Why Pilots DON'T Want THIS!

0:00 When Air India flight 171 crashed on the 12th of June, it triggered a series of events familiar to many in aviation. Emergency responders rushed to the scene. And soon afterwards, they were joined by investigators and experts from around the world trying to make sense of what had happened. Almost immediately, the investigation team also began the search for the flight recorders, the famous black boxes, who were both recovered within a few days. and their data will reveal most of the important actions made by the crew as well as hundreds of parameters and values from different systems around the aircraft. The cockpit voice recorder will tell us what the crew were saying and crucially perhaps what they were hearing, but

0:45 there would be no video. The data in the flight data recorder should theoretically tell us some of what the crew saw on their displays, but with certain failures, that might not be the case. And there's currently no cameras to show exactly what the pilots saw or how they reacted to it. And that triggers a debate that often comes up after major accidents like this. And it's also one of the most common questions that we get asked here on the channel. Since we can record hundreds of flight parameters and high quality audio and given that modern digital action cameras are cheap, rugged and reliable, why don't we have those type of cameras in the cockpit and on other places of the aircraft? It sounds quite simple, right? Install a

1:33 crash protected camera, plug it into its own black box, and give the investigators another tool to help them solve accidents faster and more reliably. After all, we do have cameras on trains, buses, banks, and cars. So, why not use them in the machines that fly hundreds of people across continents and oceans as well? Well, as it turns out, in aviation, simple ideas often aren't as simple as they first look. Because this isn't just a technical debate, it's also a human one. So, what might seem like common sense and a technological no-brainer can actually be a problem of trust or the lack of it. So, today I will look at why cockpit

2:19 cameras still aren't required, what benefits investigators believe that they offer, and why some pilots and unions are pushing back. Now, let's start by defining what we're actually talking about. What we call a cockpit video recorder is not a system that is capable of streaming footage to the ground in real time like space launch cameras or webcams. No, what investigators want is much more limited and more familiar. They want a small crash survivable camera that records the flight deck during normal operations with its footage being stored in the same kind of crash protected memory unit that we already use for voice and data. And also just like with those systems, this video

3:04 should in theory only be accessed in the event of a serious incident or accident and then only show a limited time of the flight. So with that, the cockpit video recorder would in essence become the third piece in what's often known as the blackbox system. the flight data recorder or FDR which tracks hundreds or even thousands of parameters from air speed to control surface positions and even the force that we pilots put onto the flight controls. Then we have the cockpit voice recorder, the CBR, which using multiple microphones captures radio calls, conversations and ambient sounds in the cockpit. And then finally, this video feed. In some modern airliners like the Boeing 787, the flight 8 recorder and

3:49 copied voice recorder are now combined into what's known as a combi unit, meaning that both feeds are stored in both boxes. That means that the investigators only really needs to find one unbroken box to access everything. Either way, a cockpit video recorder would obviously add a visual record of what happened as well, and the information could be stored in the same way as those two other recorders. Now, this idea has been around for a while, and draft regulations and cockpit video recordings are already in place in some parts of the world, including with YASA in Europe. And not only that, cockpit video systems already exists in some types of aircraft. Helicopters used in offshore transport, police operations,

4:35 and search and rescue often have video recording systems on board already. And some test and training aircraft often use them as well. So to be clear, the technology is here already. Small rugged cameras that can operate in a wide range of lightning conditions, record high quality footage, and feed directly into a crash protected memory modules do exist. And in fact, some modern blackboxes already have enough built-in storage to support video if the input would be available. So, if the technology exists and we are already capturing gigabytes of data and hours of audio, then why isn't this just standard? Well, one part of the answer comes down

5:20 to cost. On brand new aircraft, you can factor in the cost of installing cockpit cameras from the start. mount the cameras somewhere high up, wire them into the avionics bay, and then link them to the recorders. But retrofitting cameras on older aircraft is an entirely different ballgame. The average airliner is now more than a decade old, and any new installments would mean cost, reertification, as well as downtime. Not impossible, but expensive for airlines that already operate on singledigit percentage margins. And by the way, cost and certifications is also likely why we still don't see any cameras installed on the outside of the aircraft to show pilot things like the engines, the

