Cockpit Cameras
 By James E Hall

 
Airline accidents today, like the recent American Airlinescrash in Queens, N.Y., can puzzle safety experts. They strugglefor months, even years, often unable to explain fully a flightsproblems or how the pilots reacted. Video cameras in the cockpit could help answer such critical questions.

Putting video cameras on airplanes might seem a settled matter. Sept.11proved

the need for a visual record inside the airplane, and some airlines are testing security cameras for passenger cabins. Flight attendants have endorsed the idea of cabin cameras. But putting cameras in the cockpit is controversial. Pilots' unions consider them an invasion of workplace privacy. They fear cockpit videos of a crash will be splashed across television screens. These are legitimate concerns that can be addressed with legal protections. They are not reasons to leave safety investigators hampered. Flight attendants and passengers are willing to accept less privacy to make air travel more secure. Pilots should accept less privacy in the cockpit to make flying safer.
 Airline accidents are getting harder to solve. Decades of good safety work have eliminated the most obvious threats. Today, an airliner crash typically results from a chain of subtle errors and flaws, each minor on its own but deadly in combination. Airliners are also far more complicated than they were 20 years ago. They use intricate computer systems to fly and video displays to tell pilots what is going on. The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder; the "black boxes , cannot capture all of the computer and video-display information. Black boxes are invaluable in revealing what the plane and its pilots were doing before a crash. But they do not capture hand, foot and body movements as pilots move controls and switches. They don't record all of the problems pilots face during an emergency, like fire or smoke. This kind of information, captured on video recorders, can be essential in a crash investigation.
For example, take the 1994 crash of a Boeing 737 near Pittsburgh. Investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board, which I led at the time, focused on problems with side-to-side control, based on their probe of a similar crash in 1991. The key question was: Did the pilots cause the crash or did the airplane's control system fail? Neither black box could answer that question. The flight recorder told what had happened to the airplane, but not why. The voice recorder captured grunts and exclamations as the pilots wrestled with a problem, but nothing about the nature of that problem. It took four years for the safety board to conclude that a control- system flaw was responsible for both crashes.
Other investigations have been hampered by a dearth of information from the cockpit, including the 1998 Swissair crash off Nova Scotia, the 1999 EgyptAir crash off Nantucket and the 2000 Alaska Airlines crash off Southern California. The current American Airlines investigation again raises the question of who or what was controlling the aircraft's side-to-side movement, just as in the Pittsburgh case.
The safety board has called for requiring video recorders in airliners no later than 2005. The Federal Aviation Administration should enact that requirement now. Video recorders can become one of our most valuable investigative tools. Without them, we are shortchanging the flying public.
The author served as chairman and acting chairman of the National Transnortation Safety Board of USA from June 1994 to January 2001.
Digital Recording Technology - January 2000
How Video Cameras And Digital Recording Technology Could Have Helped In Two Recent Passenger Aircraft Incidents

HIJACK – Five hijackers held an Indian Airlines Airbus A300 and 155 hostages to ransom for over 7 days, whilst demanding the release of Kashmiri Militants. After the murder of one male passenger, and unconfirmed reports of the hijackers’ limited arsenal, there were talks of storming the aircraft to overpower the hijackers. Instead, the

Camera

 hijackers remained in control. On the seventh day, they were allowed to leave the aircraft and airfield, and three militants were released in exchange for the 155 passengers. If the plane had been fitted with the FlightVu Defender System from AD Aerospace, images from cameras in the passenger cabins and cockpit could have been accessed by the authorities in the airport. They would have been able to better assess how volatile the situation was, and assess the strength of the hijackers.

EGYPTAIR – On 31st October 1999, 217 people were killed when an Egyptair Boeing 767 crashed into the Atlantic 60 miles off the US coast. Although there has been much speculation concerning activity in the cockpit shortly before the plane came down, the cause of the crash is still unknown. Investigators have been assimilating information from the Black Box recorders – and have retrieved information from the Cockpit Voice Recorder and from the Flight Data Recorder. Neither recorder gives enough information to fully understand the vital last minutes of the flight. Recorded images, stored in the Black Box, from cockpit mounted cameras, and from other interior and exterior locations could have provided authorities with more conclusive evidence, and perhaps the definitive cause of the crash.
Flight Deck International - April 2000
Averting disaster

 

