this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
63 points (95.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33731 readers
1742 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Asking because of Air India 171. Pilots and their unions are objecting to it because of "privacy" reasons. What do you think about it?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago (2 children)

the question is too broad. should cameras be in cockpits? yes.

should video streams of those cameras be available live? no.

should recordings of the cockpit be stored on the blackboxes? yes

should the footage be wiped between each flight? yes.

pilots have far too much on their minds while flying a plane, no reason to allow a micromanaging ego trip of an executive access to their cockpit to provide unhelpful "critiques" for better flights. let the talent do what you hired them for and take appropriate action after the incident with the supplied evidence.

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

should the footage be wiped between each flight? yes.

Unfortunately that's not how it would work, current FDR data already isn't wiped between flights, and has been used in the past to discipline crew members.

The issue with that is that when the blame game starts, people inherently try to hide stuff rather than admit fault and work towards a solution.

So where do you draw the line? Should everyone always have a camera pointed at them for "safety"?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think I was pretty clear on where I draw the line.

thank god I'm not the FAA, right?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

I think that the video data shouldn't be available to the airline period, let the investigation and regulatory agencies deal with analyzing it.

[–] henfredemars 29 points 1 week ago (4 children)

No, because flight recorders already save large amounts of information about what the plane is doing, the pilot inputs, and what is being said audibly. I'd like to understand how a visual that vastly increases the storage requirements would help understand an event.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Agree with your overall point, but in this Air India case a visual definitely would help to see which pilot (if any) flicked those switches to off. The audio is ambiguous.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Wouldn't the state of the switches be logged on the flight recorder?

[–] NaibofTabr 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, but it might be very important to determine: did the pilot/copilot flick the switch, or did the switch change state without user input?

Is the crew at fault (training issue/operator error) or is the manufacturer at fault (design flaw) or was the ground crew at fault (improper maintenance)?

A camera could help determine that, if it had the right field of view.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Mechanical switches aren't flipping themselves 4 seconds apart

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 week ago

No, but a short circuit might

[–] TheWeirdestCunt@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago

it is, mentour pilot released a video about the preliminary report the other day where it's mentioned that the fuel pumps were set back to active with a 4 second delay between flipping each switch.

this link should be set to the time stamp where he goes over what happened with the switches: https://youtu.be/lVS76zcpZok?t=1102

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

vastly increases the storage requirements

A couple terabytes of SSDs is a trivial expense on a commercial aircraft in 2025.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You wouldn’t want this video stored on traditional SSDs though. You want it stored on media in a black box like the voice & data recorders so that it can survive crashes, fires, etc. Not sure what the costs associated with that would be though…

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I'll leave the implementation details to the experts, but I'm sure there is a suitable option for storing 24 hours of video that adds only a negligible amount to the cost of a quarter-billion dollar airplane like the 787.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

vastly increases the storage requirements

A couple terabytes of SSDs is a trivial expense on a commercial aircraft in 2025.

I hear a similar argument daily -- that the consumer no-RAID stuff is so cheap and thus storage should be cheap. The stuff you get on the shelf isn't valuable here as it wouldn't survive a crash. The consumer stuff would die quickly just from the brutal power-blips the system undergoes just as part of regular flight operations and power-source switching.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

The concern here is storage requirements?

Having no visual is a huge disadvantage. You miss a great deal of context.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I think you're probably vastly overestimating how much increasing the storage on a flight recorder would cost.

Even magnetic storage has vastly dropped in price over the years, it's just become less common.

[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In cab recording is becoming increasingly common in some industries. For instance, the US trucking industry.

I would argue that the effectiveness depends a lot on the goals and attitude behind it. If the goal is to penalize the operator (driver/pilot/engineer/etc.) for every single infraction then it's just a huge waste of money. If the goal is to retain the best operators and help build a culture of safety then I can potentially see some value there.

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Its brought in for safety reasons, all very valid and worthwhile, and 2 weeks later theyre watching the cameras live and giving pilots disciplinary meetings for drinking water on company time.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Exactly, I'm torn on this because as a privacy advocate it's a nightmare, but for safety reasons I think it might be helpful. I think that if the video recording is solely for the FAA to look at in the event of a crash like a black box, and not the employer, then maybe? There was an article recently about retail employees having to wear cameras and I thought that sounded like a disaster. It's super dystopian having to wear a camera so that big brother can watch you and make sure you're doing every little thing correctly at your job. If the company has access I have the feeling that's exactly what it would be used for.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

retain best operators

That is pretty much the exact same attitude that will make people hate it and try to cheat and what not.

