NTSB wants to monitor flight deck conversations

I'm outside of this whole argument so feel free to take my opinion with a very large grain of salt.

I don't have any background in accident investigation, but I do have some engineering background, and I can see the potential benefit of having video of an accident, and that there may be some situations where it is helpful. I can also understand that there may be situations where it adds nothing. So from a technical standpoint I think it makes sense that utilizing the technology has the potential to increase aviation safety.

If we use the above as a starting point, then the issue should be how to protect the interests of crewmembers, not how to stop implementing video cameras.

If FDRs and CVRs have been implemented without being used to Big Brother flight crews, then video cameras can be as well. It seems to me that it takes a big picture viewpoint to put the issues into proper perspective.
 
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...

Apparently, as Mike D has indicated, this is not an issue, otherwise the military would not be able to use them in high performance tactical aircraft.
 
SteveC said:
I'm outside of this whole argument so feel free to take my opinion with a very large grain of salt.

I don't have any background in accident investigation, but I do have some engineering background, and I can see the potential benefit of having video of an accident, and that there may be some situations where it is helpful. I can also understand that there may be situations where it adds nothing. So from a technical standpoint I think it makes sense that utilizing the technology has the potential to increase aviation safety.

If we use the above as a starting point, then the issue should be how to protect the interests of crewmembers, not how to stop implementing video cameras.

If FDRs and CVRs have been implemented without being used to Big Brother flight crews, then video cameras can be as well. It seems to me that it takes a big picture viewpoint to put the issues into proper perspective.
Click to expand...

Thanks for nicely restating my position in a way that people might not take offense to!
 
seagull said:
Apparently, as Mike D has indicated, this is not an issue, otherwise the military would not be able to use them in high performance tactical aircraft.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what there systems cost? Do you see many color video's coming from them?

Using it to monitor the inside of a cockpit has several limitations. Most normal digital systems have poor low light performance. The framrate drops significantly, and sensitivity increased to the point that you don't get a good image. A current production ccd system is able to capture about 1/100th of the dynamic range of a human eye.

Heck even flight safety doesn't bother to use the video systems in their sim's.

How many "illusions" have you seen posted on YouTube b/c the flat image captured by the camera manipulates the image. How Many times have the video replay systems in use in the NFL shown nothing helpfull because you get poor distance/depth info from looking at a camera?

How much of your shot is likely to be blocked by a chart, newspaper, acars print out?

How ready are you to watch the death of a coworker/ friend on video?

If the dfdr has such limitations, then perhaps we should work on fixing that first? Wouldn't it be better to improve our current technology before trying to add new systems?
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Do you have any idea what there systems cost? Do you see many color video's coming from them?

Using it to monitor the inside of a cockpit has several limitations. Most normal digital systems have poor low light performance. The framrate drops significantly, and sensitivity increased to the point that you don't get a good image. A current production ccd system is able to capture about 1/100th of the dynamic range of a human eye.

Heck even flight safety doesn't bother to use the video systems in their sim's.

How many "illusions" have you seen posted on YouTube b/c the flat image captured by the camera manipulates the image. How Many times have the video replay systems in use in the NFL shown nothing helpfull because you get poor distance/depth info from looking at a camera?

How much of your shot is likely to be blocked by a chart, newspaper, acars print out?

How ready are you to watch the death of a coworker/ friend on video?

If the dfdr has such limitations, then perhaps we should work on fixing that first? Wouldn't it be better to improve our current technology before trying to add new systems?
Click to expand...

Do you know the sampling rate of a DFDR for flight control inputs?

Also, read what I wrote. I specifically said it would NOT be focused on the crews faces. I would want separate, black and white, video feed showing ALL the flight controls, all the switch panels and one straight out front. The lowest resolution video feeds are still far higher frame rates than the highest current DFDR, and the latter miss a lot between data points. While 3407 was very simple in terms of control inputs, others are not. Seeing feedback loops requires a LOT higher resolution, and capturing issues that could lead to loss of SA in an aircraft where the pilots are 100' in front of the main gear is a LOT different than relatively small aircraft.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
But wait! I thought you were claiming that no discipline could result from anything that would be found on these glorious cameras?! So much for that BS. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Right, if you covered it, nothing WOULD be "found" on the cameras!

That would not come from the CAMERAS, it would come from a person WILLFULLY disabling required aircraft equipment. Do you currently pull CVR breakers? What about FDR?
 
