In Air India’s wake, revisiting the case for cockpit video recorders
Posted by RedSquirrel17@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 196 comments
Posted by RedSquirrel17@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 196 comments
StartersOrders@reddit
I'm not sure what having cameras would have prevented here.
If it was malicious, we'd only have the fact that one of the pilots did indeed intentionally move the cut-off switches to OFF, but we still wouldn't know why.
With aviation accidents, CCTV is a bit pointless as the usual end of a plane crash is a large fiery hole in the ground, that's why they have at least two pilots in most cockpits. A pilot can react, whereas a CCTV camera just passively records the impending doom.
ThePilingViking@reddit
But we would know without doubt that that did occur, and by whom.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
we already know that. or rather investigators do.
ThePilingViking@reddit
There’s still so many that doubt it. You can remove that doubt and remove it sooner.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
What the hell does that accomplish? Your argument has devolved into “but look at what all the peeeeeeple are saying! We gotta give them something to like and share!”
ThePilingViking@reddit
What does that accomplish? You really can’t figure that out?
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
You’re being vague because you don’t have an answer. We know one of the pilots shut off the engines. What is to be gained at this point by having a camera or the FDR/CVR tell us which one it was?
You keep forgetting that “nice to know” isn’t actually meaningful.
ThePilingViking@reddit
We’ve been “told” the fuel cut off switches were turned off and implied that was by a pilot. We don’t know for sure that they were switched deliberately, accidentally, by who, or if they were actually switched at all. If everyone had access to vision that showed a pilot switched it himself, this is done at 30 days. No more arguments, no more theories. We move on.
I have to ask, how are you not getting it.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
The only way for them to do that is by a pilot’s hand.
It was deliberate. There is absolutely no way to do that accidentally. Not both within 1 second of each other.
What does that matter besides your morbid curiosity? They’ll figure out who, but that doesn’t actually change anything.
They 100% were. Stop.
Done for who? Instagram? Xitter? The accident investigators knew within a couple days that one of them shut off the engines.
Because you think “nice to know” for the proposes of gossip is interchangeable for formal accident investigations. Your own curiosity doesn’t get you around the fact that CVR/FDRs today can give them everything they need.
ThePilingViking@reddit
Boeing also told us the Max crashes were pilots fault until they weren’t. You’re against a system that without doubt would prove what did or didn’t happen. The excuses you’ve provided are lacking substance. You know the system can be improved and therefore should. Lesser industries have done so and successfully used footage to provide operator negligence. There’s zero reason not to do so in aviation.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
This is a non sequitur. There’s nothing a cockpit camera could have revealed here that the FDR didn’t. Why are you bringing up Boeing’s subterfuge in a discussion about how we can gather data in an accident?
You can’t just declare that my points have no substance and then not explain why. That’s lazy debating. Anyone can just lazily claim anything has no substance.
This wouldn’t be an improvement, and it would be a needless intrusion in the cockpit.
Name them. Because when you do, I’m going to immediately point out of those industries either:
don’t already have something like a CVR/FDR, and a camera is the only way that they could attain such a recording. CVR/FDRs are expensive. They don’t make sense for things like busses and subway cars.
the camera exists for passengers and customers, for liability purposes. Not for accident investigations.
Yes there is. It’s intrusive and open to violations of privacy. And it gains nothing substantive regarding safety. It isn’t going to prevent any accident. Isn’t going to show anything that FDR’s don’t already show. (And for the few FDRs on older Boeing shit boxes that might not show certain things, the answer is to update those Boeing shit boxes, not put cameras in the cockpit).
ThePilingViking@reddit
Only those who say it’s intrusive, fail to acknowledge their responsibility and have something to hide. Again, lesser industries already do it. There’s no excuses.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
Bullshit. Why can’t I put a camera in your car to make sure you aren’t using your phone while you drive? You got something to hide? Then you can’t push back on that, right?
And I already explained the difference with those. Why did you ignore it?
ThePilingViking@reddit
This is like debating mobile phones with an old person when they first came in. You can’t accept added levels of improved tracking and information. I’d be better talking to a wall.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
Yet another bullshit deflection. You understand exactly why you don’t want a camera in your car, and you understand exactly why trying to justify it with some broader safety goal is not sufficient at all.
And once again, you ignore how I detailed why cameras being available “lesser industries” isn’t relevant.
So if you feel like you’re talking to a wall, that’s because you peaced out of the conversation.
ThePilingViking@reddit
What are you on about? There should be cameras in my car and every, to ensure drivers are focused. But you’ve just made up something I didn’t say.
You’ve made no proactive argument, just continually whinged this whole time. Your heads stuck in the sand.
StartersOrders@reddit
But what do we achieve by knowing who did it?
ThePilingViking@reddit
There’s still people who doubt it occurred. If for example you can see that the pilot on the left (not in control) actually did it, then you remove the doubt. Then you can go straight to establishing why he deliberately did so. Or you might see an accidental action. Who knows.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
CVR and FDR also don't prevent accidents, but they help with the investigation of serious incidents and accidents, and help us to learn from them.
StartersOrders@reddit
But what does adding CCTV achieve? We have a CVR and FDR already, the latter of which tells us everything that was done to the aircraft.
Adding video just shows you who did what, but it doesn't really add any meat to the investigation.
duggatron@reddit
I think the pilots in this thread are losing track of the fact that this is a crime. Clearly establishing who is at fault is important.
StartersOrders@reddit
Both people who could have moved the switches are dead, what would establishing who is at fault do from a criminal perspective?
duggatron@reddit
Bring peace of mind for the victims, including the other pilot he murdered.
You obviously haven't looked at any Indian media or subreddits. Those people all believe this is Boeing's fault.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
It would also put all the conspiracy theories and doubts to end, if there was clear video evidence of what was happening to the fuel control switches.
Can't say it's Boeing or whoever's fault, if you had video evidence of somebody reaching for the switches and moving them to cutoff.
railker@reddit
"The town idiot's gonna eat a box of crayons if you don't tape the front page of the newspaper to your car." The existence of theories and debate on the internet doesn't really hold a lot of safety precedent. The preliminary report is out and now they're just conspiring that it's fabricated.
FranksBaldPatch@reddit
Suppose it depends how trusting you are of Boeing after the 737 MAXs cover up.
ChosenCarelessly@reddit
You’re correct, even if numpties are downvoting you. As much as understanding how the switches were activated, we need to understand why. Cameras can’t really help with that.
Just remember that most people think most mistakes are intentional. Except for their own, of course..
South_Coconut_8983@reddit
It is incredibly clear in Annex 13 that the purpose of an investigation is not to fine blame in a certain party but to prevent the accident from happening again.
