Why do commercial planes not have dashcams in them?
Posted by nmiller248@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 121 comments
Sorry if this has been posted before. I did a quick 30 second search to see if it had been posted recently. Only thing I saw that was close was asking why planes don’t have cameras on the outside of them.
This question came to mind when I saw that Air India crash. There’s a big discussion as to whether one of the pilots manually turned off the fuel switches. Which has led to tons of speculation and investigating. Wouldn’t it make life easy for everyone if there was some sort of camera inside the cockpit for instances like this?
My company a few years ago installed dash cams into our entire fleet. (Several thousand vehicles). I’m not the biggest fan of having a camera in my truck, but I can understand why they did it. In the event of a crash, that information is very useful. A lot of companies that I know of are also doing the same thing. I don’t think “it invades my privacy” is a good excuse. Most jobs have security cameras everywhere, and as I said, a lot of companies are moving towards dashcams.
I understand most people’s response would be “because money, duh”. And I’m sure it would be somewhat of an investment. But having 1 50$ dashcam for each plane stuck up in the corner of the cockpit doesn’t seem like it would be asking much. Now how to get it to deliver video to the CVR, I’m not sure, which is probably where a lot of the cost would come from.
But even then. Wouldn’t it be worth it? Where you could figure out exactly what happened in a crash and know every move the pilots made? And not have to investigate a crash for years, slowly putting clues together? I’m just very surprised this hasn’t been implemented by airlines yet, or mandated by the FAA.
Own_Emergency_3119@reddit
Luckily we’re protected by our unions. Don’t want to be monitored by a camera all day. FDM is more than enough.
devildog2067@reddit
Yes, let’s hold bus drivers to a higher standard than pilots.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
Buses don’t have black boxes or every audio or every control button or switch input recorded, video is a cheap way to do it. Airliners have a better option already.
devildog2067@reddit
Buses do have black boxes, generally. At least modern ones do. Recording control inputs is simple. Recording audio would be simple.
They choose instead to record video because it is more complete.
There is no intellectually honest way to argue that recording video would have no value. It is, definitionally, additional information that could be used to assist investigators.
You can argue that the additional value of such video would be small — that’s probably true. You can argue that the value added doesn’t offset the cost, in dollars or in pilot privacy. That’s a matter of opinion and you’re entitled to yours.
But when you argue that video isn’t needed because black box plus audio is better, you’re just lying.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
What crash would be solved with video that currently isn’t solved? Don’t say air India, it’s solved.
devildog2067@reddit
In what universe is less data better than more data? You’re the one asserting something that’s logically incorrect, you provide the evidence.
praetor450@reddit
Air France 447, one of the attributing factors is that the ECAM warning overwhelmed the pilots giving a lot of contradictory information both that they were stalling and also overspeeding at times.
devildog2067@reddit
Complete and total non sequitor — we’re specifically talking here about data used in the context of aviation mishap investigations. That’s what the camera footage would be for.
praetor450@reddit
Yeah and OP is asking about cameras in the cockpit, more specifically because of the Air India crash.
Would video help the investigation, yes, but like some arguments made that cameras will some how add safety to airlines isn’t really the case. How would a video camera prevent someone from doing what the pilot in the AI did?
You also asked when has more data been a bad thing and I provided an example to which you don’t seem to like. More data doesn’t always mean good data.
devildog2067@reddit
OP is asking about cameras in the cockpit, because cameras in the cockpit is something that's going to happen and after it does it will be ridiculous in hindsight that anyone opposed them. That's what happened with cockpit audio recorders, which were similarly opposed by the pilots unions with similar arguments ("we have black box data what do we need CVRs for") until finally they were mandated. AOPA STILL opposes 25 hour CVRs.
Truck drivers have cameras that watch them drive. Bus drivers have cameras that watch them drive. Train operators have cameras that watch them operate their trains.
In an accident investigation, there's no such thing as too much data (and if you look at my statement, it's clear that's what I meant in context). There is no intellectually honest way to argue that having video from the cockpit in that situation is worse than not having it. At worst it contributes nothing, at best it provides critical information that can't be gotten from any other source.
