Mentour pilot talks about cameras in cockpits

[-]

Fickle_Ad_9686@reddit

Every argument against cockpit video recorders can applied to cockpit voice recorders, but no one seems to have an issue with the latter, something to think about.

[-]

Fickle_Ad_9686@reddit

Here come all the angry pilots who want to keep getting blowies from the stewardesses

[-]

chuckop@reddit

I’m am certain that audio analysis will reveal who flipped the fuel cutoff switches on the Air India flight.

But it won’t reveal WHY it was done.

Nether will video.

So what do you hope to gain by adding weight, cost, and losing privacy?

If there is a long list of unsolved aircraft accidents that could potentially be solved with video, then maybe it’s a good idea. But there isn’t such a list, so no.

[-]

Because it isn't just about this single incident but many others that may or may not have to do anything with pilot error. Again the privacy argument is bogus, because for one they are being audio recorded already and secondly, what are pilots doing inside a cockpit that could be a private matter?

[-]

chuckop@reddit

Like I said, is there a number of unsolved accidents that could be solved with video from the cockpit?

Can you name a few?

Audio is also infringing on privacy, but it was accepted as a compromise.

As is, the actual audio is never supposed to be released to the public. Only transcripts. The audio is only for the benefit of investigators.

Yet, the audio of some accidents has leaked, and the final screams of pilots about to be killed is available to many, which is incredibly hurtful to the families of the pilots.

Can you imagine how bad it would be for video to also leak?

[-]

RealExii@reddit

I can't tell you whether there is a specific unsolved case that would 100% have been solved with a video. I certainly think there's many that could have been solved faster. In any case I don't see how operating an Aircraft in the cockpit is a private activity that can be infringed upon. What I do agree with however is the argument regarding this stuff being leaked. Then again if the potential risk of my dying screams going public can save another plane from sharing my fate, I'm definitely signing up for it.

[-]

avboden@reddit

Bus drivers have cameras on them. Heck most professions do. I don’t disagree there’s a privacy issue at play but there’s certainly a discussion to be had.

[-]

opsman25@reddit

How would having a camera prevent this? If it’s what actually happened.

[-]

320sim@reddit

It wouldn’t. The benefit would be additional information in investigations

[-]

opsman25@reddit

Still wouldn’t stop a future copy cat. Assuming this is what actually happened. We still don’t know for sure.

[-]

320sim@reddit

That’s what I’m saying. It’s not a preventative. It just adds to the evidence in an investigation

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

It adds evidence that isn’t needed.

[-]

320sim@reddit

If we had it then we would know exactly what happened on this flight

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

They may well already know. That they haven’t told us does not mean they don’t have additional information they can use.

[-]

320sim@reddit

What additional information can they use? They have the CVR, and all they can do is hear who said what. It would be very easy to use words to frame the other guy or throw off investigators.

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

You realize they can hear switches, right? We have not been given even a fraction of the data they are working with.

[-]

320sim@reddit

Yes, and they’ll use the audio of a switch moving to discern who actuated it how?

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

They know who is where in the cockpit. It’s just a process of assembling the data about who is where doing what when.

[-]

RealExii@reddit

More conclusive evidence of a certain thing happening would eventually absolutely lead to measures being implemented that could prevent it. For example regulations could roll back to 3 pilots minimum requirement so that there's always at least 2 in the cockpit at all times. That wouldn't 100% eliminate the problem but it would make it so much harder.

[-]

RealExii@reddit

The privacy issues already exist with CVR and we have long decided that safety concerns supersede them. I don't understand why this is being used as a new problem that would be introduced with video recordings. If there's no incident, nobody will see that recording ever and if there is an incident it will drastically contribute into preventing further incidents.

[-]

theantnest@reddit

I'd guess probably 90% of employees are working on camera in 2025.

[-]

Clean__Cucumber@reddit

tbf, for bus drivers and other spaces in the airport, its a public accessible place (even if its only for workers), whilst a cockpit is a relatively closed space, with normally 2-5 people

[-]

Budget-Lawyer-4054@reddit

Every other part of the airport has cameras. Including the employees lounges where the pilot and flight attendants take naps between flights.

[-]

SirLoremIpsum@reddit

Would you be for body cameras on mechanics...?

Fuelling staff?

I can think of a number of accidents where having the full and complete record of how certain repairs were undertaken or crystal clear how fuelling was done (e.g. gimli glider) would have drastically shortened the investigation.

I don't know if there's a right answer but "other places have cameras so cockpit is fine" is not a good argument imo.

[-]

Budget-Lawyer-4054@reddit

Hey dude, the literally have cameras on them already.