Video cameras will not help investigators prevent accidents from re occurring. They will help find blame in people but this not the purpose of air crash investigations.
foamtherunway@reddit
By this logic CVRs and FDRs are useless as they do not prevent accidents. The NTSB has wanted video recorders for 20+ years.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
no. I’m saying the video is useless precisely because it adds nothing to what the CVRs and FDRs already do.
foamtherunway@reddit
It would add a lot to every investigation that is why the NTSB wants it. Current recorders do not record many valuable things video would.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
Like what? You notice how you guys can’t stop being so vague?
Fickle_Ad_9686@reddit
Hey dufus, why do you think the investigators themselves want it?
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
Because it makes their job slightly easier. I don’t care if it takes them 8 more days to figure out who flipped the switches. That’s nobody’s problem but theirs. That is not actually an actionable issue. This is just circle jerking by a bunch of people who don’t know anything about aviation or CRM.
Non-jabroni_redditor@reddit
But they clearly do? Because we only have general idea of what happened in this case, not what actually happened as everyone wants to know. We know the switch was moved but not how (accidental, purposeful, or otherwise) and a video would 100% explain it
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
We know one of the pilots intentionally moved the switch. And investigator’s definitely already know which one it was. The report just isn’t out yet. So no adding a camera adds nothing. Your argument is especially weak since the best you can argue is for slightly better hindsight that does nothing to improve safety for the people onboard.
Non-jabroni_redditor@reddit
No, we know one of the pilots asked the other why they cut the engines and the other replied they didn't. Do I think that one of the pilots actually did this? Yes, but the preliminary at least doesn't come out and confirm how it happened.
Thats... all of the recordings? It's not like you can use CVR any other way after a plane has already crashed... Recording has potential to highlight specific safety improvements that need to be made for future flights to be safe
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
Don’t be naïve. The only way those switches move like that is if someone move them. The investigators know who did it. They just haven’t released their report yet.
No. Because the CVR in the FDR, together, tell us why planes crash. Adding a TV camera does not add anything substantive to what the CVR in the FDR already do.
South_Coconut_8983@reddit
CVR’s and FDR’s are critical in finding out what occurred. The FDR will reveal the technical aspect and the CVR will reveal the human aspect. These are critical to understanding what happened and subsequently how to prevent it in the future.
A camera will not add any additional information about what happened that we don’t already know. In this case it will slightly expedite understanding who did it - something we will likely understand eventually anyways. Who did it has no influence on preventing future accidents.
The NTSB has been stopped by unions as it isn’t their job to influence blame - one of the only benefits cameras will give.
LordofNarwhals@reddit
I don't see how they wouldn't help. If a switch was unintentionally flipped then a camera could help reveal why that happened. In the Chinook iPad crash from a few years ago (NTSB report pdf), cockpit video would more easily (and definitively) have shown that the crash was caused by the iPad.
In the Air India case, video would likely have shown that the switches were moved intentionally (and not as a result of a bad switch panel design/installation). But that's still useful information, as it proves that the crash wasn't caused by malfunctioning hardware.
The_Ashamed_Boys@reddit
We already know it wasn't caused by bad hardware.
LordofNarwhals@reddit
Yes, and a video showing someone flipping those switches (and not bumping them accidentally) could make us even more sure of that assertion.
The_Ashamed_Boys@reddit
The only people who are unsure don't know anything about aviation or cockpit design and their opinions are irrelevant.
LordofNarwhals@reddit
Those people buy plane tickets. So their opinions matter at least a little bit for the industry.
And more importantly, it would make investigations easier and more conclusive, which is why the NTSB have been asking for them for some time now:
blunderbolt@reddit
Aside from benefits during investigations there is also the question of how video surveillance could impact pilot behavior. We've already seen incidents involving pilot murder-suicides where the pilot appears to have deliberately minimized evidence of their actions(e.g. MH370). It certainly won't deter many or even most but it seems naive to suggest that every single potential murder-suicide perpetrator would go ahead with their plan knowing their actions would be caught and seen on tape.
RealUlli@reddit
But they will establish quickly it wasn't a technical fault.
South_Coconut_8983@reddit
That’s already been established by the FDR. It provides the exact position of the physical switch, we know that switch moved.
wsender@reddit
But it doesn’t tell how the switch moved.
LostPilot517@reddit
As someone who uses that exact switch multiple times daily at work. There is ONLY ONE WAY those switches move. This isn't a light switch.
Those switches are in a low out of the way spot that doesn't accidentally get manipulated, no flight control manipulation is needed, especially immediately after becoming airborne, except the landing gear which is 1 knob, tactilely different, and in a completely different location.
Charlie2343@reddit
Who moved it, then? Is the person who moved the switch also asking why the other pilot shut the fuel off? Then that’s a pretty clear cut case of murdering everyone.
RealUlli@reddit
I'm still not entirely sure about the rumor about the person on the jump seat.
Wasn't there a case where some third pilot in the jump seat tried to shut down the engines? That wasn't all that long ago...
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Unless we’re considering the theory of aliens teleporting inside the cockpit with the sole intention of flipping the fuel switches…we know how they moved.
Charlie2343@reddit
Every step these pilots made from their homes to the airplane was almost certainly caught on surveillance. When a crime happens the first thing the police look for is video.
I also don’t see why we would get zero investigative value from video. We don’t know what we don’t know.
Also blaming people is absolutely part of any investigation. If the first officer reached over and switched the fuel off then that is a useful thing and we can get to why he may have done that and prevent that in the future. Without video we may never know what happened.
It would also put to bed cases like Egypt air where the pilot murdered everyone on the plane and the Egyptian government to this day is still blaming Boeing. Same with Silk Air.
beeej517@reddit
Seems like a bad take. In this case, there's tons of rampant speculation that this is still some mechanical issue. If we had a video of the pilot flipping the switches, we could put it to bed
sicsemperyanks@reddit
There's tons of speculation because the reports are preliminary and the investigators are probably investigating the pilots to find motive. The odds that this was a mechanical failure, for both switches to be unintentionally switched to cutoff 1 seconds apart, and then turned back to run after 12 seconds, are so infinitesimally small it's practically impossible. The switches were deliberately moved. I doubt you'll find a single pilot who thinks this was an accident.
South_Coconut_8983@reddit
There is ridiculous speculation that the borderline impossible occurred whilst most people can see clearly what has happened.
It’s up for the investigators to put to bed once they have the facts which will take some time, it will come.
If people want to speculate that’s on them - a camera would show us who did it, sure, but we already know with lots of certainty what happened.