FlightVu cameras, externally fitted to a passenger aircraft of a British airline, recently helped in the management of an in-flight incident, and turned a potential disaster into a simple diversion. The aircraft was carrying 235 passengers when the incident occurred. The aircraft had reached the top of its climb on its departure from Las Palmas Airport, Gran Canaria, when the flight deck instruments alerted the crew to a low fuel pressure warning. The normal checklist procedure was carried out, but the cause of the problem was not evident.
   Shortly after the alert, the flight

    

crew noticed that the flight deck video monitor -   transmitting images from externally mounted FlightVu cameras - showed fuel leaking from the right-hand engine/strut. The cameras had been installed as part of the in-flight entertainment system.
   The standard fuel leak drill was carried out, the engine was shut down and the fuel leak stopped. The flight crew issued a mayday call, and the aircraft returned safely to the airport. Mike Horne, Managing Director of AD Aerospace, said of the incident: "We are very proud that the system was

    


so influential in the avoidance of a potentially disastrous accident.
   This only proves that cameras can be a great safety benefit to today's air transport provider."
   AD Aerospace Ltd first developed its externally mounted FlightVu cameras following the East Midlands airport crash in 1989. In this fatal incident, the flight deck instruments of a British Midland Boeing 737 allegedly provided the pilots with incorrect information, causing them to shut down the good engine, rather than the failing engine.
   AD Aerospace believes that if cameras had been installed on that aircraft, the pilots would have been able to see which engine was faulty, and the passengers and crew could still be alive today.

 

CCTV in Aircraft Safety
Aircraft Data Recorder - March 1999
A recent NTSB Safety Recommendation letter to the FAA (A-99-16 through – 18, dated 9th March, 1999), proposed the use of video cameras in the cockpit of passenger aircraft.

 

 
The basis of the letter concerned the need for the improvement of Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorders, citing some 52 accidents and incidents since 1983, where critical information from either recorder was lost due to the loss or interruption of power. The letter also recommended that outdated recorders should be retrofitted with solid state digital units.

The NTSB states that "the need for video recording is becoming more evident", citing a NTSB report on an incident involving USAir Flight 105, a Boeing 737, at Kansas City, Missouri (8th September, 1989). Excerpts from the NTSB letter can be found at the end of this article.

AD Aerospace is committed to improving aviation safety and security, and have developed the world’s first Aircraft Data Recorder as part of its FlightVu product range. The Aircraft Data Recorder combines the Flight Data Recorder, Cockpit Voice and Flight Video Recorder into a single, solid state, crash proof unit.

The FlightVu FV-0720 Aircraft Data Recorder presents a significant new additional source of information to the Air Accident Investigator. The provision of up to 8 channels of video pictures, from cameras mounted in the cockpit and external to the aircraft, allows investigators to fully appreciate the aircraft environment, and will aid their understanding of the flight of the aircraft leading up to an incident or accident.

FlightVu FV-0720 Recording capability:

Flight Data Recorder - 25 hours from FAR121 parameter list

Cockpit Voice Recorder - 2 hours from 4 audio channels (in accordance with ED56A)

Flight Video Recorder - 30 minutes at 3 frames per second

AD Aerospace Ltd is UK Civil Aviation Authority A-1 Designer and Manufacturer of Video Systems, a JAR-145 maintenance organisation and hold ISO9001 approval.

AD Aerospace are members of the EUROCAE Working Group 50, and are participating in the discussions to define standards for Video flight Recorders.

Excerpts from the NTSB Safety Recommendation, A-99-16 through -18, 9th March, 1999.

"The report pointed out the limitations of existing Flight Recorders to fully document the range of the flight crew actions and communications. It also noted that the introduction of aircraft with electronic "glass" cockpits and the future use of CPDL communications would enable the flight crew to make display and data retrieval selections that will be transparent to the CVR and FDR. The Safety Board indicated that it would monitor and evaluate progress in the application of video technology to the cockpits of air transports. In the 9 years since that incident, considerable progress has been made in video and flight recorder technologies, and the need for video recording is becoming more evident. Video recording of the cockpit environment on newly manufactured airplanes is now technologically and economically feasible, and interest in video recording is growing.

The international aviation community is aware of the safety benefits of crash-protected video recorders. Agenda item 3 of ICAO’s FLIRECP/2 (International Civil Aviation Organization and Flight Recorder Panel, second meeting) specifically dealt with the need for standards and recommended practices (SARPs) concerning video recordings. The panel agreed that the use of video recordings in the aircraft cockpits would be very useful and noted that EUROCAE (European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment) was developing minimum operational performance specifications (MOPS).