6:06 landing gear, and other important features. Now, we are starting to see some external cameras in newer aircraft. Some of Boeing's trip 7s have them to help pilots maneuver and clear obstacles on the ground, for example. So, newer types will probably have them as well. But 737 and Airbus A320 pilots probably shouldn't hold their breath to see some of them on their jets anytime soon. And that's even though several accident investigations has actually called for these type of cameras to be installed. The Kegworth Air disaster is probably the most notable one of those. Now, I actually reached out to Yasa in a video that I did a few years back asking about this, but have still not received any answer. So, if you're working for

6:53 Yas and you hear this, I'm still waiting. But going back to the cockpit cameras, frankly, those technical and logistical challenges doesn't really explain why cockpit video still hasn't become standard because our industry handles hard challenges all the time. So, installing cameras should be relatively straightforward. But still, it is not happening. Now, I'll get to why that is in a minute. and why it it's a lot more complicated than it might seem. But first, I want to explain why this is a topic that air accident investigators have some very strong views on. But before I get into that, have you guys noticed these awesome posters that I have just put up behind me? Now, I've

7:40 been looking for a way to make my studio more cozy and inspiring in order to get the creativity flowing properly. And that's why I fell for these ones from today's sponsor, Displate. This plate print highquality designs on metal, so the colors stay vibrant and doesn't fade like they can do on paper. And with over 2 million artwork, including official designs from top franchises, they really do have something for everyone. On top of that, this plates aren't just posters. They are collector's items and make for great gifts for anyone passionate about their interest. Now, I chose this one over here for my house because it reminds me of Sweden. And I also have a few others

8:26 back home, but the one that I really, really love is the one that I have here because I'm a huge fan of the Back to the Future movies. Now, one great thing is that this plates are also renter friendly. You just stick the magnets to a wall and then snap the poster up and into place. And the new texture line is really cool up close since it has these raised textures and 3D details so really catches the light and make them pop from the wall. So to get some of these awesome posters for yourself, then use my code mentor, click on this QR code or on the link here in the description to get a discount on one, two, three, or four displays. As you can see, the more you order, the bigger the discount. Thank you, Displate, for sponsoring this

9:13 video. Now, let's continue with those cameras. You only really need to see how air accident investigators work to understand why cockpit video keeps coming back into their conversation. Recommending that the Federal Aviation Administration crash protected cockpit image recording system. After an accident, investigators always have to start piecing together a literal puzzle using everything they can find to make what happened make sense. Of course, the wreckage itself often offers a lot of information, but for understanding the big picture, including the sequence of events and what led up to it, they obviously need the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. These are super powerful tools as they often let us find the root cause of

9:59 incredibly complex sequences of events. And most importantly, they teach us how to keep them from happening ever again, which is literally the whole point of these accident investigations. But these recorders often only tell part of the story. Because while the flight data shows investigators what the aircraft did, it doesn't always reveal why it did it. And while cockpit audio can capture what was said and what was heard, it can't always capture how the pilots reacted and what they physically did, which is where video would come in really handy. Agencies like the NTSB in the United States and the UK's AIB have demanded to add cockpit video recorders as an

10:45 additional way to help fill in the gaps. and they have several realworld examples to support their case. In 2019, Atlas Airflight 3591, a 767 freighter, plunged into Trinity Bay, Texas during its descent into Houston. The aircraft had been inadvertently put into Toga, the goaround mode, and because of that, the engine spooled up really fast, which caused the first officer to become spatially disoriented and think that the aircraft was about to stall. and that in turn caused him to instinctively then push the aircraft forward into a dive. Now, investigators reconstructed most of these events using the recorded data and audio, but they couldn't verify with certainty how Toga had been activated.

