Slashdot Mirror
Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen
jones_supa writes: There's no video footage from inside the cockpit of the Germanwings flight that left 150 people dead — nor is such footage recorded from any other commercial airline crash in recent years. Unlike many other vehicles operating with heightened safety concerns, airline cockpits don't come with video surveillance. The reason, in part, is that airline pilots and their unions have argued vigorously against what they see as an invasion of privacy that would not improve aviation safety. The long debate on whether airplane cockpits in the U.S. should be equipped with cameras dates back at least 15 years, when the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) first pushed regulators to require video monitoring following what the agency called "several accidents involving a lack of information regarding crewmember actions and the flight deck environment." The latest NTSB recommendation for a cockpit image system (PDF) came in January 2015. Should video streams captured inside the plane become a standard part of aviation safety measures?
We already have a pretty good idea of what happened to the Germanwings flight even with 1 damaged black box.
A compromise could be the use of still photographs. Even with one photo per 10 seconds, it would give you a lot of extra information. As far as privacy, I would feel that the audio capture is a bigger invasion of privacy than a bunch of photographs.
An interesting note is that we do have cockpit video of the SpaceShipTwo disaster because no such union was involved, and it did seem to result in useful information. Still not sure which side of the issue I land on. I know I wouldn't want to be videotaped 24/7 at work.
exactly how many plane hijackings have been prevented by locked doors in the last 14 years ?
All of them? None of them?
THE REINFORCEMENT of cockpit doors on most commercial airliners was perhaps the most important change to air travel in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
There's security theater (screening everyone; banning liquids and gels over a certain amount) and prudent security measures. The only thing were really need is to have a metal detector, bomb sniffer and locked cockpit doors to prevent hijacking of aircraft and their use as flying weapons. That will stop most of the terrorists from hijacking a plane or causing an air disaster.
A compromise would be to record it on a 15 minutes circular buffer. No privacy issue, except in case of crash.
Perhaps they could video the cockpit (and the fuselage for that matter) and destroy the footage once the plane has safely landed. There could be streaming capability to the ground and if the feed is accessed, the pilots and crew receive a notification. Any unauthorized breach would be detected immediately. In the case of Germanwings, ground control would have been able to see what's going on once they detected the loss of altitude. It stifles me that in 2015, a young troubled copilot can end 150 lives in a way that can easily be prevented with simple technology.
While I agree a video would be useful in some cases I do agree with pilots there needs to be a balance between having information in a crash and creating a permeant record of what happens in the cockpit. Something similar to the flight data recorder where data is overwritten on a periodic basis might be a good compromise. Even so, a video record probably won't add that much information since things such as switch positions, throttle settings, instrument readings etc are already being recorded. Unless something unusual happened, such as with Germanwings, you'll basically just have a video record of who did what your audio and telemetry already says. One question is the cost worth it? Adding a few pounds of weight costs a lot of money over the life of a plane and that also needs to be factored into the equation as well.
As for preventing the Germanwings crash, how would technology such as a streaming videocamera prevent that? The pilot clearly trusted the copilot enough to leave the cockpit so all you have that that point is a video of what is going on but no way to prevent it. The type of technology that might have prevented it, an electronic medical record with automatic notification of employers when a doctor prescribes something that may indicate a lack of fitness for duty or deems a patient unfit for duty might have worked; but that would add its own set of problems nit the least of which is people would stop seeking treatment for conditions that they think could cost them their job.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Someone like Andreas Lubitz could have just reached up and stuck something over the camera lens. That's if he even cared about being filmed, which is doubtful. From what we're hearing about his desire for notoriety, he'd have probably loved to have those last moments caught on camera and broadcast around the world.
We're probably going to see a lot of TV news shows and newspapers calling for cameras in cockpits, but it won't be anything to do with safety, it will be because the footage has commercial value to news organisations.
while cockpit video cameras may help determine the cause of some crashes, there are plenty of recent examples where it wouldn't help.
For example if Malaysia airlines had cockpit video, it would not tell us who fired the missile and why. *for the one shot down in the Ukraine) and we don't have any black boxes from the other one (at the bottom of the indian ocean)
Well, that's basically what flying is. If you're dumb enough to do that, you deserve to crash in a pile of smouldering flames.
That's some major league victim blaming there. Let's see if we can blame the victims of the Titanic for "letting someone stick them in a big tub of riveted metal and setting them afloat on the world's second largest ocean". Or maybe we can blame the dinosaurs for being stupid enough to live on a big rock with only one inadeuately small moon to help protect it from once-in-a-gazillion-years meteor strikes. Stupid dinosaurs -- they really had it coming.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
If there's an actual case for safety, I'll all for it.
But so far the people advocating for it are clearly motivated by voyeurism.
Perhaps they could video the cockpit (and the fuselage for that matter) and destroy the footage once the plane has safely landed. There could be streaming capability to the ground and if the feed is accessed, the pilots and crew receive a notification. Any unauthorized breach would be detected immediately. In the case of Germanwings, ground control would have been able to see what's going on once they detected the loss of altitude. It stifles me that in 2015, a young troubled copilot can end 150 lives in a way that can easily be prevented with simple technology.
How is it any different than a ferry captain or a bus driver? There are many more fatal accidents from both of those occupations and neither has much of any monitoring.
Which is the requirement in the US and has become the requirement in many other areas in the wake of this incident.
... even hundreds of people's lives are in your hands, you have no right to an expectation of privacy regarding your actions that directly affect those lives.
, and as such, they are subjected to higher levels of surveillance due to their greater potential for disobedience to their masters.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
we should also put camera's on computer programers to see if they are slacking off or picking their noses.
Camera camera camera. the benefits of surveilance are not a sufficient reason to overcome the pervasive invasiveness. pychologically were a private species.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
In an era where I can purchase trans-atlantic wifi for $15, it seems archaic to me that we still rely on hardened "black boxes" for data retrieval. Why is audio from the flight deck not REQUIRED to be streamed real-time to satellites in orbit for commercial airliners? Yes yes, it won't be 100% reliable blah blah. So what? No one is advocating REMOVING the black box.. there is no reason you can't have both.
Are you crazy enough to trust your life to a wetware computer we can't even understand with any real confidence? There are 100,000 miles of blood vessels in your body, and if just the wrong one clots up, it's over for you. Many important components have no redundancy. Fatal malfunctions regularly occur with no way to repair them. Worst of all, you don't even have an offsite backup system for your most critical data.
That's basically what your body is. If you're dumb enough to rely on an organic life-support system designed through random trial and error, you deserve to die in a messy pile of organic failure.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Ah, I see that you have also worked in aerospace!
The old joke is, "How do you turn a 50 cent screw into a 5 dollar screw? Put it on an airplane!"
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
All the sensor data and controls should go into the box; that will tell you what was going on far far more than a blurry video. You could store the state of every single control in detail over time for hours in the space it takes to store a few frames of video. Besides that you could use such information to find patterns in how they handle disaster situations which could be used for education and design... and A.I. Pilot suicides like this are extremely rare... but we want to spend a ton of money so we can watch the person tilt the thing down into the ground on CNN in a loop for a few days.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news