_ferko@reddit
Terrible take, each and every addition to the investigator arsenal will aid in understanding what happens. This is the same argument they've made in the past against CVR.
scotsman3288@reddit
Dashcams are literally everywhere now, and mainly for liability reasons, and i think aircraft manufacturers are going to push that also because it will probably not help find technical problems, but it for sure will take them off the hook in cases of pilot error or mischief, but whether airlines or pilot unions fight that would be interesting....
sofixa11@reddit
Egypt Air 804. A video would have helped find the cause of the fire in the cockpit earlier, and potentially led to improvements to prevent it from happening again.
Instead we got Egypt stalling for a decade, and BEA having to perform magic to try to understand what happened.
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
As long as the video had as robust (if not more robust) privacy protections as the current audio does then I don’t have any issues with it. I don’t see how it’s any more of a threat than audio is, but it has clear advantages.
Jacktheforkie@reddit
We already have cameras in trucks, why not in planes,
OverclockingUnicorn@reddit
What are the current rules for black boxes?
My assumption would be that if an incident happens that is reported to the regulators, those regulators are allowed the black box data, otherwise, it's not accessible by anyone
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
I’m by no means an expert and I’m only familiar with the US. Other jurisdictions will have their own rules for better or for worse. This stuff is also very complicated and is a mix of actual law and contractual agreements between pilots and airlines.
One example is that by law the actual audio from a cockpit voice recorder cannot be released to the public. Investigators may, and do, release transcripts but the actual audio recording is protected.
CVR data also can’t be used by the FAA for enforcement action against a pilot. For example, if during an investigation it’s revealed that a pilot broke Sterile Cockpit rules, the FAA can’t use the CVR data to take that pilot’s certificate.
The data also can’t be used by the company to punish a pilot. The airline can’t just pull CVR data and then use it against a crew member.
The unions are always pushing for more protections for this data, and they should. Protecting this data goes beyond just protecting a pilots job, but promoting safety. You don’t want pilots afraid to call out mistakes because they’re worried that the CVR data may get them in trouble. I think there was another big push by the unions to improve these protections when the FAA was pursuing 25 hour CVRs but I’m not sure what same of that.
Any video recording would need to have robust, legally codified protection for both the data itself and its contents.
mduell@reddit
Other industries (busses, trains, maybe ferries) have cameras without draconian release rules that are improving safety.
ifly4free@reddit
How many years pf training does it take to be a bus driver?
Which form of transportation is already the safest by orders of magnitude?
mduell@reddit
What does a longer training cycle have to do with marginal improvements to safety? Are we safer without cameras in aircraft?
ifly4free@reddit
Commerical airline pilots are the highest and most prolifically trained and vetted transportation workers in existence. My core argument is that it won’t increase safety at all. It’s already safe to a degree that is unseen in ANY other industry.
The increase in cost, complexity, and bureaucracy just isn’t worth it.
dairy__fairy@reddit
That was a great excuse years ago. But now with ubiquitous and cheap AI tracking, there’s really no reason not to monitor everything.
Pilots are just bus drivers. No reason they should get as much deference professionally. It’s a vestige of a bygone era anyway.
My family business operates over 70 offices on 4 continents so I have to fly more than most. Our private pilots are great, but I’ve seen some real dicey commercial operators.
And when you have hundreds of souls onboard, I don’t care about pilot privacy. Your Amazon driver doesn’t get it. Why would a pilot?
IM_REFUELING@reddit
"My daddy's rich so I'm qualified to talk about the flying world like I have any idea what I'm talking about."
dairy__fairy@reddit
I’m almost 40. My generation has been running the business for almost a decade now. And we are the largest in our market in Europe, the UK, and some years the US. And I had my own successful career in an independent industry before that.
But even if I was only talking about daddy’s money then I would still have more experience with comparing private and commercial aviation than you would probably. What’s your expertise?
NeatPomegranate5273@reddit
Computers are just as fallible, and it could be a far more insidious issue. You can never trust a computer completely, because you never know when it will fail.
ifly4free@reddit
Lol I hate to break it to you buddy but the private/Part 91 industry has a MUCH poorer safety record than commercial airlines. Like orders of magnitude worse. Your pilots are much more likely to bend metal than anyone flying a 737.
dairy__fairy@reddit
You’re correct, but that’s mostly because of small, cheap/older planes and private/recreational pilots skewing the record.
We are ferrying around multiple billionaires and the two generations following. So, thankfully, not those planes. And not those pilots.
That said, I still agree with you mostly. It’s a trade off, certainly for convenience, access and security. Our old neighbors at a country property in rural NC/VA, the Hendricks Motorsport family famously lost several members in a small plane crash.
Expensive-Apricot459@reddit
It doesn’t matter if you’re ferrying around heads of state. Private aviation is far more dangerous than commercial aviation.
You don’t need to believe me. You can just look at all the recorded aviation accidents and see how many were private and how many were commercial.
ifly4free@reddit
I understand the nuances, I used to fly private jets before I flew for the airlines. There’s certainly a very wide spectrum of quality in that side of the industry, the problem is that it’s not really subject to any meaningful safety regulations.
The safety and training cultures just aren’t the same.
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
“Your Amazon driver doesn’t get it. Why would a pilot?”
You’ve got this backwards. Your pilot has it, why shouldn’t your Amazon driver? How Amazon treats its employees shouldn’t be anyone’s standard for anything.
But that’s an aside for a different thread.
FOQA, LOSA, ASAP - All of these program feed a just safety culture and they all have robust pilot protections built in. Protecting that culture should be paramount. It’s an incredible boon to aviation safety. Placing limits on the use of CVR and FDR (and eventually video) data is part of that.
deltalimes@reddit
Think of how profitable these airlines could be if they didn’t have to treat their pilots better than a fry cook!
D35TR0Y3R@reddit
>My family business
saw that coming...
theOJgotSqueezed@reddit
Black boxes are usually restricted to just over 2 hours (2 hours and 5 minutes I think). And it’s just a self-erasing loop for privacy reasons.
Justfunnames1234@reddit
Newer planes have 25 hours of recordings
butthole_lipliner@reddit
This is a misnomer. Whilst the FAA approved a 25 hour CVR in theory, most aircraft have not been equipped with them yet. It’s one of the reasons why there is no CVR audio from the Alaska 1282 door plug accident (which occurred on a brand new MAX-9 plane that had only been in service for less than three months) and why the NTSB practically roasted the fuck out of the FAA in their recently released final report on the incident for being frustratingly slow at making any meaningful progress toward actually fitting aircraft with upgraded CVRs.