I’ve been in fact findings where they pulled up the gate cam and we watched it’s from the sky. As I yelled at someone.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Most accidents and incidents are caused by pilot error. It’s common sense to have cameras in the cockpit.

[-]

FlyingSceptile@reddit

Yes the other places have hangars, but don't have the angles or resolution to tell you what that person saw and did.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

I’ve investigated a maintenance fatality where the cause was crystal clear through video of the maintenance practices (more correctly lack of correct practices from other maintenance workers). I know of multiple safety investigations that used ramp video as primary evidence in determining aircraft damage. It is good enough 95% of the time.

[-]

SirLoremIpsum@reddit

Bus drivers have cameras on them. Heck most professions do. I don’t disagree there’s a privacy issue at play but there’s certainly a discussion to be had.

I agree with the sentiment.

But bus drivers have them for a very different reason and I believe the bus drivers asked for it.

They want cameras to protect against Joe public and the abuse they get.

I don't believe it is used "against" them to monitor their actions and such like it could potentially be used "against" pilots.

[-]

sizziano@reddit

I don't see why a video recorder wouldn't have the same stipulations of use as the current CVR. That is no punitive actions can be taken by pilots for stuff that is on it.

[-]

Beaver_Sauce@reddit

Cameras will not prevent anything, just add to the evidence.

[-]

AstroStang@reddit

I think that's the point. At this time, we don't know which pilot pulled the cutoff switch. One pilot asked "Why did you do that?" But that could've been the pilot who pulled it trying to shift blame to the other pilot. A camera would aid investigators come to a conclusion sooner.

[-]

UnhingedCorgi@reddit

We don’t know who did it, but I bet the investigators do. They just didnt release it publicly yet.

[-]

JaredsBored@reddit

Unless the pilot who pulled the switches left a confession or some other proof they were planning on doing this, how would the investigators know? The switches are shared and sit between the pilots, with both of their finger prints having good reason to be there.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the final report is inconclusive on which pilot took the action.

[-]

chuckop@reddit

It’s actually amazing what can be gleaned from the various microphones.

[-]

alrightcommadude@reddit

how would the investigators know

Does this make sense: If there are two pilots and someone changed a switch/setting in the cockpit on their side of it right around the moment the fuel cutoff was done, then it's VERY likely the other pilot. This would be even more likely if it was the pilot who didn't do it because presumably they'd need at least one hand on the yoke still.

[-]

RealPutin@reddit

I don't really think that matters from an aviation safety perspective, honestly

There are some crashes where a camera in the flight deck would help figure out what to change. This one it's more about public curiosity, not continuing aviation safety

[-]

ObservantOrangutan@reddit

Aviation accident investigations can be confusing to people because they look to assign fault, but not blame.

Knowing that a pilot willingly shut down both engines is enough. From any investigative board perspective, that tells you what you need to know. For them, it’s irrelevant who did it because all that matters is someone did.

[-]

OmegaPoint6@reddit

Knowing who did it means you can try to work out why they did it and then if there is something in their behaviour running up to it that could have been a red flag. That then means you can look at how to monitor for it possibly happening again & intervene in future

[-]

Budget-Lawyer-4054@reddit

Just like black boxes

[-]

FlyingSceptile@reddit

Not necessarily. We know (or at least have a very, very strong suspicion) that certain accidents are pilot suicides based on the information we have. Sure there are a couple cases where a camera might definitively (dis)prove it (Egyptair 990 comes to mind), but if we assume pilot suicide, there's not much mystery there.

Especially through the 80's and 90's, black boxes were the only way sometimes to determine the cause of the accident. So yes, black boxes are evidence, but they often point to the cause and have saved many lives from the conclusions drawn during the investigation. I'm not convinced camera's will have the same effect. I suspect that camera data in accidents will be used in a more punitive measure, especially in legal suits following the accident.

[-]

Budget-Lawyer-4054@reddit

I'm not convinced camera's will have the same effect.

Why? It’s literally a view into the happenings.

[-]

RealPutin@reddit

this got very ChatGPT

[-]

GrafZeppelin127@reddit

Truly, LLMs have ruined the whole “This isn’t X. This is Y,” thing for me. But they can pry the em-dash out of my cold, dead hands. If texting-etiquette didn’t cause the death of putting a period at the end of a sentence for fear of sounding curt or hostile, then I won’t let ChatGPT take another form of punctuation from me, either.

[-]

Afterswiftie@reddit

I will never—and I mean never—sacrifice my beloved em dash!