And as I acknowledge, there are tradeoffs. Folks are entitled to their opinions about whether those tradeoffs are worth it. The privacy concerns are real. If you want to argue that the value video recordings would bring is not worth the cost in privacy, that is an absolutely reasonable argument to make. But you cannot in good faith argue that having video would be worse than not having it. In an accident investigation there is no such thing as too much data.
Kanyiko@reddit
Pilot privacy concerns.
Also, this is posted - and deleted - at least three times a week.
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
I've been around for a short time, and hadn't seen anything on it, at least recently. Sorry if it's been discussed more than once. Lol
praetor450@reddit
The problem is that everyone that posts this question sees it as a simple solution to the current crashes when it is not a solution. Just knowing how did it or having video of them doing it won’t prevent future crashes of the same nature.
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
I guess I didnt clarify. I think it would make investigations post crash easier, in some circumstances. Not sure it would necessarily prevent crashes per se. But whats it gonna hurt? It would just be another source of information in the event of a crash.
praetor450@reddit
As unfortunate as it is, safety costs money as some have pointed out. That cost threshold to install cameras is still higher than the added safety or information it might provide post accident.
Yes it would be another source of information, however as you think it is as easy as installing a dash cam in a car, to do that to a transport category aircraft is a lot more work, testing, certification, on going maintenance, and all the costs associated with those. You can’t just grab consumer grade or off the shelve product and use it.
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
Yea I figured it wouldn't as simple as slapping a regular camera in like you would a car. I saw another person post that slightly broke down cost, and it kinda made sense. Yea, it would be a cost to airlines that they probably don't want to spend.
praetor450@reddit
They don’t want to spend it unless they are forced to unfortunately.
bpemonpimming4@reddit
Should be required if truckers gotta have one
praetor450@reddit
Different industries have different regulatory requirements.
Omgninjas@reddit
Because you can get more info and and data from the FDR and CVR. You can already see every control input, every switch selection, and so on. Why bother with a camera that has a mediocre view of the cockpit when you can know precisely what switch was selected, what knob was turned, and so forth? Even the Air India crash it wouldn't help. We know the pilot committed suicide.
praetor450@reddit
Not to mention that if someone wants to cause harm they don’t care about any of that. The ones in recent times are suspected to have been mentally unwell for them to do what they did. So how is a camera going to stop them.
The camera would only show who did it in video format, but I really can’t see how it will prevent someone from repeating what these other ones did.
Aperron@reddit
$50 dash cam… you couldn’t even buy the mounting screws for an FAA certified cockpit video recording system for $50.
It costs more than $10,000 per side to install a USB charging port in the cockpit for airline supplied iPads.
By the time all was designed, certified and installed the cost would easily be well over $100k per aircraft and now you’ve got an additional safety critical system that grounds the airplane if it has any sort of malfunction.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Newsflash, safety costs money. Might as well uninstall CVR, FDR, QAR, EGPWS, TCAS, RAAS, etc. and save on weight on maintenance costs /s
praetor450@reddit
Difference is almost all those systems you mention already come installed in new airplanes or they made the investment to retrofit because it provides actual increased safety margins.
A cockpit can of sorts would be very expensive. Would it show what happened inside, provided no one obscures the camera, yes it would. However, once you have the video post crash how would the video provide any sort preventative information to prevent future pilot induce actions that lead to a crash?
Another cost aspect is the down time of the aircraft to install the system, plus ongoing maintenance to it.
The more tangible solution to pilot induced crashes, more so those in recent times that were self inflicted by those suspected to have mental health problems, is to treat the issue that lead the pilot to do what they did.
Gabriel_Owners@reddit
And exactly what "safety" problem is a "dashcam" solving?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Incident and accident investigation is key to improving safety. The more information you have available, the more accurately you can pinpoint the root cause for the event, and thus prevent it from happening in the future.
Why did we move from no CVR, to 30 minutes, to 2 hours and finally to 25 hours? Why did first FDRs only record a handful of data, and now they have to record 100+ parameters on new aircraft?
More data = better investigation = increased safety.
