now onto the Senate. Music is slowing.

Look like there will be another Lost Decade before we know it...

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Age 67 passed the house committee now onto the Senate. Music is slowing.

“Back in my day we stagnated for 5 years and took it like real pilots…. Beotched and complained all day.”


Age 23-28 were spent as a RJ FO, so older pilots could spend 60-65 as widebody CAs to apparently make up for their pension loss. They signed up for the seniority game knowing 60 was the punch out, and then changed the rules to let them work 5 more yrs.

“But you too can work the 5 additional years!”

Yeah, but you spent that as a widebody CA. I spent that as a RJ FO on the front end of my career.

 

[ClearedForOption]

I know that I am on the unpopular side of this issue, but I honestly don't care. For very self-centered reasons.

First, the whole Age 67 issue isn't for my shop. (Or for CC's or even for Zap's. All it will do is delay retirement seniority gains for 2 years. Growth is still growth.) With the impending merger between Blue and Yellow there is going to be 5 years of stagnation following that most likely anyway.
IMHO there is a combination a few things driving this....

1.) Legacy retirements catching up post-covid.
2.) The training pipeline stagnating during Covid.
3.) Poor prep on the part of the airlines to properly address the available labor pool.
(4.) 60ish year old pilots that want mo' money, 2 more years, etc. because 'insert reason here'.)

This is a management issue. Seems like A4A and the industry as a whole is attacking the pilot labor issue on many fronts: Reduced experience. (MPL, R-ATP) Zero to Hero programs. Single Pilot Certification of aircraft.

This will buy the airlines two more years to play catch up.

These retirements have been on the books or a generation and in typical fashion the carriers have been keeping them in a corner with a dirty sheet on the issue saying la-la-la-la-la-la as if it's gonna go away.

Pilots that are within say, 5-10 years are also pushing hard for this. (from what I've observing) Screaming about inflation, CPI's, 401k's, and etc. I get it... make another $800K gross. Put another 120k into the retirement accounts. Match your retirement with SoSoc bennies. Pilots are very predictable. They will always act in self-interest. (Gen X is the new Boomer...)

I don't have a solution, I'm just a dumb line guy... just donate to the ALPA PAC and protect your careers. This is the way.

 

[Richman]

Best part of the age 67 bill is that it has a retroactive provision, letting people over 65, but not 67, come back at their old seniority.

No, I’m not kidding.

 

[MikeD]

Best part of the age 67 bill is that it has a retroactive provision, letting people over 65, but not 67, come back at their old seniority.

No, I’m not kidding.

Curiously, did the age 65 not have that? For those between. 60-65?

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Like what? Legit curious

Go look at where and who the PAC sends money to. Some of it goes to persons/programs I don't personally agree with.

 

[BobDDuck]

Curiously, did the age 65 not have that? For those between. 60-65?

No. Most airline contracts do not allow for a pilot to rejoin a seniority list with their old seniority. That's why in most discipline cases, the pilot is kept on the list until a final appeal is heard and decided upon.

 

[ClearedForOption]

Best part of the age 67 bill is that it has a retroactive provision, letting people over 65, but not 67, come back at their old seniority.

No, I’m not kidding.

How would that provision play with this:

No. Most airline contracts do not allow for a pilot to rejoin a seniority list with their old seniority. That's why in most discipline cases, the pilot is kept on the list until a final appeal is heard and decided upon.

For instance, at my shop, "retirement" has always been compared with the ending of employment. Other than pass bennies, which are different for many and not codified in the working agreement, retirement might as well be termination.

Our CBA says the following:

Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a Pilot shall forfeit all seniority rights and his name shall be removed from the Seniority List under the following conditions:

a. Resignation;
b. Voluntary retirement;
c. FAR Part 121 retirement age;

So, how would that work as it would be a seniority rights violation for the other thousands of pilots if a bunch of pilots who were handed a gold watch and got water cannoned suddenly "came back."

B.T.W... Gotta wonder how much the '85UAL/'89EAL lobby paid to have that thrown into the text.

 

[///AMG]

I guess it could suck if you were a person chasing one of the places with the highest "mandatory retirements" in the last few years, which I guess is essentially chasing the upgrade.

 

[Soku39]

I guess it could suck if you were a person chasing one of the places with the highest "mandatory retirements" in the last few years, which I guess is essentially chasing the upgrade.

No lie, that's why I ultimately stayed where I'm at after interviewing elsewhere... oh well 3 more years in the right seat.