[-]

chuckop@reddit

💯

[-]

Traditional_Log_3762@reddit (OP)

okay mate,

I think cameras in the cockpits are needed, they simply need to be encrypted and only select authorities should have access to these. Airlines cannot access these normally and only the accident investigation crew can. These should never be shown to the public and only a transcript of the events may be shown if needed. we have cameras everywhere now and i think its high time we have something in the cockpit especially when the lives of on avg over a hundred people is in the pilots hands. is this better?

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

.

[-]

babyp6969@reddit

I’m seeing this all over social media, so I’ll post my thoughts and maybe other pilots can chime in.

Cameras aren’t a great idea or even a good idea because they cost more than they add in terms of safety. It’s difficult to explain to a non-flyer what a camera monitored cockpit would do in terms of breaking down the CRM and eroding trust between the crew and the company.

“Trains and busses have them and they’re the same”. They’re not the same. Trains and buses do not operate in the same high stakes environment where crew coordination is paramount and minimizing distractions is essential.

Not to mention the huge installation and maintenance costs, data management costs, and security concerns. Privacy isn’t even a top 5 reason why cameras aren’t happening. I could write a thesis on how cameras would be bad for aviation safety. Anyone commenting that they’re a no-brainer is really outing themselves as having a pretty poor understanding of aviation.

Finally, what do you gain? Better finger pointing? Does cockpit footage prevent any of the problems we deal with in modern commercial air travel? What else do we have to learn about how pilots behave in the cockpit? How is it even relevant to this mishap?

Please

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Cameras would not deteriorate safety. Anyone who cannot deal with a cockpit recorder is someone I wouldn’t want in my cockpit. I find it funny how pilots who grew up purely 121 are brainwashed by the irrational union camera arguments. I’m also surprised the FAA has not mandated cameras in new aircraft, I guess the lobbying is just too good.

I spent thousands of hours in a fighter being recorded, and it never caused a single issue or degraded operations. On a hard drive somewhere, someone has me on video hundreds of times dick out trying to pee in a plastic bag.

Cockpit video provides TONS of benefits. It allows us to understand the environment on the flight deck, assess human factors and how they were physically impacting the crew, as well as pilot actions that are and aren’t recorded by flipping switches, etc. All of that is used to improve processes, and even physical design characteristics of aircraft.

Without video, written, or verbal evidence, an investigation board also cannot say without a doubt what happened. It will be “the most likely cause is….” vs “the cause of both engines flaming out is a deliberate action by the pilot.” We can only make conclusions in absolutes with absolute evidence.

The only real argument is the cost of retrofitting and certification on old airframes. The fact they are not required on new airframes is likely due to union lobbying.

[-]

babyp6969@reddit

Ha, real high and mighty of you to assume I was purely 121. And funny you’re all about bringing the invasive, shitty parts of military flying - extremely dangerous comparatively - into 121.

Also what fighter do you have “thousands” of hours in that had cockpit video?

None of your examples of benefits to recording are meaningful in 121 cockpit operations. Also, are you debriefing your Albuquerque turns?

I’m assuming you didn’t go to a safety school and you’ve learned everything you know about CRM during whatever airline time you have which doesn’t seem to be a lot.

Those “absolute” conclusions aren’t important unless you’re a lawyer. Improving safety is, and cameras don’t do that.

Get off your single seat bozo high horse.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Basically every fighter has had a camera mounted in the helmet. From the A-10 to the F-35 there has been full time cockpit recording for over a decade. What, are you from the C-141 days? The shitty parts of the military have nothing to do with the flying.

You are already recorded through voice and switch actuations. You’re a professional aviator, not fucking off in a Cessna. Recording a 121 flight deck is most definitely beneficial to safety. Just because you don’t want to be recorded getting handsy with the FAs does’t change the fact that.

Also sorry, wrong again. I’ve been the IO on a class A and multiple class B-E’s. Nice try.

[-]

babyp6969@reddit

Okay now I know you’re full of shit. The F-35 helmet camera can record video but it’s not a default. your other claims are just bogus. I can’t speak for the air force but none of the f-18s have that and that’s at least 30% of the inventory.

And no, I got out 2 years ago. Nice try though. Keep makin shit up

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Yes, the Air Force F-35 helmet records, but nice try again. I still fly them in the guard. The USAF fielded HMCS for 4th gen with cameras. I also flew with cameras in the A-10 for years. I’m not surprised the Navy would have them disabled with the clown show that is Navy fighter ops. There’s a reason the only Navy jets we want in a vul are the Growlers. There are twice as many F-16s alone as there are F-18s, they aren’t close to 1/3 of the fighter inventory.

[-]

babyp6969@reddit

Lol. Get an air to air kill this century and you can run your mouth. Also a simple google search will help you with the math

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Lol. IYKYK

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

“Cameras would not deteriorate safety.”