Gabriel_Owners@reddit
Ok, so name one crash in modern history that a cockpit video would have changed the investigative outcome.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
NTSB certainly think it would help with the investigations of the Atlas Air and both MAX accidents, but... what would they know about accident investigation, anyway, right?
Gabriel_Owners@reddit
And I think having Sydney Sweeney to help me get off would be more efficient. So what?
Everybody has wants and needs. Those are weighed against practicalities like cost, complexity, weight, and legal issues.
If video cameras were actually safety critical, they'd already be in jets. They're not because...guess what? It's not a safety issue.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
You could say the same for every accident in the history of aviation.
If we needed transponder on ground vehicles operating near the runway, we'd have them already. If we needed more than 75ft separation between helicopter route and airliners flight path, we'd have it already. Clearly no safety issues.
Aviation is slow to adopt things, and often it takes a lot of dead bodies for "cost, complexity, weight, and legal issues" to be resolved by the regulators. Unfortunately, we don't always have the foresight to think ahead and be proactive with safety.
Gabriel_Owners@reddit
Every single thing you've mentioned is proactive safety measures to prevent accidents. A video camera does nothing to add to the layer of safety. Again, you can't point to a single modern airline accident that would have had a different investigative outcome with cameras in the cockpit.
Cameras would not prevent any of these accidents. And they would not have done any more to prevent future MAX crashes. Or a future pilot known to panic from accidentally hitting the wrong button and being a terrible aviator.
But anyway, keep blabbing like you know anything about aviation safety.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
I've literally pointed out to the three that NTSB (you know, probably the most respected investigation authority in the world) think it would help make the investigation even more detailed.
If that's not enough to convince you, I'm not sure what would be.
Gabriel_Owners@reddit
And a few extra details would make no difference on the outcome of the investigation. Everyone already knew what happened and what needed to be done was fixed. The pilots record database came about because of the Atlas crash and the MCAS issues came to light because of the MAX crashes.
A video would have brought no new conclusions to any of those happenings.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
Thankfully our pilot unions are strong enough to prevent this.
It would solve almost 0 crashes that couldn’t already be solved with current technology.
And be a huge invasion of our privacy. It took decades just to have CVR tapes sealed.
ThePhotoYak@reddit
It would remove all doubt in the Air India case in about 5 minutes.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
Which is one unique situation that honestly has little doubt at all.
They just won’t share all of the info that they should be. There’s zero doubt about what happened from industry professionals.
Any other historical crash we know the answers without video
jsttob@reddit
Isn’t the whole point of the CVR and other data collection to help solve the “one unique situation?”
prex10@reddit
No? It records all conversations in the cockpit and collects data on every aspect of the airplane
jsttob@reddit
And why does it do that?
prex10@reddit
To record conversations and collect data? That's its entire point. Can you clarify what you're trying to ask?
jsttob@reddit
I’m not asking anything. I’m trying to tell you that the whole reason these data are collected in the first place is to help solve problems after an anomalous event has occurred.
The commenter above tried to claim that the Air India case was “one unique situation,” and I am simply saying that’s literally the entire reason we have this data coverage in the first place.
prex10@reddit
Is there another example where video can or could help solve a accident investigation in which the government actively is suppressing information?
jsttob@reddit
These are two different things!!
Whatever a local government decides to do with the data should not preclude collecting the data in the first place.
prex10@reddit
And what investigation beyond Air India would benefit from video from evidence?
jsttob@reddit
The event that hasn’t occurred yet!
This is the whole point of data coverage.
prex10@reddit
Do you honestly believe that pilots are just sitting in the cockpit, constantly flicking buttons, and only video evidence would be able to catch that?
prex10@reddit
That is mostly stemming from the Indian government trying to cover it up. We know what they did.
ThePhotoYak@reddit
I know it, you know it, we all know it. They are running with it. I'm just saying it would remove all doubt.
Gabriel_Owners@reddit
How would a video remove all doubt when the government prevents it from being released?
prex10@reddit
The Indian government would erase it. Or coincidentally the video had a malfunction or it was destroyed. And it would never see the light of day.