I am against it. Time and time again mgmt has proven they cannot be trusted to act in a responsable manner. How can mgmt type be trusted when certain airlines can't even run an ASAP program properly forcing it to be suspended. The only people I would trust with the info is NASA. To my knowlege they have never violated the trust that is placed upon the in the ASRS.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
I am against it. Time and time again mgmt has proven they cannot be trusted to act in a responsable manner. How can mgmt type be trusted when certain airlines can't even run an ASAP program properly forcing it to be suspended. The only people I would trust with the info is NASA. To my knowlege they have never violated the trust that is placed upon the in the ASRS.
Click to expand...

The difference is ASAP is an agreement, I am talking about it being part of the regulation. Second, what are people doing in their aircraft that they can be in trouble for? This comes across as "hey, we are willfully violating regulations and don't want to be caught" to me.

I fly for a living and have no concerns about this. Incidentally, a LARGE numbers of companies DO have video and other monitoring of their employees. We all live a great deal of our lives under surveillance, on or off the jobs.
 
If people start monitoring CVR data on a regular basis, the NTSB (or the union, or whoever) will destroy the very evidence they are attempting to retrieve. The CB will be pulled, an iPod will be on, or worst of all, the pilots won't talk at all during flight. If confidence is not maintained, then the evidence to wish to obtain will become evanescent.

Frankly, though, I believe the Supreme Court made the argument much better than I am in a case that mirrors the kind of thinking that is behind forwarded here. It's a case called Jaffee v. Redmond, and it dealt with psychotherapist/patient confidentiality, and psychotherapist testimonial privilege.

In contrast to the significant public and private interests supporting recognition of the privilege, the likely evidentiary benefit that would result from the denial of the privilege is modest. If the privilege were rejected, confidential conversations between psychotherapists and their patients would surely be chilled, particularly when it is obvious that the circumstances that give rise to the need for treatment will probably result in litigation. Without a privilege, much of the desirable evidence to which litigants such as petitioner seek access - for example, admissions against interest by a party - is unlikely to come into being. This unspoken "evidence" will therefore serve no greater truth-seeking function than if it had been spoken and privileged.
Click to expand...

http://jaffee-redmond.org/cases/jr-opin.htm
 
I think it was summed up earlier. Micromanagement of the cockpit will lead to less CRM, less question or concerns about xyz, etc passed between pilots for the simple fear of what mgmt will do if it is reviewed. There are too many negatives to the system. How long do you think it would be before crash video would be leaked to the net or media. We can't even keep cvr data off the web.
 
Never did accident investigation but have read considerably. Read many reports and for the most part defer to the wisdom of the Flight Safety Foundation. It was FSI that early one called for using the FDRs to find out what was really going on out on the line. Stuart Matthews understood that check rides, line checks, etc were NOT indicative of real world behavior (surprise!). BUT Matthews was well aware of the fences that needed to be in place so the crews would have confidence in the data gathering process.

And again, FSI has said there are other avenues less costly and probably more productive than putting cameras in the cockpit. And monitoring the CVR? First, who is going to look at and listen to the tens of thousands of hours of recordings? At what cost? Bang for the buck? I've not seen anything and much of the bluster seems befitting one of Oberstar's hearings.. mostly show for the public.

We have NTSB reports. They tell us what happened in vivid detail. They do NOT tell us why the crew chose to respond or act in a certain way. Take 3407 for example (an accident that many like to use)

3407 is being used for all sorts of purposes. Bad crew. Lax crew. Terrible conditions. Fatigue. Sterile cockpit. On and on and on. But as noted in a seminar back in Sept, can anyone explain how even a private pilot is going to augur in from a stall at 1500ft AGL? How does one miss an airspeed loss of about 50kts in less than 30 seconds? Happened but WHY? If we just call a matter of a bad crew, why don't we step back 40yrs and just call it 'pilot error'? Case closed. It was an individual event of a lousy Capt and an inexperienced F/O and look at all the other flights (tens of thousands) that are completed without incident, much less a crash.

Cameras will change cockpit behavior. And yes, because Congress is essentially a bunch of enuchs they will not pass laws to protect data from discovery (as in other countries) there will continue to be challenges to FOQA and ASAPs.

But bang for the buck? I don't think it is there. Hersman's comment that it is necessary if we are going to curb accidents but lots more people are killed by auto accidents involving commercial trucks. And more than a few in trains. Cameras in trucks and trains also?