......The panel concluded that it was "strongly committed to the introduction of video recordings in an appropriate and agreed format,....."

The Safety Board believes that recorder systems and standard-setting processes should be flexible enough to incorporate new technology as it is developed. To that end, the Safety Board encourages the FAA and the aviation industry to take steps such as prewiring aircraft, developing system interfaces, and developing technical standards to facilitate the eventual introduction of new technology, such as video recorders. "

For more information about the FlightVu Aircraft Data Recorder please contact:

Mike Horne, Managing Director, mhorne@ad-holdings.co.uk

AD Aerospace Ltd
1 Hilton Square, Swinton, Manchester, M27 4DB, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)870 442 4520
Fax: +44 (0)870 442 4522
from this link

 

Cockpit Video Cameras...The Issues

Introduction

The National Transportation Board has recommended to the Federal Aviation Administration that all FAR Part 121, 125, and 135 passenger-carrying aircraft be equipped with cockpit video recorders, cockpit voice recorders and digital flight data recorders (Rimmer, 2000). The use of flight data information has been very useful to the National Transportation Safety Board for solving countless aircraft accidents and mishaps. The recent surge for the upgraded equipment, especially the cockpit video recorders, stems from the crashes of ValuJet Flight 592 in the

 Florida Everglades, Swissair Flight 111, which crashed off the coast of Halifax, and more recently the EgyptAir 990 crash (“Safety Board Favors Cameras For Cockpits,” 2000). The current equipment used in the aircraft today is the Cockpit Voice Recorder and the Flight Data Recorder. The cockpit voice recorder records the radio transmissions between the pilots and the air traffic controllers who guide the planes to their designated areas in the air and on the ground. The cockpit voice recorder also records the sounds inside the cockpit between pilots, stall warning signals, engine noise, landing gear extension and retraction, weather briefs, and any other abnormal noises (Barker, 1999). The flight data recorder monitors certain parameters of the actual airplane such as the altitude, airspeed, compass heading, vertical acceleration and time (Maharry, 2000).

Definition

The National Transportation Safety Board wants to upgrade existing flight data recorders and implement cockpit video recorders for safety reasons and to help solve commercial airline crashes. The airline pilots are against the idea of the cockpit recorders due to the fact that they will be on camera at all times and feel that this is a breach of privacy and the film could be leaked to the media (Sher, 2000).

Affected Principles

 The National Transportation Safety Board has cited that with the help of the cockpit video recorders accidents can be solved more quickly (“Safety Board Favors Cameras For Cockpits,” 2000). Pilots oppose the use of the cameras stating that it is a breach of privacy into the pilots' workspace (Sher, 2000). Unions such as the Air Line Pilots Association think very much the same as the pilots do. The unions think that today’s technology is sufficient enough so that cockpit video recorders are not necessary (Mann, 2000). The victims and the lawyers representing the victims want to be active participants in the National Transportation Safety Board investigation (Richfield, 2000). The upgrades and the cockpit video recorders can be beneficial to the airlines themselves. The cockpit video recorders may determine if there were flaws in the manufacturing of the aircraft or pilot error. The passengers who board the aircraft everyday will stand to benefit from the information emotionally and economically; confidence in the government to solve these issues is paramount (Hall, 1999).

How Principles Are Affected

The National Transportation Safety Board wants the cameras to show the whole cockpit to include all crewmembers. The NTSB has stated that the faces of the pilots will not be necessary in the implementation of the video cameras. Two hours of color video will be in constant use in the cockpits. The cameras need to be color due to the color coordination of some of the flight screens in the cockpit. The use of the camera can show the actual settings of the instruments also. The video can be compared to what the flight data recorder indicates. This information can be critical if both recordings show different readings (“Safety Board Calls For Cameras In The Cockpit,” 2000). The National Transportation Safety Board has indicated that the circuit breaker to the camera will be inaccessible to any of the crew during flight. This decision arises from the idea that the pilot from SilkAir737 pulled the circuit breaker to the flight data recorder before allegedly crashing the plane. (“Safety Board Calls For Cameras In The Cockpit,” 2000). The National Transportation Safety Board, along with taxpayers, will also be affected economically with the implementation of the recorders. Currently, the National Transportation Safety Board has spent more than 13 million dollars and 2,400 workdays trying to solve the crash of EgyptAir 990. Economic projections for this crash may run as high as 17