TheMagicalSock@reddit
I’m only saying this because you’re clearly smart enough to care - misnomer refers to a name or term that is unsuitably applied to the subject it describes. For example, strawberries are not berries, they are fruits, and so “strawberry” could be considered a misnomer. “Guinea pig” could be considered a misnomer as well because those animals are neither from Guinea nor are they pigs.
The root of the word, “-nomer”, comes from the Latin word “nomen” which means “names”.
The better word in this situation would be “misconception.” Not trying to be a dick!
butthole_lipliner@reddit
Thanks, and you’re right, that is something I would have the gall to call someone out for lol. Clearly I haven’t had enough coffee for my brain to work properly yet. I’ll leave the comment as-is, but you are correct, misconception is the word I should have used.
TheMagicalSock@reddit
Have a great day, u/butthole_lipliner !
butthole_lipliner@reddit
Haha you too, u/TheMagicalSock!
Justfunnames1234@reddit
I see. So as I understand it, EASA requires 25-hour ones, whereas for the FAA it’s not yet a requirement? Huh, that’s interesting. Also, why wouldn’t Boeing just install them anyway for standardization?
butthole_lipliner@reddit
I would have to read the latest regs to see if it’s an actual “requirement” by the FAA but it has been accepted for quite some time now. They are notoriously slow to adopt sweeping change… I’m sure they’re probably in bed with some lobbyist group stonewalling any forward progress. Here is the verbatim recommendation by the NTSB from the aforementioned investigation on the subject:
> - Require all newly manufactured airplanes that must have a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) be fitted with a CVR capable of recording the last 25 hours of audio. (A-18-30)
The original date the NTSB issued this recommendation was 10/10/2018. If you read the A-18-30 letter, they have amended it to include all incidents since that date where CVR data was needed but not accessible due to recordings being automatically overwritten.
CollegeStation17155@reddit
And the pilot has (or at least had) the option of manually erasing the CVR on landing… which may have allowed a pilot who could have caused an out of control dive by deploying flaps mid flight to cover up his actions.
IcY11@reddit
Why is this downvoted? There absolutely is an erase CVR button.
aaronw22@reddit
Yes….. they can be erased. But if your employer finds out this happened to erase the record of you doing something potentially dangerous / stupid safe to say you may not be employed much longer.
DudleyAndStephens@reddit
The rules vary from country to country. In Canada for example the CVR contents are strictly privileged and aren't supposed to go to anyone outside of the investigation. It has been almost 30 years since Swissair 111 and they've never released a recording or transcript of the CVR from that crash. That has led to a small amount of unresolved controversy about the actions of the pilots .
Competitive_North837@reddit
Please no, I don’t want to be recorded at work 24/7
PrettyGoodMidLaner@reddit
This is understandable, but bus drivers and train engineers learned to live with it. I would be uncomfortable being taped at work, but it's not like that's a brave new world.
My main argument is that it doesn't really do anything to stop murder-suicides. The guy's about to be dead; he's not going to care about being on video. It just adds extra evidence to the investigation and the suicides tend to get figured out by the CVR. E.g this pilot asking, "Why did you cut off the fuel switches?" or the Egyptian(?) pilot reciting the shahada as he dove the plane into the sea.
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
You’re responsible for the safety of the community. Do you think police should wear body cams?
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
yes, because body cams are the only way to monitor what that police officer is doing. The FDR and the CVR monitor what I do. Adding a TV camera achieves nothing but invading my privacy.
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
Plenty of people have cameras on them during their job. There’s really no great argument against it. You’re at work so privacy can’t really be expected.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
In public, and they’re not necessarily on them. They’re on everyone. Theres a big difference between having a camera in a room with 200 people in it, and having a camera that’s 16 inches from your face.
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
How about an Amazon driver? UPS drivers? There’s cameras everywhere. What are you so concerned about? Put it in the back of the cabin so it has a view of the controls. Not the end of the world. When you’re responsible for 200+ people it seems like a silly argument
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
They shouldn’t have cameras on them. That’s Orwellian bullshit.
I don’t want a camera in my face. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
How does that camera ensure anyone’s safety? How does that camera prevent anything bad from happening to anybody?
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
It’s Orwellian yes but it’s the current state. A person flying a plane has 100x more responsibility. Do you think there’s anything to learn from studying aviation accidents? You put a camera in your face every time you look at the one you keep in your pocket.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
You cannot justify something questionable with “but that’s how it is.” Are you seriously that lazy and incapable at making an argument?
But you haven’t established ANY need or benefit of a camera. All you’ve done is pointed put that some creepy penny pinching mega corporations like to spy on the peasants to remind them what their place is.
Yes. And we can learn everything there is to learn with our CVR and FDR setup.
For literally one second. And nothing is saved. That isnt REMOTELY putting all pilots under non-stop surveillance.
You are absolutely inept at formulating arguments…
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
I’m arguing with a stranger on the internet. Not going to put that much effort into this.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
What a lame deflection once your points have been picked apart…
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
We disagree and that’s all there is to it. I’ve accepted that and now I can move on with my life.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
Yet you’re still here trying to get the last word, despite the fact that all of your flimsy arguments didn’t stand up to any scrutiny. The intellectually honest thing to do is admit your points were flawed, or just ninja smoke. Not try to salvage it with some “agree to disagree” BS.
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
Word.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
Yeah, so drop the fake “I’m an agreeable reasonable person who’s just here for discourse” act. Your points fell apart but you’re digging your heels in.
Ok_Presentation_4971@reddit
https://youtu.be/tOmfrmGGuEA?si=Yydmnrab2WuIa1AN You got too much time homie. Go watch this.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
No he doesn’t. Even in this video, it demonstrates that these high fidelity FDRs and CDR’s are sufficient. You are WAY over-inflating what can be gleaned from an over the shoulder camera.
Centurion1024@reddit
Supermarket cashiers are monitored 24/7 just to keep track of thousands of dollars. Why tf should you be exempt, especially when dealing with million dollar equipment and 200 lives?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
All of your conversations are already recorded, as are movement of a lot of switches, controls, etc.
I bet your chief pilot isn't removing every single CVR at every night stop, and listening to every single minute, with 25 hours CVRs on newer aircraft (outside of USA, at the moment), which can pretty much record the entire flight. Why would it be any different with video?
HungryPigeonn@reddit
I would assume that this would be a similar system to the CVR, only accessible when removed from the aircraft and only the last 30 or so minutes would be available
Thequiet01@reddit
I would have concerns about how such video might be used for reasons other than emergency investigation. Like I wouldn’t want it to be something where pilots start being penalized by the company for not “looking like” they’re doing the job. (There are definitely situations where the appearance of doing things right has been given far too much priority I’ve actually doing things right, y’know?)