The implied but unstated point is the FOQA and ASAP are insufficient. That we need visuals. ??? As if seeing the crew is going to explain why they made decision A and not B? Again, I could be wrong but I don't see it.
 
seagull said:
The difference is ASAP is an agreement, I am talking about it being part of the regulation. Second, what are people doing in their aircraft that they can be in trouble for? This comes across as "hey, we are willfully violating regulations and don't want to be caught" to me.
Click to expand...

Making mistakes that may or may not be dealt with reasonably. James Reason's chart moves from a simple mistake to violations and I will wager many have never seen it. ( for a look at one view obviously presented to a medical community see
http://portale.fnomceo.it/Jcmsfnomceo/cmsfile/attach_4437.pdf

A second site with a flow chart on page 4 can be found at
http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/21may09-Potential/21may09-baines.pdf

A mistake may just require some additional training while a violation of policy/procedure may have some justification. For example, Sully violated company policy when he decided to fly the airplane and have Skiles run the checklist. POLICY is for the Capt to run the checklist and for the F/O to fly. Anyone wanna hop on Sully for a violation when obviously the situation and experience (Skiles just coming off tng and being intimately familiar with the QRH and restart procedures) didn't fit the policy. Or that the crew missed closing the outflow valves on the ditching checklist?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
CVRs and FDRs will not show a crystal clear picture of my death for representatives of management, manufacturers, the NTSB, and the union to watch after an accident. I find the very idea to be grotesque.
Click to expand...

Nor would cameras if focused ONLY on flight controls.
 
jtrain609 said:
The CB will be pulled, an iPod will be on, or worst of all, the pilots won't talk at all during flight.

Frankly, though, I believe the Supreme Court made the argument much better than I am in a case that mirrors the kind of thinking that is behind forwarded here. It's a case called Jaffee v. Redmond, and it dealt with psychotherapist/patient confidentiality, and psychotherapist testimonial privilege
http://jaffee-redmond.org/cases/jr-opin.htm
Click to expand...

The concept of using ANY of this for ANYTHING other than supporting safety programs or post accident/incident evaluation, is clearly wrong. However, WITH THE PROPER safe guards, this would improve safety. Period.

The situation is not at all analogous to the case you cite, for the same reason that the court's have consistently upheld the drug testing of transportation workers, and that is not covered under HIPPA law. You have to be careful with the law, as it doesn't always bend the way you expect. While this issue might be challenged, and it would obviously be a Federal question, I would be very surprised if even the 9th Circuit would agree with your assessment.
 
Orange Anchor said:
FSI has said there are other avenues less costly and probably more productive than putting cameras in the cockpit. And monitoring the CVR? First, who is going to look at and listen to the tens of thousands of hours of recordings? At what cost? Bang for the buck? I've not seen anything and much of the bluster seems befitting one of Oberstar's hearings.. mostly show for the public.
Click to expand...

Nobody would, absent an event, which supports that the fears are likely not warranted.

Orange Anchor said:
We have NTSB reports. They tell us what happened in vivid detail. They do NOT tell us why the crew chose to respond or act in a certain way. Take 3407 for example (an accident that many like to use)
Click to expand...

Having worked closely with NTSB for many, many years, you would be surprised by how much is missing, particulary the "whys", which are necessary to prevent future accidents. I don't like to use 3407 much because that was one of the more simple accidents out there. It lacks the complexity, relatively speaking, and so to use that if we were to choose to use that as our primary basis for understanding accidents, it would clearly NOT support the need for more data. However, get into some of the others and that issue changes significantly, particularly those that involved APC or similar events.

Orange Anchor said:
Cameras will change cockpit behavior. And yes, because Congress is essentially a bunch of enuchs they will not pass laws to protect data from discovery (as in other countries) there will continue to be challenges to FOQA and ASAPs.
Click to expand...

Same was said about CVRs, but that didn't come to pass.

Orange Anchor said:
But bang for the buck? I don't think it is there. Hersman's comment that it is necessary if we are going to curb accidents but lots more people are killed by auto accidents involving commercial trucks. And more than a few in trains. Cameras in trucks and trains also?
Click to expand...

Those accidents are much simpler dynamically, even simpler than 3407 for a control interaction perspective.

Orange Anchor said:
The implied but unstated point is the FOQA and ASAP are insufficient. That we need visuals. ??? As if seeing the crew is going to explain why they made decision A and not B? Again, I could be wrong but I don't see it.
Click to expand...

You are wrong because you are not aware of how severely limited we are with the current available data when looking at highly non-linear complex dynamics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top