Camera

million dollars before the investigation is either solved or unsolved (Mann, 2000). The pilots of the airlines are concerned that the actual cockpit video recordings might be leaked to the public. Images such as these would then be put on tabloid television for the world to see (Sher, 2000). Pilots are also concerned that the flight data may or will be used against them in court. The pilots also think that the information may be used against them by the airlines to impose disciplinary actions (Richfield, 2000). In March 2000, a New Zealand pilot was charged with manslaughter for killing four people on his aircraft. Pilots view the video recorders as an infringement on their privacy in their workplace (Bill, 2000). A United DC-9 pilot was quoted as saying, It'll be just like the old Soviet Union, with Big Brother watching you, (Carley, 2000). The cockpit is their office and pilots think that the camera is being unjustly used to monitor their actions (Bill, 2000). Unions such as the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) think the usefulness of the camera is over-rated. With today’s modern technology, the upgrades to existing recorders and the implementation of Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) program should provide enough information for safety purposes (Mann, 2000). The Flight Operations Quality Assurance program is designed so that the flight data information is saved to disk therefore capturing all information instead of the minimal recording time mandated by Federal Aviation Administration. The disk is then downloaded at the headquarters of that particular airline for review. The computer then reads all the information from the disk and captures any readings that are out of character for the flight, thereby isolating any problems with the pilot’s actions or the aircraft itself. (Maharry, 2000). The Air Line Pilots Association also wants a law in place to bar the release of information on the video data recorders (Lieb, 2000). The victims and the lawyers representing the families of the victims of these tragic accidents want all flight data to be accessible so that the information can be used in a court of law. It is the perception of the lawyers and victims that the government is providing a secure and sheltered environment for the airline industry on these issues (Richfield, 2000). The airline organizations and designers can use the information retrieved in the wreckage to identify exactly what happened in those last few minutes in a different way. The data analyzed can determine if there was a flaw in the design of the aircraft. Information such as this, if it can be determined, can help to fix other aircraft immediately before another mishap occurs. These findings can also help redesign new aircraft that may be sitting on the assembly line or in the development stage. The information can be very helpful to determine that mechanical failure did not cause the demise of the airplane. This information can then be used to see if pilot error was the factor (Hall, 1999). The frequent flying customers as well as the very reluctant flyer will benefit from the accurate data collected. First, several accidents have been averted due to the information that is already being collected by the recorders. The information that has been collected and analyzed has averted serious injury and countless lives have been saved due to data recorders already in place. The passengers’ peace of mind is priceless, knowing that he/she is flying in a safe airplane. Second, society is protected economically also. The prevention of accidents reduces the cost of insurance for the airlines and the passenger’s tickets. Medical costs and other government costs are also reduced due to the efforts of effective data recorders. It has also benefited the court systems by avoiding long, expensive litigation lawsuit. How many more lawsuits can be avoided due to more accurate data recorders? Third, the confidence level in the government to solve the accidents would increase. When the investigation team can determine the exact cause of an accident, few questions go unanswered. This in return will boost the integrity of the transportation system (Hall, 1999). Key Issues James Hall, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, has assured lawmakers that the same rules and guidelines will mandate the video recorders, as far as viewing, as the cockpit voice recorder (Mann, 2000). The National Transportation Safety Board does release transcripts of the voice recordings, but are prohibited by law to release the actual recordings of the voice recorders (Carley, 2000). Duane Woerth, President of the Airlines Pilots Association, stated that the protection already in place is not sufficient enough to protect the recordings. There were several instances where the news has received actual voice recordings and used them for the world to listen (Mann, 2000). Flight Operations Quality Assurance does not require an accident to happen in order for information to be obtained. The data collected before an accident is used for decision making base on the analysis and data collected. The information collected because of FOQA gives airlines a good indication of how effective the training and flight procedures are for their pilots (Frenzel, 2000). Organizations that use the Flight Operations Quality Assurance programs fear that the information being collected can be used against them in criminal cases. If a pilot feels that the information being collected can be used against him/her, he/she will not want to participate in the program (Maharry, 2000). How many cameras should be used in the cockpit? Duncan Schofield, manager of flight-recorder engineering at Honeywell International Inc., a maker of aircraft instruments stated that three cameras would be sufficient to cover all aspects in the cockpit. One camera will be used to get the readings of the instruments in front of the pilots, one for the instruments above the pilots, and one for the cockpit to get a general idea of what the pilots are doing (Carley, 2000). Will the video boxes be able to survive the crash? Recorders must be crash proof so that the essential information in the boxes is safe. The criteria for the boxes are as follows: Able to withstand the impact of 3,400 G’s. This is the equivalent to an object coming to a dead stop traveling 360 miles per hour. It must be crush proof to withstand 5,000 pounds of force for five minutes. They must also be able to be protected against punctures to the box. It must be fire proof, able to withstand temperatures up to 2,000 degrees for 30 minutes. It must be heat proof, able to withstand heat up to 500 degrees for ten hours. It must be waterproof, able to last for thirty days under water at depths of 20,000 feet. It must be corrosion proof, so it may last at least 30 days in a body of water. It must be gunk proof also, able to survive 48 hours if submerged in oil, fuel, hydraulic fluid, grease, and extinguishing agent (Maharry, 2000).