If it’s actually something like the black boxes which are only accessed in the event of an incident, that might prevent that problem? But it should be researched properly before being implemented - human factors can be weird.
RedSquirrel17@reddit (OP)
Yeah I don't think anyone has suggested the video footage would be available to the pilots' employers to view as they please. It would be an additional feature added to the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs), only accessible by physically removing the boxes and downloading the data.
CardiologistHonest70@reddit
But in some cases where enforcement isn't done correctly, it would be....
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
How is that any different than current CVR policies?
Thequiet01@reddit
The difference is the issues potentially caused by the additional data recorded. People do behave differently when they know they are being watched, and like I said in my comment there are definitely examples of appearance being given more importance than performance in other arenas, which is very much not what you want going on in a cockpit.
It really needs to be properly studied before being implemented across the board.
NeatPomegranate5273@reddit
They already have the capability to take “video”
ThePilingViking@reddit
There’s plenty of other industries (trucking, trains etc) that have monitoring cameras. Whether it be to monitor for fatigue or to ensure attentiveness and correct actions. It should be a no brainer, that if someone is in charge of millions of dollars of plane and hundreds of souls, that cctv be in place on that cockpit. Imagine if we had footage of the pilot flicking the switch, and we could put this to bed…
CaptainTurbo55@reddit
Wow this thread has really left a bad taste in my mouth in regards to airline crew. Law enforcement has body cams that record every interaction they have. Ambulances have cameras that record the cab during any hard braking or collision. Some EMS agencies even have full time cameras in the back (not saying I agree but it exists). Retail store employees, bank employees, armored truck employees, food service employees, etc are literally being recorded for their entire shift.
God forbid airline pilots who are responsible for potentially hundreds of lives get recorded and it get stored in the CVR. The entitlement of you pilots on this thread is insane. Germanwings9525, MH370, AI171. But “oh no don’t record us in the cockpit”. What are y’all doing that you’re so scared of people seeing? (And the best part is it would most likely be treated like the CVR. Are airlines scouring that after every flight?)
If anything airline pilots should definitely be recorded considering thousands and thousands of people put their lives in your hands everyday. Not to mention you make way more money than every job I listed above so I guess that makes you immune to accountability.
tehlastcanadian@reddit
Don't treat aviation like other industries. And I'm not against cameras but please read this to understand.
One of the things that makes me the proudest in our industry (I'm an airline pilot) is our safety culture. The beauty of it is when mistakes happen, that data is collected and analyzed, and we change our rules and procedures to ensure safety is always number one. They get alot of this data because pilots report it through SMS (safety mgmt systems). We do this because we believe safety is the highest priority and we trust the system to use this info will not be used to punish us but to improve us and the operation.
It's not because our unions, it because government and airlines see the benefit of this culture. At the end of the day we and they understand were human and make mistakes and always work to fix our systems. It is imperative that our safety system remain NON Punitive (obviously not including gross negligence or intentional actions) to keep this culture.
I'm not against cameras but as another user said, it needs to be protected just as CVR and FDR data. And airlines shouldn't be able to use it against their pilots. Look at Amazon, they have cameras in their delivery cars to monitor how much work their drivers do. Body cams for cops, look at all the footage leaked online. You can't trust companies to use something like this properly.
So this kind of thing needs to be handed carefully lest you start to erode the culture of safety and professionalism.
Also "what are you guys scared of us seeing" is stupid. Anyone would feel a little uncomfortable with being monitored, be honest with yourself.
CaptainTurbo55@reddit
I’m not bashing aviation at all and I understand everything you’re saying. However you’re not the only job that reflects on mistakes and tries to improve based on those mistakes. I’d say that’s standard across many occupations, as it should be.
In regards to cameras, I flat out said it would most likely be stored the same as the CVR and FDR so you don’t need to worry about the company coming after you for the slightest violation (though a very strong argument could be made why you are so worried about that considering you should be held accountable for all actions in the cockpit as literal hundreds of people’s lives are in your hands.)
If you’re so worried being caught fucking around I don’t think most passengers would be comfortable flying on your plane. Not to mention every occupation I listed doesn’t have the luxury of only having those recordings viewed unless something goes terribly wrong. You already have a massive advantage right there.
Body cams for cops, look at all the footage leaked online. You can't trust companies to use something like this properly.
Well those are all public record and I guarantee most of this sub would agree they want them and want cops to be held accountable for their actions, because they have authority and can dictate people’s freedom or even their lives. You could make the same argument with pilots and it’s even more extreme in that regard.
So this kind of thing needs to be handed carefully lest you start to erode the culture of safety and professionalism.
So why doesn’t this apply to LE or any other job that is constantly monitored? None of them have that luxury, but flight crews need it or they can’t function?
Also "what are you guys scared of us seeing" is stupid. Anyone would feel a little uncomfortable with being monitored, be honest with yourself.”
No, I wouldn’t say it’s stupid at all considering I’ve worked multiple jobs I’ve listed above (and do currently work one of them) and have been recorded plenty (if not all shift) during my course of the day for some of those jobs. None of us tried to make some excuse “well this profession is different so people shouldn’t see what we’re doing”. I’ve also never been responsible for the amount of lives a commercial pilot is when on the clock.
Edit: Idk what’s going on my reply keeps getting double posted so I deleted it and reposted it
CaptainTurbo55@reddit
I’m not bashing aviation at all and I understand everything you’re saying. However you’re not the only job that reflects on mistakes and tries to improve based on those mistakes. I’d say that’s standard across many occupations, as it should be.
In regards to cameras, I flat out said it would most likely be stored the same as the CVR and FDR so you don’t need to worry about the company coming after you for the slightest violation (though a very strong argument could be made why you are so worried about that considering you should be held accountable for all actions in the cockpit as literal hundreds of people’s lives are in your hands.)
If you’re so worried being caught fucking around I don’t think most passengers would be comfortable flying on your plane. Not to mention every occupation I listed doesn’t have the luxury of only having those recordings viewed unless something goes terribly wrong. You already have a massive advantage right there.
Body cams for cops, look at all the footage leaked online. You can't trust companies to use something like this properly.
Well those are all public record and I guarantee most of this sub would agree they want them and want cops to be held accountable for their actions, because they have authority and can dictate people’s freedom or even their lives. You could make the same argument with pilots and it’s even more extreme in that regard.
So this kind of thing needs to be handed carefully lest you start to erode the culture of safety and professionalism.
So why doesn’t this apply to LE or any other job that is constantly monitored? None of them have that luxury, but flight crews need it or they can’t function?