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (8 children)

A camera wouldn't have prevented anything, it would only make blame slightly easier.

Maybe improved mental health resources for pilots would be more helpful.

Or maybe not having a single point of failure for something so critical. Airplane engines are made to burn for a while before they become a problem, so why can't a two engine shutdown be inhibited below a certain radar altitude, or something of that nature?

Seems like a lot of pretty easy fixes that would work preemptively, rather than just another $20 part marked up to $20,000 because it comes with a FAA part number, that can only be used to assign blame after the fact.

Let me ask everyone this, would you want a camera in your office? Or should nurses have to wear body cameras all shift just so if something happens to a patient they can make sure they can blame the correct person?

[–] NaibofTabr 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A camera wouldn't have prevented anything, it would only make blame slightly easier.

Blame isn't necessarily the important thing for the outcome of an investigation. It is important to determine fault for the sake of preventing future failures. Did the crew flip the wrong switch, or did the system change state without the crew doing anything? Is there a training issue, or an overwork issue, or design flaw, or a maintenance problem?

You can't answer these questions without knowing the sequence of events prior to the failure, and the flight recorder data that shows a system state change might not be enough if you can't determine how or why that change happened.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

it would only make blame slightly easier

If anything other than an intentional act by ones of the pilots is to blame, then that's pretty useful. If the switches malfunctioned or there's a way to actuate them accidentally, that's a design flaw in the aircraft.

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I get what you're saying, but how many thousands of cycles do you think the 787 has on it for this to be the first time they failed, and for two separate switches to fail seconds apart?

Accident investigators are very good at what they do, and I will be willing to bet they will be able to narrow it down to an actual cause, even without a camera.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I'll wait for those very good accident investigators to release a conclusion before I speculate too much about how it happened. Maybe they'll have a conclusive answer based on other evidence, but if they don't, it's easy to imagine how a video could have helped.

[–] qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It doesn't prevent anything in the moment. It serves as an investigation tool and learning tool after the fact. And that is the real prevention tool. We don't have to rely on cockpit narration to know more about what's going on beyond the instrumentation and controls.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

My friend, you are not thinking outside the box! If the vessel's AI agent detects that the pilot has done something which is in conflict with the mission objectives, it can take control from the now redundant flesh being and get things back on track.

Like, this will 100% happen before I die unless we nuke ourselves first.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Pretty easy fix? There might be an emergency checklist somewhere that requires you to shut off engines. Testing the fuel cut off is part of the pre flight, at least for small airplanes. I see no reason why it wouldn’t be for larger airplanes.

Unless you’re type rated in the airframe or work for Boeing, I would refrain from offering simple fixes.

Also radar altitude? Do they not use pitot tubes for altitude?

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ohhhhhhh buddy you activated my trap card. I happen to have multiple type ratings, and I still consider myself far from an expert. However I do still hold a CFI so I'm going to try to teach you some stuff!

Every airplane that I've been required to have a type rating for has a radar altimeter. A lot of systems already use that information, from auto landings, to caution message inhibits, down to GLD spoilers. Watch any "landing an airliner" YouTube videos, I feel pretty safe in saying generally you will hear an audible "50, 40, 30, 20, 10", that information is usually derived from the radar altimeter.

While you are correct, there are emergency checklists that do require engine shutdowns, there are very few that would require that to be done weight off wheels and under 1000ft AGL. Off the top of my head, the ditching (landing in water) checklist would, but that could be tied to a ditching switch, if equipped, which since I don't have a 787 type, I don't know if it does, but I would guess it probably does.

Seeing as you know what a pitot tube is I'm going to assume you at least have some interest in flying. The pitot tube is used for airspeed, what you're probably thinking of is the other part of that system called the static port. That's used for things like altitude and vertical speed.

Circling back to my "simple fix", my current airframe has triple redundant hydraulics with dual redundant pumps for each. So for something that has that much redundancy, don't you think something as critical as an engine should require more than one switch to shutdown, at least at an altitude of high vulnerability? Just food for thought.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Lmao didn’t know we were playing yugioh, but I will defer to the CFI over my checks credentials former student pilot knowledge.

Pitot tubes measure a plane's airspeed. It's static ports that measure barometric pressure. radar altitude directly measures the distance between the ground and the plane using radio waves is more useful on final approach

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] char_stats@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 week ago

Yes, 100%. Storage shouldn't be a problem in this day and age on multi-million dollar vehicles. And the privacy issue could be worked around too, like video recordings only accessible offline or upon pilots consent, unless there's an accident and it's requested by the investigators. I might be ignorant with this, but I don't see the problem really.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Are they mostly worried about audio? Because it really would make conversation on a four hour flight awkward if you knew everything was being recorded.