Murphy0317@reddit
As pilot we dgaf
jsttob@reddit
An invasion of privacy??
You are flying commercial passengers on aircraft and a civilian infrastructure that are heavily subsidized by federal tax dollars. Passengers deserve to know who is responsible for their lives.
There should be no expectation of privacy in a commercial aircraft. If you want that, perhaps you should be flying private planes.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
I’m glad you don’t have a say in the matter. Video would provide nothing to investigations that we don’t already have.
jsttob@reddit
I mean that’s objectively untrue given the Air India case.
Maybe rebut the argument with actual substance?
prex10@reddit
The Air India case a great example of government interference. Video would solve nothing if the state wants to actively work against an investigation. The video would never see the light of day. It would get lost, destroyed, corrupted or deleted. The Indian government is far more concerned about protecting its image. This is why it has taken nearly 5 years for the Chinese government release the fact that that China southern accident ago was a pilot suicide. But on the flipside, we knew Germanwings was suicide basically within 24 hours.
jsttob@reddit
We are discussing two different things.
What a local government chooses to do with data collected is completely separate from the mechanism used to collect the data in the first place.
This would be like saying “the DA won’t prosecute the criminals, so let’s stop arresting violent offenders altogether!”
Two things can be true at the same time.
prex10@reddit
So, we have means to collect data, and actively use them to assist in an investigation. In which they havent failed before.
jsttob@reddit
The whole point of the data collection mechanism is to catch things that have caused issues in the past, or that show up in anomalous events.
prex10@reddit
And I asked you, such as what?
LookoutBel0w@reddit
What air India case? What is there to solve?
If they had video they would’ve buried it by now anyways.
jsttob@reddit
Your claim is that it “would provide nothing.”
That’s simply untrue. It would be conclusive evidence on the events that took place inside the cockpit leading to deaths of 100’s of innocent passengers.
What the local government chooses to do with this info is beside the point.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
It would provide nothing we already can’t don’t have or can’t deduce with current technology.
jsttob@reddit
It would literally be conclusive evidence? Which we don’t have today?
LookoutBel0w@reddit
We don’t have it because they’ve covered it up. If there was video it would also be covered up.
jsttob@reddit
You like to argue, don’t you?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
The same was said about the requirement for 25h CVRs and it took many, many accidents and incidents, where voice recordings weren't preserved for FAA to finally implement the ICAO recommendations.
2001_Arabian_Nights@reddit
Most every truck driver not driving their own truck has a camera pointing at them, and recording at all times. They monitor every eye movement and if you’re taking your eyes off of the road “too much” you get a call from a supervisor.
jsttob@reddit
A truck is not a plane. The truck does not have passengers whose lives they are responsible for. The severity of an anomalous event is also much lower on the road than it is in the air.
2001_Arabian_Nights@reddit
I was trying to support your position, not argue against it. If it’s necessary for truck drivers, then it should definitely be necessary for pilots too, I think.
But you’re just wrong about truck drivers not having other peoples lives in their hands. They may not be in the truck with them, but everybody on the road around them is at risk from irresponsible truckers.
jsttob@reddit
I never said truck drivers don’t have other people’s lives in their hands. I said the severity is different. Meaning a single issue cause by a pilot and 100’s of people are dead instantly. If a truck driver swerves off the road, it’s likely limited to a handful of unfortunate individuals.
Kanyiko@reddit
"A handful of unfortunate individuals" - when a truck is carrying chemicals, the damage may be more than 'just a handful of unfortunate individuals'.
The Los Alfaques disaster of 1978 cost the lives of 217, with over 200 more injured. And it's not even the deadliest accident involving a chemical tanker truck.
2001_Arabian_Nights@reddit
I don’t know what we’re supposed to be arguing about, but I guess you win.
Quirky_Judge_6932@reddit
There is a camera in the bathroom at my job, everyone these days is recorded when not home. Although I understand their views. No one wants every moment of their lives recorded to be possibly viewed, or leaked online.
jsttob@reddit
These are not analogous things.
A pilot flying a commercial aircraft, solely responsible for the lives of 100’s of innocent passengers. Also that pilot’s job is heavily subsidized by federal tax dollars.