Also "what are you guys scared of us seeing" is stupid. Anyone would feel a little uncomfortable with being monitored, be honest with yourself.”
No, I wouldn’t say it’s stupid at all considering I’ve worked multiple jobs I’ve listed above and have been recorded plenty (if not all shift) during my course of the day. None of us tried to make some excuse “well this profession is different so people shouldn’t see what we’re doing”
Edit: my reply got double posted so I deleted it and reposted it
CaptainTurbo55@reddit
I’m not bashing aviation at all and I understand everything you’re saying. However you’re not the only job that reflects on mistakes and tries to improve based on those mistakes. I’d say that’s standard across many occupations, as it should be.
In regards to cameras, I flat out said it would most likely be stored the same as the CVR and FDR so you don’t need to worry about the company coming after you for the slightest violation (though a very strong argument could be made why you are so worried about that considering you should be held accountable for all actions in the cockpit as literal hundreds of people’s lives are in your hands.)
If you’re so worried being caught fucking around I don’t think most passengers would be comfortable flying on your plane. Not to mention every occupation I listed doesn’t have the luxury of only having those recordings viewed unless something goes terribly wrong. You already have a massive advantage right there.
Well those are all public record and I guarantee most of this sub would agree they want them and want cops to be held accountable for their actions, because they have authority and can dictate people’s freedom or even their lives. You could make the same argument with pilots and it’s even more extreme in that regard.
So why doesn’t this apply to LE or any other job that is constantly monitored? None of them have that luxury, but flight crews need it or they can’t function?
No, I wouldn’t say it’s stupid at all considering I’ve worked multiple jobs I’ve listed above (and do currently work one of them) and have been recorded plenty (if not all shift) during my course of the day for some of those jobs. None of us tried to make some excuse “well this profession is different so people shouldn’t see what we’re doing”
Edit: my reply got double posted so I deleted it and reposted it
CaptainTurbo55@reddit
I’m not bashing aviation at all and I understand everything you’re saying. However you’re not the only job that reflects on mistakes and tries to improve based on those mistakes. I’d say that’s standard across many occupations, as it should be.
In regards to cameras, I flat out said it would most likely be stored the same as the CVR and FDR so you don’t need to worry about the company coming after you for the slightest violation (though a very strong argument could be made why you are so worried about that considering you should be held accountable for all actions in the cockpit as literal hundreds of people’s lives are in your hands. If you’re so worried being caught fucking around I don’t think most passengers would be comfortable flying on your plane). Not to mention every occupation I listed doesn’t have the luxury of only having those recordings viewed unless something goes terribly wrong. You already have a massive advantage right there.
Well those are all public record and I guarantee most of this sub would agree they want them and want cops to be held accountable for their actions, because they have authority and can dictate people’s freedom or even their lives. You could make the same argument with pilots and it’s even more extreme in that regard.
So why doesn’t this apply to LE or any other job that is constantly monitored? None of them have that luxury, but flight crews need it or they can’t function?
No, I wouldn’t say it’s stupid at all considering I’ve worked multiple jobs I’ve listed above and have been recorded plenty (if not all shift) during my course of the day. None of us tried to make some excuse “well this profession is different so people shouldn’t see what we’re doing”
CaptainTurbo55@reddit
I’m not bashing aviation at all and I understand everything you’re saying. However you’re not the only job that reflects on mistakes and tries to improve based on those mistakes. I’d say that’s standard across many occupations, as it should be.
In regards to cameras, I flat out said it would most likely be stored the same as the CVR and FDR so you don’t need to worry about the company coming after you for the slightest violation (though a very strong argument could be made why you are so worried about that considering you should be held accountable for all actions in the cockpit as literal hundreds of people’s lives are in your hands.
If you’re so worried being caught fucking around I don’t think most passengers would be comfortable flying on your plane. Not to mention every occupation I listed doesn’t have the luxury of only having those recordings viewed unless something goes terribly wrong. You already have a massive advantage right there.
Well those are all public record and I guarantee most of this sub would agree they want them and want cops to be held accountable for their actions, because they have authority and can dictate people’s freedom or even their lives. You could make the same argument with pilots and it’s even more extreme in that regard.
So why doesn’t this apply to LE or any other job that is constantly monitored? None of them have that luxury, but flight crews need it or they can’t function?
No, I wouldn’t say it’s stupid at all considering I’ve worked multiple jobs I’ve listed above and have been recorded plenty (if not all shift) during my course of the day. None of us tried to make some excuse “well this profession is different so people shouldn’t see what we’re doing”
AceNova2217@reddit
Quick point: a camera recording to the blackbox wouldn't have helped MH370, as the blackbox was never recovered.
I think I'd be in favour of it, provided it isn't streamed. The privacy concerns can be very easily dismissed if the camera cannot be streamed back to the company.
CaptainTurbo55@reddit
Of course it wouldn’t have helped MH370 but my point was pilots aren’t immune to going rogue.
TemuPacemaker@reddit
In one of the recent videos, Mentour pilot mentioned that he's doing one about video recorders in airplanes. I'm really curious about his take, he's usually very pragmatic and safety conscious.
If a $40k car can have multiple cameras for a 360 view, an airliner sure as hell can have a dozen cameras, including in the cockpit, as well.
sicsemperyanks@reddit
There are cameras on the outside of planes, at least newer ones. Not sure when it started. The issue isn't the technology, it's mostly privacy concerns. And a little bit cost if airlines have to retrofit thousands of aircraft.
mxforest@reddit
Privacy? It's public transport. Safety over privacy every single day.
LordofNarwhals@reddit
Yeah. Buses and trains have had CCTV on them for ages in many regions. I don't see why planes should be excluded.
ntsir@reddit
It really should be that way but tons of people think otherwise
sicsemperyanks@reddit
I'm not disagreeing. But the reason there aren't video recorders in aircraft rn is primarily due to the ALPA fighting any attempt to install cameras over privacy concerns. Which I get, I wouldn't want my employer monitoring me the entire time I'm on the job. But if you protect the data like the CVR already is, I think it should be implemented. But for the last two decades essentially, the main hurdle has been privacy concerns.
ntsir@reddit
We always have the technology its just that many people value the privacy of some over the safety of everyone
TemuPacemaker@reddit
Pilots are special little snowflakes of course
ChosenCarelessly@reddit
To play devils advocate - seeing the pilot perform the action barely gets you closer to understanding why it happened. The pilot activating the switch could still be a slip rather than intentional sabotage.
zookeepier@reddit
Aren't the switches guarded? It thought you had to pull up on the levers to get them above the detent in order to actually activate the fuel cutoff.