Summary

Data recorders play such an integral role in the safety of commercial airlines. Since the National Transportation Safety Board is the watchdog for all airline industries, they increasingly want to upgrade and implement new recorders in the name of safety. Many people and organizations are still at odds whether the video recorders will be beneficial to help with safety and solve airline crashes. With more aircraft in the skies, the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board will continue to make advances in data collection for many years to come. In recent years, the air transportation industry and the federal government have spent a significant amount of effort and money on different programs to make our skies safer. Some examples of these efforts include the DOT Aviation Safety Action Plan, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, and the FAA Safer Skies Initiative. These efforts have identified the most important issues affecting air safety. These programs advocate a strong industry focus on risk management and an aggressive, proactive safety program. The current industry thrust is to provide the air transportation industry with the tools to detect and remedy the unsafe and undesirable trends that will eventually result in accidents, and thereby prevent the next accident without having to wait for an aircraft to fall out of the sky. When it comes to improving air safety, cockpit video recorders are not the answer. The cameras can continue to be used in a training capacity. Airline companies use the cameras to assess students, which provide the student and instructor with instant feedback on positive and negative aspects of their training. A lot can be learned by using the camera in this function to ensure training is efficient and effective. Today's state of the art technology is so advanced and becoming more and more advanced that the National Transportation Safety Board can make accurate assessments on the demise of almost, but not all crashes. Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) in the latest versions of transport aircraft typically record more than a hundred different parameters. Enhanced recording technology, combined with proactive air safety programs such as FOQA, will help the NTSB to accurately identify airplane or pilot system deficiencies. This in return will continue to keep unknown and "probable cause only" accidents at a minimum.

 

Board Says Video 'Black Box' Would Help Solve Plane Crashes

By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: July 28, 2004

 

WASHINGTON, July 27 - Investigators seeking the causes of airplane crashes need a third "black box" - a cockpit video recorder - to complement the existing voice and data recorders, officials of the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday.

But at the opening of a two-day hearing meant to intensify the agency's four-year campaign for video recorders, the idea met stiff opposition from pilots concerned about their privacy and airlines worried about the weight and expense.

Advertisement

Agency officials said that a cockpit image would have helped them resolve what happened in crashes like that of EgyptAir 990 on Oct. 31, 1999, which they concluded was a deliberate act by the co-pilot. Officials said a camera would have clarified who was in the cockpit.

A video recording, they said, would also have helped solve the crashes that killed Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota in October 2002, and members of the Oklahoma State University basketball team in January 2001, both in small planes.

To protect the privacy of pilots, video recordings would be covered by the same law that protects cockpit voice recordings from public exposure. But Capt. John Cox, executive chairman of the safety committee of the Air Line Pilots Association, pointed to the voice tape from an American Airlines jet that crashed in Colombia in 1995; parts were broadcast by NBC on "Dateline.''

"Once the airplane leaves the 12-mile limit and becomes an international airplane, I have serious concerns about the ability to keep it off the Internet," Mr. Cox said.

Mr. Cox said video images were subjective and not as good as information from flight data recorders; the money could be better spent there, he said, or on other cockpit safety devices.

But Carol J. Carmody, the safety board member who ran the hearing, said, "I have trouble finding a way to be against more data."