You cannot say this. Being observed absolutely does change how people behave, it is well established. Without this implementation explicitly being studied, you cannot make a definitive statement on what the implications would be for cockpit behavior.

Cameras absolutely should not be added as a knee-jerk response without proper study.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

If every other professional career can do their job while being recorded: doctors, police, maintenance, literally tons of non 121 aviation fields, etc, then so can you. If you can’t deal with the “stress” of being recorded then you are in the wrong field. After the first 5 minutes you forget there’s even a camera.

[-]

SpiderPilotDC9@reddit

I believe all pilots would simply tape over the lens during preflight, no point in installing them.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Sounds like great justification to be fired. It would be no different than trying to get around any other function of the aircraft, the CVR, or FDR, which also received tons of pushback when they were first introduced.

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

Aviation is as safe as it is because people don’t make assumptions that stuff will just be fine. It needs to be studied properly. Period.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

And it has, which is why other much more skilled and stressful careers that involve working in teams can do it completely fine while a camera is in the room. This is literally all union pettiness and lobbying to stay relevant.

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

No, it has not. Other industries are not studied anywhere like the way they need to be.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Lol

[-]

UnhingedCorgi@reddit

I’d say around 99% of airline pilots don’t want cameras so I guess you won’t want hardly any of us.

The actual real anrgument is that cameras impose costs for little to no benefits. All you will see is two people facing forward moving switches and making inputs that are already monitored. To “understand the environment on the flight deck, assess human factors and how they were physically impacting the crew” sounds like meaningless corporate jargon. What specific information does that include? Crucial parameters are already monitored enough to provide meaningful and complete investigations. How a switch was (or wasn’t) moved doesn’t matter enough to involve cameras.

Any training benefit of cameras should be at the discretion of the airlines and their training department. Which they won’t include, even in the simulators, because theyre unnecessary and a burden.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

There are many meaningful parameters besides the time stamp on a switch being flipped. You are very naive if you legitimately don’t understand how a video would greatly help many accident investigations. You are never going to be able to actually justify how other much more skilled and professional career fields can function but a pilot can’t. It’s just asinine.

The only real argument is the cost of fitting and certification of existing aircraft.

[-]

UnhingedCorgi@reddit

I never said pilots couldn’t function. I said whatever benefits cameras provide to investigators are far outweighed by the costs. Neither you or anyone else can articulate what important information might be provided that isn’t already covered.

[-]

SpiderPilotDC9@reddit

I'm a captain at a major airline, what outsiders don't understand is that safety programs, ASAP, FOQA etc, are based in trust. Cameras undermine that system, and thus are a serious negative to safety.

[-]

babyp6969@reddit

Say it louder for the other commenters

[-]

Jenny_Tulwartz@reddit

Amen. Everyone calling for cockpit cameras has no idea how the airlines work, or what a cockpit camera would do for safety.

It's like you said, what would cockpit cameras do for any modern aviation accident? In this accident in particular, whether the captain or the first officer maliciously shut off the engines, it makes no difference on the outcome of the investigation.

[-]

Proof_Ordinary8756@reddit

Yes, the Air Force F-35 helmet records, but nice try again. I still fly them in the guard. The USAF fielded HMCS for 4th gen with cameras. I also flew with cameras in the A-10 for years. I’m not surprised the Navy would have them disabled with the clown show that is Navy fighter ops. There’s a reason the only Navy jets we want in a vul are the Growlers. There are twice as many F-16s alone as there are F-18s, they aren’t close to 1/3 of the fighter inventory.

[-]

StuckinSuFu@reddit

If we are going to add new technology I'd rather have more reliable real-time data streaming of vital information instead of just the physical black boxes.

[-]

fleamarkettable@reddit

why do people act like high enough quality cctv cameras couldn’t have been added 40 years ago it’s not some new tech, there’s nowhere in the airport you can go where you aren’t on camera outside of bathrooms and the cockpit, where the most consequential things take place. absurd stuff

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

You do know that a plane crashed because of an improperly installed cabin entertainment system, right?

Nothing being added to a plane is simple or straightforward.

[-]

fleamarkettable@reddit

great point, you're right, the technology just isnt there yet

[-]

StuckinSuFu@reddit

Im not an airplane designer or engineer. I assume anytime you want to hide a lot more wiring, computer storage, and weight to an airline there are lots more things to consider in an airplane than in an airport.

So I guess what value does it add vs the cost/risk? I dont have an opinion on that because I have no idea that equation - way out of my wheelhouse. If experts decide cameras would be helpful and the benefits outweigh risks, then lets do it.