Tachanka-Mayne@reddit
Yeah, purely from the context of ‘In Air India’s wake’, (as per this article), there really is no need for cockpit video recorders; we already know one of the pilots moved the fuel switches to cut-off, all the video might tell us us is which one of the pilots did it- which from a flight safety perspective is largely irrelevant now.
Off the top of my head I can’t think of any other unsolved air disaster where we have access to the FDR/CVR but which could be solved if there was cockpit video.
RedSquirrel17@reddit (OP)
The article refers to EgyptAir Flight 990 as an example of how video evidence would have helped the aftermath be less painful. The NTSB found the CVR and FDR data conclusive: the first officer had intentionally crashed the plane. But the Egyptian authorities refused to accept that conclusion, citing cultural misunderstandings and accusing the NTSB of using "selected facts and speculative conclusions to support a predetermined theory".
Video data is harder to argue with than audio data, I guess.
ChosenCarelessly@reddit
True that maybe video could be useful at some point, but this ‘potential’ need should be weighed up against the millions & millions of times that it is not needed.
I’m not videoed doing my job (at least, not while I’m in my office), and I’m happy about that.
ThePilingViking@reddit
Well, hit a few keys and at worst you could maybe kill your computer. Not a plane full of people…
ChosenCarelessly@reddit
I’m not trying to make a case for videoing engineers, but you might be surprised how many people a paddle designed plant could take out.
The Bhopal disaster killed about 15,000 alone - about 15% of the total number of people killed in air accidents in the history of powered flight.
The Zhumadian dam collapses in 1975 might have killed upwards of 100,000 people.
As an industry, aviation is one of the safest. If you’re worried about the impact a single pilot can have then you’ll definitely want to start fitting civil & process engineers with cameras…
ThePilingViking@reddit
Little bit different and you’ve lost sight of the objective.
No one has said aviation is unsafe, and therefore needs in cockpit recording. Rather it answers the outstanding question with absolute authority.
You’re talking about a dam collapse 50 years ago. As an engineer myself, anything I design goes through numerous checks before implementation. I can’t just pull a lever and take 200 lives and however many millions of plane with me.
I’m sure the insurers, manufacturers and the employers would like to see clearly what happened in that cabin, as opposed to piecing evidence and making a judgement.
There’s many reasons for monitoring, as it has been implemented in other industries. It will come for aviation too, no doubt.
ChosenCarelessly@reddit
What is the objective of the cameras then?
Will it stop pilots from intentionally causing crashes? Or just provide evidence of it?
Like I said - there are a handful of cases of pilots deliberately crashing planes, but millions of flights.
Out of those handful of cases, how many would have been stopped by the presence of cameras?
I suggest, none.
So, it provides no reduction of deaths, but reduces the quality of life to millions of pilots.
Maybe put the effort somewhere else.
Savings_Abrocoma_700@reddit
If your office doesn’t have CCTV, you’re either a pilot or a hooker
ChosenCarelessly@reddit
lol What I mean is that the small room that my desk, coffee mug, potted pathos & computer is in does not itself have a camera - unless I choose to activate the one on my laptop.
There are cameras elsewhere in the building & around it, however I have an amount of privacy whilst I work.
In fact, outside of building entries & common areas, my professional life has been largely free of video documentation for the last 25yrs or so. Most professionals in my country (Australia) would be similar - not many people need, nor wish, to glare at engineers, doctors or architects while they work. Maybe it’s different in America.
I’ve worked on plenty of industrial sites where areas of the plant are under constant surveillance, but again, not really the working areas in the office.
Dionant@reddit
If you have CCTV pointing at you in your office, then your employer doesn't trust you.
sofixa11@reddit
Egypt Air 804. The Egyptian morons "investigating" couldn't have denied reality with a video of the fire breaking out.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
but what good does that actually do? Everyone is still dead. All that does is give us, on the ground, answers a little bit sooner… that’s it.
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
Your post has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This topic is covered in a megathread. Please move the content of this post to the megathread, which can be found pinned on the r/aviation home screen.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
_ferko@reddit
You pilots are digging your own graves, human error/intention have been the lead cause for high profile accidents for years, and every time you refuse safety additions and keep this mentality that you're above others.
People are slowly accepting the ideas of automatic piloting and single pilot ops, and how y'all behave after accidents only furthers this.
AceNova2217@reddit
Single pilot operations are legitimately dangerous fyi. There are some recent cases, like United 328, that suggest we should return to 3 pilots.
The problem with automating a problem away, is like on the 737 MAX, the sensors that feed these systems can, and do, fail. When they fail, you need a competent flight crew (who are trained appropriately) to resolve the issue and make the call to divert.
Using automation to push single-pilot ops is difficult, as pilots are human and can be incapacitated while flying (French Bee 711). In a single-pilot operation, the pilot would have overall authority over the aircraft, and as in FB711, that pilot can make mistakes, which requires another pilot to step in and take over.
TLDR: Automation can't exist alone, and single-pilot operations are dangerous.
_ferko@reddit
There are many issues with full automation precisely because there's no incentive right now to hone them, but the issues with these ideas are besides the point of the argument, we're all well versed on these matters.
The point is that companies have no incentive to do this cause they know the public is vehemently against automatic flight, and, if that's to continue, it's crucial to pilots that you stop putting the public against yourselves with these kinds of behaviours.
AceNova2217@reddit
The problem with full automation is it's impossible to make it safe. Not that there isn't an incentive. There is a massive incentive from airlines, and Airbus has been looking at it for years. The simple fact is that it is dangerous to not have at least 1 pilot for overseeing the aircraft and to handle it when things go wrong, not if they go wrong.
_ferko@reddit
They can and they will hone this when sufficient time and effort is put into it, however there has been little to none so far. I know it is easier to see just from your perspective, but the current push for automation is as farcical as the one for sustainability. Nobody is putting real investment into this before the public starts seeing it as viable - try to keep it that way.