We as the flying public have a right to this information, and there should be no expectation of privacy in this scenario.
Narrow_Affect2648@reddit
Look, I’m sure there are plenty of valid arguments against this, but IMO right to privacy isn’t one of them… basically nobody has a right to privacy in their office or place of work.
theawkwardpadawan@reddit
“Almost” can be life changing for the industry. And “current” technology scales fast.
If that would solve the air India crash + teaches something new that would help us avoid the air India crash, why not be for it?
If the privacy argument is the single argument, I believe that the test of time will be pretty damn hard given how technology is evolving and impacting different fields.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
The air India crash IS SOLVED. It’s the government covering up what’s obvious.
And before you say video would solve it. You think they’d release that video if they had it? Of course not. There’s no mystery here to solve except the one in your head
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
In 30 years i’ve never even heard it mentioned
theawkwardpadawan@reddit
I see a huge bias I this tread from people that are, apparently, from within the commercial aviation industry. And that’s fine and expected.
This discussion is actually quite interesting and I’m curious to understand the second level of reasoning, beyond the privacy argument (which seems very weak).
Other than privacy, what are the reasons in which pilots and crew would not benefit from such? And what are the use cases in which crew would benefit?
Given the degree of regulation and scrutiny that the industry already faces, I believe it shouldn’t be hard to also regulate who and when access to such recordings would be granted (I imagine that’s already the case with the audio tapes that exists)
LookoutBel0w@reddit
You’re missing the point: there’s no upside or reason to do this.
theawkwardpadawan@reddit
Ok. Now give me the bias free argument. If it solves one commercial crash and teaches something new to avoid the next, that’s an argument.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
CVR and control and switch inputs provide way more info than video would, video would be less useful than what we already have.
Fleobis@reddit
You guys (pilots) are talking as if this would substitute what there is already. It would be an addition to what is present already. I fail to see any drawbacks. The privacy argument is really weak, if everything (inputs and audio) is already recording, what is the problem with privacy? I would expect any opportunity top learn would be welcomed by the industry but, it seems pilots like to do things they don't want to be recorded?
LookoutBel0w@reddit
It wouldn’t substitute or add. It’s not nearly as valuable as what is already there. Busses use cameras because they don’t have what airplanes have.
Become a pilot and then form an opinion on the topic
Fleobis@reddit
So, you are telling me all the transport authorities are governed by former pilots? All the lawmakers regarding air transport are pilots? interesting...Obviously no one, apart from pilots, can have opinions on the matter much less regulate the business.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
I’m telling you that video would be pretty useless for solving anything and if you were an industry expert you’d know this.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Not if video was in addition to CVR and FDR.
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
Yea, I can tell who the pilots are in this thread. Im just asking a question, and the downvotes are flying in. Seems even asking the question has touched some nerves.
Duckbilling2@reddit
You just made me realize we need a new term for dashcam,
As outward facing dashcams would be great
Dashcams viewing the pilots, no.
But apparently we use the same word for that.
Maybe, dashcam = outward facing
nannycam = operator facing
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
Yea I wasnt sure what else to call it. I almost put "dashcam" in the title. The dashcam in my truck has 2 cameras on it. One facing out the front, and one facing inside the cab.
Duckbilling2@reddit
The dashcam in my truck has two cameras, one facing out the front, one facing out the rear
I don't have interior cab cameras and eye tracking cameras, which a company I used to work for implemented in their work trucks.
We need terms in order to describe all of these types, to eliminate confusion. Not that that is on you, OP.
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
What problem would having a “dashcam” installed solve? Also, many aircraft, especially wide bodies, do indeed have cameras on the outside.
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
I’m just talking about in the cockpit. Not on the outside. It makes a post crash investigation easier. For example, on the a recent Air India flight, there was a lot of speculation if one of the pilots intentionally turned off the fuel switches, or if there was something wrong with the switch itself. A clear video of one of the pilots reaching over and switching off the switch (or not) would make post crash investigation much easier. Rather than speculating and putting clues together for months or years, you just have video of exactly what did or didn’t happen.