As for video, I feel like anything they don't want me to see is something they shouldn't be doing at work.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

Audio is already a thing in most conmercial flights. The pilots unions tried use the same "privacy" concern many decades ago but fortunately/unfortunately (depending on your perspective) they failed.

Now the question that remains is: What about the cameras?

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
  1. Wait for the final report on Air India before taking any regulatory decisions.
  2. There's no real technical limitation today on doing this to the safety-critical engineering standards that are demanded on the flight deck. The first CVRs were based on the old half inch tape technology, and they only recorded something like 20 minutes on a circular tape.
  3. Wait for the final report first; but exactly what additional information do you hope to get off the video feed that won't be on the CVR + FDR? I am skeptical that this accident will not be "solvable" from the information that is available.
  4. If the regulators want to fight the pilot unions on this, they can. And they can probably win. Pilots don't necessarily have a ton of leverage on this kind of issue.
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

In particular, I expect that the final report will contain a lot more analysis of FADEC telemetry from the FDR. That simply wasn't analyzed in time for the preliminary report.

[–] helmet91@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What are you working as? No need to answer. Everyone knows for themselves. Now imagine if you're constantly being recorded while on duty, every single critical step you make in your job. Even knowing nobody is gonna watch the footage unless there's an accident.

In my opinion it adds a stress factor, and as someone who had terrible health consequences of growing up under constant stress, I'd most likely refuse to work somewhere, where I'm being recorded.

MentourPilot has outlined some possibilities though. Out of all ideas of applications in the cockpit, probably the best is when the interaction with instruments are recorded, not the entire cockpit. But then I'm not sure how useful that is. Yes, in this particular accident involving AI171 it would be absolutely crucial. But in other accidents? Every accident is different. The FDR already records the state of instruments. It's highly unlikely that in other accidents such a footage would be useful. On the other hand, I find it likely that in other accidents other camera angles would be needed, which aren't recorded.

It's a really tough choice. Yes, safety first, but... pilots are humans too. We should rather do everything we can for them to not have any reason to do anything malicious, no matter if it's accidental or deliberate. Prefer their mental health, their well being, their training, their work-life balance.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah just put cameras aimed on the instrument clusters. Or maybe like body cams for the pilots. That way they can pick their nose and scratch their balls or labia in relative peace, but you still get that important data about how a pilot error gets made.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I don't really see how this is a privacy thing. They're on the job, what's so private about that? Plenty of people are under video surveillance on the job.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

That doesn't make it not a privacy thing.

In many countries employers are not allowed to just arbitrarily video surveil you.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fittedsyllabi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Privacy reasons? Now I’m wondering what really happens in the cockpit.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Just watching some videos on the tablet during cruise (with headphones plugged in so the Cockpit voice recorder doesn't hear it)

Don't worry about the white stains, its just... coffee creamer... or whatever... 😉

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No. For what? Occasional and slight benefit to some subset of accident investigations?

Pilots deal with more than enough bullshit. Putting them on camera is outrageous.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why is audio okay, but video is where the line is drawn?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Yes and no.

Yes because these people are at work; if they're not using a bathroom, having cameras recording them while they perform their job is within their employers purview to do.

The can object all they want, but it's something that is, and can be done for pretty much everyone working. Think about cashier's at grocery stores and convenience stores... They're almost always on camera all the time. I can hear someone saying "but that's different, it's for security".... Is it?

Having a flight recording of what the cockpit is doing during the flight, seems like something you would want when you are entrusting them with a multimillion dollar piece of machinery and hundreds of people's lives.

On the other hand, where the hell is that information going to go? The black box? Doubtful, that shit is already cram packed with stuff they need to record. On a device in the cockpit? Sure, you'll never find it in a crash, but you do you, I guess.

So I'm on the no side because unless you're putting it in the flight recorder, it's borderline useless for anything beyond scrutinizing someone doing their job. If you are putting it in the flight recorder, is there any information that's going to get left out to make space for the video of pilots picking their noses at 30,000 ft?

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Does it matter which pilot flipped the switch though? The switches got flipped, maybe intentionally, maybe by accident. They already know when they got flipped, and have the audio of what they were doing at the time. So they can probably figure if it was possibly related to a procedure in progress. That's about all they need. At best you might get evidence that it was intentional, which won't save any lives, and will likely make people feel even worse.

[–] SpatchyIsOnline@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, because if you can figure out which part of the procedure broke down leading to that switch being flipped, you can figure out ways to prevent that from happening again. That's much harder to do with just audio.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›