NeatPomegranate5273@reddit
There is a reason why the EASA rejected single pilot ops. Due to the significant technological progress over the past few decades, people are lulled into a sense of “We have the ability to fix anything and make sure nothing goes wrong”. For example in medicine, we know far, far more about the body than we did even 20 years ago, but people have started thinking that medicine can perfectly diagnose and cure everything. We simply cannot. The same way, people have started believing that computers are infallible. They might work fine for browsing on a day to day basis, but for extremely complex stuff, they can fail a lot. The failures can potentially be critically damaging on an aircraft. It doesn’t even have to be caused by a software error. Bit flips due to radiation happen, and it is more likely at the altitudes where commercial aircraft fly. If something happens, because of an aircraft’s complexity, the workload will quickly exceed the bandwidth of a single pilot. There needs to be an interplay between human and computer actions.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
what does this add to safety? This doesn’t prevent any bad actor from doing anything. All it does is make it slightly easier for investigators to see what happened (even though they can still see what happened with the current set up)
snoromRsdom@reddit
I'm all for having them in the cockpit, just as I am all for having CVRs record 25 hours and having it NOT be possible for us pilots to delete an embarrassing recording after landing. But having cameras in the cockpit of this aircraft would not have told us ANYTHING other than what we already know. The copilot intentionally crashed the plane shortly after takeoff and immediately lied to the pilot when the master warnings started sounding about cutting off the fuel.
proudlyhumble@reddit
What would it really change? Even in this investigation they know it was one of the pilots (and don’t kid yourself, they will know exactly which one via voice matching and supplementary information like interviews) and not the aircraft. The investigators care about safety, not which dead pilot survivors should sue.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
A pilot preventing the covert sabotage will simply switch off or put a gummy on camera.
What's required is a non-accessible GPS transmitters (not to spend astronomical on search of MH370 and preventing such plots),
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
GPS really isn't a viable solution with all the spoofing going on around the world.
Since MH370, aircraft flying over large parts of water have been required to carry an LF-ULD (low frequency underwater locator device), which transmits a signal similar to that on CVR/FDR, and the signal for CVR/FDR now has to be able to transmit for 90 days instead of 30 days.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
Somehow the engines messaging allowed to draw the possible corridors of its route (just a geometry exercise).
If there was a small GPS receiver and messages included rough coordinates, the search would complete in a week.
NeatPomegranate5273@reddit
It is not going to ruin any plot.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Assuming GPS position is correct. With spoofing, it could easily be spoofed to couple of hundreds of miles away.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
That's right, but bringing the spoofing device thru the airport security?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Spoofing doesn't come from the aircraft, it comes from the ground, and it affects all GPS receivers in the area to some extent.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
Sorry, which spoofing then over the vast ocean?
TemuPacemaker@reddit
Around the world like in war zones?
It's not an actual issue otherwise.
AceNova2217@reddit
You can find videos online of airliners having their GPS spoofed. While it happens in war zones, that doesn't mean that aircraft near the zone are not affected.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
also, the spoofing isn't the coding. With a good budget and time the true values can be restored (my suggestion).
NeatPomegranate5273@reddit
It’s not going to prevent these things from happening. A less than sane person is unlikely to be deterred by any measure. And you cannot argue that completely sane people do these things on purpose.
TemuPacemaker@reddit
Like they disable the voice recorder now?
And if they did cover up the lens, it'd be clear proof that they were doing something shady.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
covering up a camera is a hell of a lot easier than covering up a microphone. Why are you all making this argument just so that we have the ability to determine something shady happened *a little bit sooner*, but still well after everyone is dead?
snowmarine@reddit
If they covered the lens then you wouldn’t know who switched off the engines, only increasing the suspicion that the act was intentional, and we’re back to what we know now.
TemuPacemaker@reddit
The one that covered the lens did it
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
You must help the police with such cases.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
It would be no different than finding incriminating search terms on someone’s computer. Is it proof they did it? No, but it establishes mens rea.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
In case of such crashes it's already evident smth shady occurred.
In this case the "cutoff" reveals the cause and intention.
Clear_Salamander5093@reddit
It wouldn’t be a camera that could easily be switched off and even if a pilot covers the camera they would be recorded doing so, which would be useful evidence in case of sabotage leading to a crash
Bot_Marvin@reddit
Everything in an airplane can easily be switched off by the pilots. Anything else is a step backwards. If I have a piece of electrical equipment on fire, I have to be able to pull the breaker and disable it, whether it’s a camera or not.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
It requires only criminal energy to avoid the recording.
On the other side it will add up stress to the decent pilots (like f-ng code challenges online).
Own_Pop_9711@reddit
If we had video of one of the pilots covering up the video with gum then eight seconds later the switches are flipped I think people would be a lot less interested in the maintenance record of the locking mechanism l.
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
you think that a person, who could qualify for the highly technical job, won't find a way to switch off/cover up camera unnoticed?
Own_Pop_9711@reddit
I don't even understand the line of questioning to be honest. If you're just dealing drugs from the cockpit nobody will even look at the video. Why are you so paranoid about this? People have given plenty of examples where the video would be helpful and most of them didn't include a crime anyway.
Future-Employee-5695@reddit
Can't believe we are in 2025 where you can find cameras in truck and bus but not on a fucking plane. Hope this crash change the rule
Glittering-Spite234@reddit
I mean, we got cameras on buses and trains... kind of a no-brainer to put a few at least in the cockpit, limit the recordings to two hours and delete after a few weeks if nothing has happened.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
How does that prevent this travesty? all this would do is let the company know more quickly what happened. No, video recorders are not a valid solution to anything.
KookySurprise8094@reddit
Makes no sense, then how the pilots could make bets who can land with blind folded without bosses knowing about it.
No_Train_728@reddit
No. What's next? Inserting probes inside pilot's brains to detect what were they thinking about?
If I wanted to work in front of a camera, I would become a movie actor instead.
Potatopotayto@reddit
Lots of people speculating and being keyboard warriors and pseudo aviation experts and crash investigators. Don't read too much into it. Wait until next year when the full report is out.
Motorsav@reddit
So, CVVR? Or C2VR?
Intergalatic_Baker@reddit
On the basis pilots are putting GoPros in the cockpits to film them on flights for YouTube channels, it’s a stronger case today than ever before.
And for a £250 million plane, a couple security cameras on the passenger decks and in the cockpit is unlikely to be an issue with costs.
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
“Your Amazon driver doesn’t get it. Why would a pilot?”
You’ve got this backwards. Your pilot has it, why shouldn’t your Amazon driver? How Amazon treats its employees shouldn’t be anyone’s standard for anything.
But that’s an aside for a different thread. It’s clear that you don’t understand the concept of a just safety culture and that’s fine. You don’t need to understand it in order to benefit from it.
ArKiTroN@reddit
I can why camera could be used in the cockpit but a camera will not really prevent future accidents.
The camera in the cockpit is really only useful when you want put blame on someone (who did it). Plus a camera in the cockpit is probably not super usefull during night when incidents happens during the night.
The CVR and Data recorder and wreckeage/aircraft should be more than enough when looking into "what happened" and "why did it happen".
Spirit-Hydra69@reddit
Video recording makes good sense. For privacy issues, an easy fix would be to make the footage only accessible by investigative teams through physical removal and retrieval of the the blackbox in case of a crash.