APerfectEllypse@reddit
Along with the other answers this kind of video surveillance of employees is also explicitly illegal in a lot of countries. Not to mention pilot unions throwing a very justified fit over stuff like this.
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
You do realize they already know the answer, right? That is a monitored control. It wouldn’t serve any useful purpose that i can think of.
xxJohnxx@reddit
If it weren’t for India‘s authorities, we would already know what happened. Them saying „uh hu, no sad people in India“ is not helping the investigation. A video wouldn’t change the situation.
ThePhotoYak@reddit
Inward facing. It would remove all doubt in the Air India case in about 5 minutes.
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
What do you think it would show that the boxes aren’t recording already?
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
The pilot reaching over and shutting off the fuel. Lol hard for the Indian government to deny with evidence like that.
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
Yet here they are doing that very thing.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
Any nobody believes them except apparently you. Same with the Chinese 737. We all know.
devildog2067@reddit
People in India are choosing to believe. It’d be harder with video.
LookoutBel0w@reddit
What video? Like they’d release it if they had it
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
Precisely
nmiller248@reddit (OP)
Yea, because there isn't a video of a pilot intentionally switching off the fuel. We all know what happened. But without video, there is room for the Indian government to create doubt.
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
You’ve got a hard head, but ok. i’m out. Maybe start a petition?
LookoutBel0w@reddit
There is no doubt. Only an Indian government coverup
frost08887@reddit
There is no doubt of what happened, the Indian government is humiliated and trying to sow doubt
Stegosaurus69@reddit
It would solve the 1 singular crash out of a billion flights tho
Weak_Tangerine_6316@reddit
It would have been useful in the Air India crash, but not in most crash scenarios.
It's a significant invasion of privacy. Every control input, and transmission, as well audio in the cockpit is already recorded on the CVR. Pilots spend a lot of time in the cockpit with little to do during cruise. They'll talk about family, politics, personal life, etc. to keep from being bored. Training/instruction is also frequently going on in a cockpit.
Pilots don't want everything to be surveilled 24/7 any more than it already is, and unions fight to keep it that way.
gazchap@reddit
I don't have any skin in this game, so just playing devil's advocate here, but if voice is already recorded (and thus conversations about family, politics, personal life etc. are recorded) then what difference does it make having video as far as privacy is concerned?
What would the concern be? Assuming that said videos were only accessible in the event of an incident, of course.
CrashSlow@reddit
Airbus sells cockpit cameras. They come pretty much standard in all new helicopters. There mounted behind the pilots shoulder and show the dash and most of the centre console, and they collect ambient cock pit sound, not the intercom. If the lighting is right you can see outside the windshield.
https://appareo.com/aviation/vision-1000/
Eastern_Weather_8748@reddit
Because pilots need to be able to vape or smoke in the cockpit without their companies knowing.
KJ3040@reddit
If you put a camera in my cockpit now I HAVE to read the 38 pages of useless NOTAMs I’m issued for my flight from SNA to SJC in the 46 minutes I have between flights to do EVERYTHING else. Congratulations you played yourself. Now I’m not gonna eat during the preflight because I don’t want to be accused of being “distracted”, but guess what, I’m not gonna just go hungry during my 11:42 shift with no meal breaks, so now the flight is gonna leave late.
Sir_Diggins@reddit
Railroads have had interior cameras for years, I feel it’s only a matter of time before they start doing it here too. I guess the regulations and difficulties of making mods are the only thing really holding it back.
EliteEthos@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/search?q=Why+camera&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
Frothy14@reddit
Only the general public is having these discussion. No pilot worth his or her salt believes it was anything other than intentional by the Captain
frost08887@reddit
Please take down this post
YOURE_GONNA_HATE_ME@reddit
Because the pilots unions have fought tooth and nail to not have them installed.
Happy-Table-9515@reddit
Oh yea? i must have missed that vote!
Minute-Shop9447@reddit
I can't really say, but will mention airliners have black boxes that record audio and other systems and actions that happened. I guess there's a higher chance that the dashcam could get destroyed or damaged, but there could be a solution to that.