11:33 An unusual way to handle the speed brake lever was most probably the cause behind it, but a video of that event would have removed any doubt. Then there is also Siri airflight 182 which crashed into the sea of Jakarta in 2021. The flight data recorder was recovered from the seabed but the damaged cockpit voice recorder didn't capture sound from all microphones in the cockpit which left the investigators with an incomplete picture of the crew's decisionmaking. So had a cockpit video recording been available, it could have shed light on what the pilots were actually doing or tried to do just before they lost control. Going further back, the crash of Egypt Airflight 990 in 1999 still remains controversial to

12:21 this day. The US NTSB concluded that it was caused by a deliberate act by the relief first officer. The Egyptian authorities, however, disagreed with that. The audio recording was ambiguous and without the video recording, investigators were left to draw conclusion based on limited evidence, meaning that this disagreement has never been fully resolved. In these and other accidents, the investigators argue that video could have helped to speed up the investigation, clear up any ambiguity, and give context to the rest of the data. Instead of trying to guess which pilot did what or what the flight displays were showing, a camera would give investigators those answers immediately. So from the investigator's

13:07 point of view, the value is obvious. More information, fewer assumptions, and faster results. At a public NTSB meeting, Ken Smart, who led the UK's air accident investigation branch at the time, argued that cockpit cameras would offer essential information on almost all the accidents that we investigate in so far as they provide additional information. And he said that back in July of 2004, that's over two decades ago. So, what's holding this back? Well, clearly the technology is ready, but universal support is not. Aviation regulators, including and especially working internationally, have to balance the demands of investigators, airlines,

13:54 manufacturers, and crucially the pilots. And it's there with the pilots that this debate usually hits a wall. You see, pilot unions have historically had a very clear position on this. They do not want cameras in the cockpit. And that reasoning, first and foremost, has to do with privacy. The flight deck isn't just the office. It's also where pilots make high pressure decisions, work through problems, and sometimes express feelings like fear or even frustrations about their employers. It's also where professionals respond to emergencies, including ones that might take their lives. And many pilots are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that these moments could be captured on video. The

14:42 subject becomes even more uncomfortable when considering what might happen to that footage after an accident. Because whilst cockpit voice recordings are protected under strict access rules in most countries, video introduces a whole new level of concern. What if it's leaked to the media? What if it's subpoenaed by a court? What if it's used not for safety, but to assign blame or exploited in social media and the press? This, by the way, isn't hypothetical. In the aftermath of several high-profile accidents, cockpit audio or unredacted transcripts have been leaked and widely circulated, causing enormous distress for victims, families, and for the wider flight crew community. In 2005, audio from the fatal crash of Tunin 1153

15:28 leaked to the widespread condemnation from the families, proving that even careful protections might not always be enough. This is of course bad enough with audio, but video would be much, much worse. And while some pilot actions will certainly be useful for investigators to see, when it comes to the wider public, it's not hard to imagine something getting misinterpreted or even misrepresented. We've all seen this happening already after basically any high-profile accident or incident. It's not rare to see all information getting spun around in the media and online, often completely out of context. And adding video recordings to that mix could make things even worse. Now, there is more to

16:14 be said about privacy here, but another question is how cameras might actually change the way that pilots behave in the cockpit. Airliners are multi- crew aircraft. So, all of our flying is collaborative by definition and based on a trust in our training and in each other. Captains who do their job right must encourage their first officers to speak up freely, including to challenge them if the first officer feel that the captain has missed something or is simply wrong. Now, that's a delicate balance and there is fear here that introducing cameras, even if they're only used after an accident, could have a detrimental effect on that culture. Simply speaking, people being recorded might just act a bit

17:00 differently. They might be more self-conscious and not speak up, for example, or speak up in a performative way, not helping the situation. Others might stick rigidly to protocol, executing tasks robotically when they should be using their brains. And it's not hard to imagine pilots prioritizing how things will look on video over how things actually work in real life. Even though I have to say that I don't really think that this is such a big problem because those same issues should then have already existed when it comes to voice recordings. And to my knowledge, they don't really. At its core, though, this is an issue about trust. Over the past two decades, airlines and regulators have worked on building a

17:46 delicate system of voluntarily safety reporting and open communication referred to as a just culture. And in that pilots are encouraged to report mistakes, file concerns, and talk openly about what went wrong. Now, we're more likely to do that because we truly believe this system is fair and that its purpose is to fix problems, not to punish people for honest mistakes that any human can basically make. And we don't want to risk that fragile balance in any way. Now, there is also another angle to this. Like I mentioned, some of these concerns also apply to audio recordings. And thankfully, most incidents and accidents don't actually involve fatalities. So, what if