Ms. Carmody said she agreed that video alone, like voice recordings alone, left gaps and was subject to misinterpretation. But video, she said, was "another piece of the puzzle."

And other investigators said that the two black boxes now in use left gaps. Among the problems, said Ken Smart, chief inspector of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, the British equivalent of the N.T.S.B., was that the dialogue between the pilots often left much to be desired.

"It's common to hear, 'Look at this,' and we sit there wondering what 'this' is," Mr. Smart said.

Mr. Smart cited the 1999 crash of a Korean Air freighter at Stansted, near London. The flight data recorder showed that while making its first turn, the Boeing 747 banked to 90 degrees, then crashed. It also showed that the captain's attitude indicator, which gives the plane's orientation in relation to the horizon, was broken. But it did not show why the crew had not figured this out. The voice recorder might have given a clue, he said, but "very little was said."

The safety board recommended cockpit video in 2000, but the Federal Aviation Administration is studying how such a system would be set up. Aviation experts agree, though, that advances in surveillance technology make such a system feasible. Just as the voice recorders use several microphones, a video system might use several cameras, and store the data on computer chips, which have proved resistant to crash impact.

The Air Crash Victims Families Group, representing relatives of passengers on EgyptAir 990, T.W.A. 800, Korean Air 007, Swissair 111 and ValuJet 592, submitted a statement calling for cameras, arguing that "we now live in an environment where for many reasons like safety, security, quality assurance, and others, video imaging and recording has become a fact of our daily life, extending some times even into our private homes."

"Whoever enters an airport waives silently" the right to privacy, the statement said.

But another pilot, John David, quoted a British government study that found that "monitoring people whilst they perform complex tasks has a negative effect on their ability to perform those tasks."

A Navy training expert, Constance Gillan, said that the Navy had successfully used cockpit video surveillance in simulators, to capture nonverbal communications like hand gestures, and that the cameras did not seem to affect the trainees.

"You see some things in the simulator and you're horrified at what they're doing," Ms. Gillan said. But the pilots, she said, "just don't care, or it becomes secondary, and in the background."

 
July 27, 2004

US safety investigators nudged regulators on Tuesday to require cameras in cockpits to videotape pilots, which they say could make it easier and faster to determine the cause of accidents.

But the Federal Aviation Administration and pilots, especially, have been reluctant to embrace the concept proposed by the National Transportation Safety Board.

They do not agree that crash-resistant cameras are cost-effective, reliable or that they would guarantee the results investigators envision without invading privacy.

"The benefits of video imaging are vastly overrated," said Captain Paul Rice, vice president of administration for the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest commercial pilots' union.

"The imagery information gathered from cockpit image recorders is subjective, not objective, and is unlikely to provide the detailed data that proponents promise or that is vital to any accurate air carrier accident investigation," Rice said during NTSB hearings on the proposal.

Pilots also fear video from cockpit cameras would be used against them by their airline or find their way into media coverage of crashes.

"History has shown that in the current environment it is impossible to safeguard the privacy of cockpit voice recorders, much less cockpit image recorders," Rice said.

The industry is also wary of new costs at a time when many airlines continue to struggle financially.

But investigators at the hearing cited numerous private and commercial aircraft accidents where data and cockpit voice recorders did not alone yield clear-cut information. These included the 2002 crash that killed former US Senator Paul Wellstone, the Egypt Air crash off Massachusetts in 1999, and the ValuJet crash in Florida's Everglades in 1996.

"Needless to say, it's likely that a cockpit image recorder would have aided each of these investigations and allowed more precise and timely findings," said senior safety board air crash investigator Frank Hilldrup.

Federal regulators did not rule out the cameras. "There are some issues that were articulated... that need to be addressed before we go forward," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

Panel Renews Call for Cameras in Cockpits
Jul 27, 12:10 PM (ET)

By LESLIE MILLER


WASHINGTON (AP) - Safety officials are stepping up pressure on the Federal Aviation Administration to require video cameras in cockpits so accident investigators will have better information on what causes plane crashes.

The National Transportation Safety Board launched a two-day hearing Tuesday to renew its call for large and small planes to be equipped with crash-resistant cockpit image recorders.

"We need to light the fires," said National Transportation Safety Board member Carol Carmody, who will chair the hearing. The NTSB recommended that the FAA require large aircraft to be equipped with cameras four years ago.

