NTSB wants to monitor flight deck conversations

seagull said:
Which also raises the issue of sampling rates on digital recordings. In many respects, the old analogue were better. Sad but true. Again, video would solve the issue.
Click to expand...

Video is limited to 29.9 fps without compression resulting in huge files. When our dfdr tags an event it records realtime...

The ntsb had no issues with resolution of the fdr in 3407.
 
seagull said:
If it were used like FOQA data, essentially rolled into FOQA as another data feed, I would not only think it's ok, it would be a huge increase in safety. Another would be video in the cockpit, to include inputs to all the control inputs. Doesn't need pilot faces, that would not have much value, but to confirm that they actually pushed a button or attempted to activate a control would be good for both accident investigation as well as protecting pilots from being wrongly accused of not doing something they should have.
Click to expand...

It'll be a cold day in hell before I fly an airplane that has a video camera so someone like you can look over my shoulder under the guise of "safety."

Just so everyone else here knows, I've never met another safety volunteer that felt that video cameras would be a good thing, and certainly none that believe that allowing someone to listen to random CVRs was a good thing. I think seagull spent a few too many days behind his management desk.

seagull said:
You need to get more involved in investigations and analysis. You would see that those are FAR from "all the data" needed.
Click to expand...

Have you been living under a rock? There isn't a single person on this forum with more accident investigation and analysis experience than Seggy.
 
OK, I have read almost all of this thread. And what I can't figure out is the fear of being fired/certificate action that everyone is afriad of. If you are so afriad of this, whats going on in the cockpit that you are so afraid of?
 
mshunter said:
OK, I have read almost all of this thread. And what I can't figure out is the fear of being fired/certificate action that everyone is afriad of. If you are so afriad of this, whats going on in the cockpit that you are so afraid of?
Click to expand...

How 'bout I set up a camera where you work and watch you constantly? Sound good? Didn't think so.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Video is limited to 29.9 fps without compression resulting in huge files. When our dfdr tags an event it records realtime...

The ntsb had no issues with resolution of the fdr in 3407.
Click to expand...

No, as that was relatively a simple one, from the performance perspective. Get into rate saturation and that is a different story.
 
mshunter said:
OK, I have read almost all of this thread. And what I can't figure out is the fear of being fired/certificate action that everyone is afriad of. If you are so afriad of this, whats going on in the cockpit that you are so afraid of?
Click to expand...
Its not that people are doing things wrong per se, its that there is a real posibility managment will interpret and use data to their own agenda, that people fear. Let me give a really simplistic example. Suppose on the climb checklist in a King air that you are to turn on the bleeds, after accelerating to V2 +20. Now I accidentally forget that item during a flow, because I'm in a busy terminal environment, but when reading the checklist I catch it and turn them on 1000 feet late (exactly why we have a checklist to back ourselves up with). Now technically if managment wants to and they need to furlough some people to cut costs, they could say I violated SOP's, and caused discomfort to our pax, and they use that to lead to a termination, saying that I might be unsafe because I dont follow SOP's. I realize this is a very very extremely laughable scenario, but it proves the point of what garbage can be tried in a culture of fear, which most regionals are. I know its almost sounds paranoid, but most pilots know that this kinda of garbage can and does get pulled. And while you may ask doest the union protect from that stuff, and the simple answer is yes, sometimes, but not always, You can not ever automatically assume your union can protect your job, when someone says your unsafe...
 
seagull said:
No, as that was relatively a simple one, from the performance perspective. Get into rate saturation and that is a different story.
Click to expand...

Then you prob. Should look into the effects of g forces on a shuttered ccd system. You get color scaling and artifacts, drops in framerate , banding, etc. The realtime fdr records a constant data stream. In... Realtime.

Fed rides are fine, video cameras are not.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Just so everyone else here knows, I've never met another safety volunteer that felt that video cameras would be a good thing, and certainly none that believe that allowing someone to listen to random CVRs was a good thing. I think seagull spent a few too many days behind his management desk.

Have you been living under a rock? There isn't a single person on this forum with more accident investigation and analysis experience than Seggy.
Click to expand...

First of all, unless you are counting the time I spent as chairman of union safety committees, I hardly spent that much time in management, and haven't been in management for several years. It would appear to me that you haven't spend much time discussing this issue with those who have devoted their lives to safety investigations and analysis (and going through the ALPA basic accident investigation school with no other experience does not qualify).

Second, regarding Seggy's experience, you have no idea what you're talking about. And yes, I know exactly what his experience is, I asked him. There are many on this forum who have FAR more experience than he has. He has his right to his opinion, but it is not based on years and years of working in the field of accident and safety investigation. Why don't you ask him if he agrees with your assessment of his accident investigation experience?

Clearly, some prequal criteria has to be in place before video cameras, but to say it would not enhance MANY investigations is just not understanding the dynamics involved, or the limitations of what we currently are working with.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Have you been living under a rock? There isn't a single person on this forum with more accident investigation and analysis experience than Seggy.
Click to expand...