18:32 something happens while pilots are, let's say, trash talking their employer, for example, and then the investigators play that back together with the pilots with an airline representatives in the room. Now, there are procedures for handling recorders, but they're not the same everywhere. And adding video to this dimension is seen by many pilot unions as an enhanced form of surveillance or a lack of trust. All of this is why pilot unions like Alpa, Balpa, and if Alpa have been so vocal in opposing cockpit cameras. Alpa has said that cockpit image recorders are not necessary to improve safety and could even lead investigators away from more accurate conclusions. Balpa has

19:19 raised concerns about the emotional toll on investigators and families if traumatic crash footage were to be reviewed or leaked. And if Alpa, the global body representing more than 100,000 pilots, has stated that image recorders pose a massive privacy risk and could undermine established protections. Some unions and pilots are also raising some practical concerns like where should a camera point? Would it be wide angle capturing the whole flight deck or would it focus on displays controls of the pilot's hands? And also, who will have access to this footage? Would it be encrypted? Could it ever be used in court if there's a criminal investigation alongside that of the air accident authority? And could airline management use cameras for disciplinary purposes? And more

20:06 generally, what guarantees would exist to ensure that this important safety tool doesn't get repurposed in other ways? Again, this has happened before with audio recordings, which has made pilots and their unions quite reserved. Looking at this as another door that opens that will be out of their control when it does. The unions argue that while there are obviously exceptions, the vast majority of aircraft accidents are solved using the tools that we already have. Flight data, copied audio, wreckage analysis, and procedural review. There are only a small number of cases like the ones that I mentioned earlier where cockpit video might have significantly accelerated or clarified investigation. So, is it really needed?

20:52 But this brings us to another question. Is there a version of cockpit video recording that might work even for the unions? Something with real utility and safeguards that could keep everyone happy? Well, there are some proposed compromises that actually show some promise, delivering real investigative value without fundamentally altering the nature of the flight deck. One option might be to have one or more limited scope cameras that focus narrowly on the instrument panel and other controls. So the idea would be not to monitor people but to capture realtime information about what the aircraft was showing and how it was being operated especially in moments when other data is missing or ambiguous. Another idea would be a

21:39 triggered video system that would only activate under specific conditions. A rapid descent warning or a GPWS alert might be things that would set the system to record for a limited window. Let's say 2 minutes or something. But frankly, I'm not sure that that would work because the leadup to an upset could have started many seconds or even minutes before that condition triggers the cameras, making the recording less valuable. In any case, video recording systems should come with the right safeguards, reducing the overall privacy burden while still preserving the information that investigators need. With the right guarantees on access to these recordings, ensuring that they can't be viewed, distributed, or used for any other reason than accident

22:25 investigations. I don't really see why this wouldn't be introduced over the next coming years. And I personally hope that that's also combined with video feeds of things like landing gear, cargo base, and wings as well. And while we're on it, just throw in some parking sensors for the wing tips as well, so that we maybe could finally stop having those embarrassing wing wraparounds on the aprons. By now, I have quite a few videos on air accidents over on the Mentor Pilot channel. And it would be difficult to argue that such cameras wouldn't help the investigators and possibly even speed up their work because waiting two, three, or even more years for final report isn't a trend that anyone wants to continue. But of course, it is

23:11 obviously equally important to allow pilots to continue working and interacting in the way that they have evolved and improved over decades of learning from past mistakes. which means that addressing any trust issues that stop pilots from looking over their shoulders, literally is an absolute must here. So, yes, I do think it really should be possible to come up with a version of cockpit video recordings that keep pilots and unions happy, but it might still require some more steps, including international agreements to safeguard their use. But what do you think? I know that this is a sensitive topic, so I'm really looking forward to reading your comments here below. And if you write some really good ones, Ben and I might cover them on our new podcast,

23:58 Captain Speaking, which is available both here on YouTube, on Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts. Now, also remember to check out our sponsor, Display. They're really, really cool. My name is Peter Hornfeld, and you're watching Mentor Now. Have an absolutely fantastic day and I'll see you next time. Bye-bye.