[-]

Powergamer420@reddit

That’s a step to far in my opinion, because privacy-wise it’s a nightmare. Imagine that everything you do or say in the cockpit is recorded and directly transmitted to your airline, they would definitely abuse that

[-]

UnhingedCorgi@reddit

What information would cameras provide that isn’t already gathered? And would that be worth the millions of dollars in redesign and retrofit?

[-]

UncleDonut_TX@reddit

In the case of situations where there has been a cockpit fire a visual record can help identify where things were in the cockpit, did something spill that triggered the short, etc.
In this case, video could potentially tell us if someone put something near the switches and managed to change the setting via some other unexpected means. The black box audio and settings data tell part of the story, but not all of it. The more data you have when investigating an accident the better you're able to actually identify the cause.

[-]

Jenny_Tulwartz@reddit

It wouldn't provide any useful information. Just serve to satisfy the public's curiosity so they can point the finger.

Regardless of who did what, the outcome of the investigation will be the same. No cockpit camera necessary.

[-]

SideEmbarrassed1611@reddit

They looked into it.

Originally it was a quality issue. Video quality was too low. Now, it's too high. You would need massive storage. It's not cheap.

And the thing that has killed most of the discussion from moving forward is that the actions of the pilots are already recorded by the Flight Recorder. And you don't need video when you have audio.

On top of that, the video adds nothing we wouldn't already know. If the FR and VR survive, we know each input and what was discussed.

The argument against is that they caught the major flaw in the L1011 with the autopilot disengaging if any flight control surface was touched using the FR. The Captain accidentally bumped the Yoke and the Autopilot disengaged. The plane then crashed in the Everglades. They didn't need video to discover this. It took them longer to discover, yes you could argue that.

But the next obvious question is the total wireless upload of all VR and FR every 30 seconds to the cloud so we do not need an FR or VR.

There is also the Data Flood argument. Having more data can confuse rather than simplify. Human beings are visually obsessive. Look at all these AI videos. You look at them and perceive they are real until a weird thing happens that is not objectively real. Watching the video could take you on a wild goose chase when the Flight Recorder would force them to look at what the plane was told to do.

The video would catch the St. Elmo's Fire in BA 009 but would totally miss the Gimli Glider. And with each incident, you do not have the truth, you are hunting it down. So, with BA009, you see the strange phenomenon on the video and a geologist immediately goes DUH! But with the Gimli Glider, you are watching 3 dudes fighting the plane and hunting down a problem that was created during the French Revolution: Metric vs Imperial.

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

Your post has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

This content has already been posted, or this subject has been covered repeatedly.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.

[-]

ScaryPhotograph7132@reddit

Reminds me of the trucking industry. When I started in 2016 there were driver facing cameras at my company. After a few years they disabled them and allowed employees to put tape over the lens etc.

I wonder if the liability against them was higher with the cameras, when it came to cell phone usage and similar.

[-]

gimp2x@reddit

What is a mentour? Is that like a mentor?

[-]

Zaphod424@reddit

Bus and train drivers have cameras watchng them, pilots really aren't any different in terms of their privacy needs.

Ofc any footage should be saved on the flight recorder and only accessed by investigators in the event of a crash, but really the whole privacy argument just falls flat. I guess pilots are worried that it might cause them to be blamed, but likewise it could also exhonerate them from blame so it goes both ways.

[-]

FlyingSceptile@reddit

The Union's in particular are worried about this being accessed in real time. With data recorders, they initially were only accessible after an accident. Then Quick Access recorders became a thing, and now much of the data is streamed in almost real time. Companies quickly started using that data punitively, calling in pilots for extra training or discipline for poor flying. Union's pushed back, and now typical mistakes are only seen by a union gatekeeper, and typically only the most egregious mistakes or repeat offenders are sent to the company.

Unions would require similar protections on camera feeds, if not more stringent. Even if footage "exonerates" the pilot, inevitably someone (probably a lawyer or a rando on social media) will be a backseat driver and nitpick their performance and make it seem like that pilot shares some responsibility.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

I can't see why the same data protection regulation wouldn't apply to video recordings, as it currently does to audio.

[-]

Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit

I hope the sudden fixation on cameras doesn’t take away from the ongoing issue that the profession has with mental illness. A camera (most likely) won’t prevent a suicidal pilot from doing this again. What can prevent it is allowing pilots to get the help they need without fear of losing their job.

Unfortunately I don’t expect much, if anything, to change.

[-]

Traditional_Log_3762@reddit (OP)

We need both imo. better mental health support for pilots are a must and should have been done ages ago

[-]