I've got more than a few Class A & B investigations under my belt as IO.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Have you been living under a rock? There isn't a single person on this forum with more accident investigation and analysis experience than Seggy.
Click to expand...


To be fair, I know there are some on this board with a lot more experience than me in accident investigation. MikeD and seagull have years under their belt. In the past year though it might have been a more accurate assesment...

However, I completely disagree with seagull on his ideas here for the CVRs and Video. I know that those with A LOT more experience than me agree with me on this as well.
 
Seggy said:
To be fair, I know there are some on this board with a lot more experience than me in accident investigation. MikeD and seagull have years under their belt. In the past year though it might have been a more accurate assesment...
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that Mike had AI experience. My apologies to MikeD.
 
Also Orange Anchor has a ton of experience.


I'm going to drag him into this thread and ask him what he thinks.......

:)
 
mshunter said:
OK, I have read almost all of this thread. And what I can't figure out is the fear of being fired/certificate action that everyone is afriad of. If you are so afriad of this, whats going on in the cockpit that you are so afraid of?
Click to expand...


The Central Air Safety Committee Chair at a regional airline wrote this the other day...

"No safety program, no ALPA lawyer, or for that matter any high priced private lawyer is going to get you off the hook for an intentional and deliberate unsafe act in Part 121 operations. Period-done."

We have a responsibility to police ourselves and as a professional demand professional behavior of those that we work with. This attitude and culture is the 'monitor' for those that stray.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Then you prob. Should look into the effects of g forces on a shuttered ccd system. You get color scaling and artifacts, drops in framerate , banding, etc. The realtime fdr records a constant data stream. In... Realtime.

Fed rides are fine, video cameras are not.
Click to expand...

It is hardly constant. How many samples/second? What about flight control inputs, how many points/second? I can tell you that most FDRs do not have the fidelity to capture the inputs that would show control rate saturation, among other things. The cameras would work, as the g forces are relatively small for that sort of thing, at least initially.
 
Seggy said:
To be fair, I know there are some on this board with a lot more experience than me in accident investigation. MikeD and seagull have years under their belt. In the past year though it might have been a more accurate assesment...

However, I completely disagree with seagull on his ideas here for the CVRs and Video. I know that those with A LOT more experience than me agree with me on this as well.
Click to expand...

As I have been immersed in one for the past 12 months, I think I might argue that, and it was far from my first! Thanks for jumping back in though.

Again, safeguards would be necessary. I would like to know why the language that no aircraft recording may be used in any form of discipline, including even calling up the crew for a debrief or a sim ride, is not standard at other carriers? Would this not be something that would be worth giving something up for?

Still, to argue that more info would not be useful is many, many, accidents, is to ignore the facts.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I wasn't aware that Mike had AI experience. My apologies to MikeD.
Click to expand...

No biggie, its all good. No way of knowing.

On this subject, the whole idea of videos in the cockpit are normal to me, as that's what I've always known and I describe that a few posts above. However, I also recognize that the military application of cockpit videos and the civil application of the same, are very different concepts with differing aims and goals. While normal from where I came from, in the airline application its still very much a foreign concept, which is totally understandable. With the problems and distrust inherent in management and labor relations, I can see where there would be questions of program integrity, were one to be implemented, and questions regarding videos being used in a punitive manner vice just as a safety function. I also see where seagull describes how these videos could potentially exonerate a crew during an accident/incident as well in certain scenarios.

There's no true easy answer to this one, as there are tons of considerations that need to be analyzed, IMHO.
 
seagull said:
I would like to know why the language that no aircraft recording may be used in any form of discipline, including even calling up the crew for a debrief or a sim ride, is not standard at other carriers? Would this not be something that would be worth giving something up for?
Click to expand...

We shouldn't have to give up ANYTHING for it. Management who should be setting the tone for a just safety culture should be the ones coming to the unions to establish this type of contractual provision or LOA.

This is not the case.


MikeD said:
There's no true easy answer to this one, as there are tons of considerations that need to be analyzed, IMHO.
Click to expand...

In today's environment the answer is a very easy answer.....NO!

I had a personal experience where there was a breakdown in CRM because the FO thought the company I work for was monitoring the CVRs.
 
Seggy said:
We shouldn't have to give up ANYTHING for it. Management who should be setting the tone for a just safety culture should be the ones coming to the unions to establish this type of contractual provision or LOA.

This is not the case.

In today's environment the answer is a very easy answer.....NO!

I had a personal experience where there was a breakdown in CRM because the FO thought the company I work for was monitoring the CVRs.
Click to expand...

I agree you shouldn't HAVE to give up anything, however, the reality, as you well know, is that EVERYTHING is a bargaining chip!

If, with the mandating of it, the rule INCLUDED the protections, that would be that. It would be the LAW, not just the contract.

Please note that at NO TIME have I advocated using ANY of these devices for DISCIPLINE!! I have ONLY advocated that they be included as part of a program, similar to FOQA, which, like FOQA, would preclude their use by the company against any single pilot. Of course, if trends were there (such as significant sterile cockpit violations), the company would need to emphasis that in training, line checks, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top