Supportng the idea was Ken Smart of the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch, who said cameras are used on military aircraft in the United Kingdom and are very useful in understanding the human actions that lead to airplane accidents.


Nonetheless, the idea of cameras in the cockpits drew strong opposition from airline pilots.

John David of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots at American Airlines, said having a camera monitor everything they do would affect their ability to perform.

The Air Line Pilots Association, the largest pilots union, issued a statement saying "the benefits of video imaging are vastly overrated, because far more effective and efficient tools exist."

Pilots object to the idea because they're concerned about their privacy and they fear that images, unlike technical data, can give rise to subjective interpretations of pilots' actions in the seconds before a crash.

John Cox, executive air safety chairman of the ALPA, said cameras in the cockpit would be a waste of money.

"We don't get a particularly good product and it's expensive," said Cox before the hearing. "If we have that money we can spend, let's get data that we can use. Objective data."

The safety board maintains that cameras would have helped safety investigators understand the smoke and fire conditions in the cockpit of two deadly plane crashes: Swissair Flight 111 on Sept. 2, 1998, which crashed off the coast of Halifax, Nova Scotia, en route from New York to Geneva, Switzerland; and Valujet Flight 592 on May 11, 1996, which plunged into the Florida Everglades on a flight from Miami to Atlanta.

In both crashes, cameras could have helped investigators understand how the fires started, what the crews did to put them out and whether the crew managed to clear smoke from the cockpit.
The safety board said such information might steer them toward modifying firefighting training, procedures or systems.

Cameras would have also helped answer questions about what happened in the cockpit of EgyptAir Flight 990 from New York to Cairo on Oct. 31, 1999. The NTSB said the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit when he disconnected the autopilot, reduced power to the engines, and sent the plane into the Atlantic Ocean off the Nantucket coast.
The Egyptian government rejects any suggestion that the co-pilot deliberately crashed the Boeing 767.

Carmody said cameras would have also saved time and money in determining what caused the twin-engine plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone and seven others in Eveleth, Minn., on Oct. 25, 2002.

The safety board ultimately found the probable cause of the accident was the pilots' inattention to the aircraft's instruments. The investigation into that crash gave rise to the recommendations that all small planes be equipped with crash-proof cameras.

Carmody said image-recording technology is much less complicated - and therefore cheaper - than flight data recorders or cockpit voice recorders.

For small planes that aren't required to have cockpit voice recorders or flight data recorders, "it would give us something," Carmody said.

The Federal Aviation Administration, the agency that would implement the NTSB's recommendations for aviation safety, has taken the first steps in developing technical standards for video recorders.

FAA spokeswoman Diane Spitalieri called the recorders "an extra level of safety for aircraft."

But Cox, the pilots' representative, said interpreting video images is always subjective and therefore cannot lead to safety improvements.

It would be much better, he said, to spend limited dollars on data recorders that record more information about a flight than current recorders do.

"Objective data has served us well," Cox said.
"That's where we need to stay focused."

Cox also said legal protections of video images aren't ironclad.

Carmody said the NTSB is required to treat video images the same way it treats cockpit tapes. The board never releases the actual recordings to the public, but makes transcripts available.
from this link
Pilots Oppose Call for In - Cockpit Cameras

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: July 27, 2004

Filed at 8:44 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Airline pilots are dead set against putting cameras in cockpits as safety officials step up the pressure to require them as an aid to accident investigation and prevention.

The National Transportation Safety Board launched a two-day hearing Tuesday to renew its call for all civilian planes to be equipped with crash-resistant cockpit image recorders.

Four years ago, the NTSB recommended that the FAA require large aircraft to be equipped with cameras four years ago, but the FAA still hasn't done it. Subsequently, NTSB added small planes to their recommendation.

NTSB senior air safety investigator Frank Hilldrup said cockpit image recorders would produce faster and more accurate conclusions about the causes of aviation accidents.

``The technology exists, the costs are low and the need is here now,'' Hilldrup said during the hearing.

Supporting the idea was Ken Smart of the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch, who said cameras are used on military aircraft in the United Kingdom and are ``very, very useful'' in understanding the human actions that lead to airplane accidents.

Nonetheless, the idea of cameras in the cockpits drew strong opposition from airline pilots.

John David of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots at American Airlines, said having a camera monitor everything they do would affect their ability to perform.

``It's going to be very intrusive,'' David said. ``You always see the glass lens.''

The Air Line Pilots Association, the largest pilots union, issued a statement saying ``the benefits of video imaging are vastly overrated, because far more effective and efficient tools exist.''

Advocates of the devices said there are ways to protect pilots' privacy -- encrypting the information, for example, or pointing the cameras away from the pilots' heads and shoulders.

But one reason pilots oppose image recorders is that such promises were broken after they agreed to the introduction of cockpit voice recorders in the 1960s, the Air Line Pilots Association said in a statement submitted to the board.

Pilots had been told the tapes would be used for accident investigations only and wouldn't be publicly disclosed. But in 1989, a 6 o'clock news program played the cockpit voice recorder from Delta Flight 1141, which crashed on takeoff in Dallas. The crew and passengers survived.

Though laws were subsequently passed that limited the use of cockpit voice recordings, they are still used against pilots in criminal proceedings and disciplinary actions by employers, the statement said.

Airlines are skeptical of the cameras. They want a cost-benefit analysis done first before they have to pay for the devices.

The safety board maintains that cameras would have helped safety investigators understand the smoke and fire conditions in the cockpit of two deadly plane crashes: Swissair Flight 111, which crashed off the coast of Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1998, and Valujet Flight 592, which plunged into the Florida Everglades in 1996.

Cameras could have helped investigators understand how the fires started, what the crews did to put them out and whether the crew managed to clear smoke from the cockpit. The safety board said such information might steer them toward modifying fire-fighting training, procedures or systems.

Cameras would have also helped answer questions about what happened in the cockpit of EgyptAir Flight 990 from New York to Cairo on Oct. 31, 1999, when the pilot apparently directed the plane into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Nantucket.

Safety board member Carol Carmody said cameras would have also saved time and money in determining what caused the twin-engine plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone and seven others in Eveleth, Minn., on Oct. 25, 2002.

The safety board ultimately found the probable cause of the accident was the pilots' inattention to the aircraft's instruments. The Wellstone crash investigation gave rise to the recommendations that all small planes be equipped with crash-proof cameras.

The Federal Aviation Administration, the agency that would implement the NTSB's recommendations for aviation safety, has taken the first steps in developing technical standards for video recorders.

FAA spokeswoman Diane Spitalieri called the recorders ``an extra level of safety for aircraft.''

 from this link

Allied Pilots Association States Position on Cockpit Video Recorders:
``Industry Faces More Pressing Priorities''; Pilots' Union Supports Focus on Accident Prevention

FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 27, 2004--The Allied Pilots Association (APA), collective bargaining agent for the 13,500 pilots of American Airlines (NYSE:AMR), expressed its views concerning cockpit video recorders as the National Transportation Safety Board convenes a hearing on the issue in Washington, D.C.

"The expense associated with installing cockpit video recorders in all commercial airliners would be very significant," said Captain Ralph Hunter, APA President. "In our view, those resources should be allocated to more critical safety initiatives such as improving the effectiveness of the Digital Flight Data Recorders that are already in use to capture more data."

Hunter pointed out that the airline industry is already struggling to fund vital security-related expenses, and is also coping with other challenges to carriers' fiscal health such as record-high fuel prices. He further noted that accident prevention is more cost-effective than accident investigation.

"We encourage the federal government to focus on helping to prevent accidents through hazard and risk analysis, rather than concentrating valuable resources on after-the-fact investigation," he said. "Simply put, our nation's airline industry faces more pressing priorities than installing cockpit video cameras."

APA also expressed concern that cockpit video recorders could result in accidents being further sensationalized by the news media and plaintiffs' attorneys, which would render the task of pinpointing an accident's cause and preventing a recurrence more difficult by inflaming emotions.


from this link
It seems most pilots are opposed to these cameras. Is it because:

1. There is a fear that the content will be used to further micromanage. (Hey, they got time to do *this*)
2. Unofficial "procedures" will be detected. (Stuff that's ok with everyone until management finds out about it)
3. Workplace intrusion. (I'm a professional, damnit!)
4. Misintrepretation of actions during the event. (This is the reason quoted in the article)
5. All of the above. (I thought so)

I can certainly see many opportunities for management to abuse such a system.

Can't see the problem with cameras in the flightdeck as long as there is an erase button like the CVR. If you aren't around to push the button you aren't going to care what's on the tape, now are you?
  

to Safety Menu