Air India Flight AI171 (Boeing 787-8) Crash

[goblin]

...

1. Cockpit cameras undermine the current system that has delivered such excellence.

2. Cockpit cameras will degrade safety as a result.

...

I don't see anything to support 1. other than your desire for it to be so. Thus 2. is no more.

Cockpicts have been spied on for half a century via voice recording. If anything, pilots are the earliest professionals in history to have gotten used to be recorded.

Adding cameras to monitor controls (or even the humans) is not a fundamental change. That they would undermine a supposedly excellent system is pure nose-string theory.

 

[MolaKule]

I don't understand aviation,

Yet you attempt to compare aviation with CNC and robotics.

but your wrong about industrial

I don't see anyone misunderstanding CNC and robotics.

- everything that moves has feedback on it, and if a person can be injured it must be SIL rated. What we found years ago is the controller logs would tell the story but the operator would claim they told the machine to do something else and it was the machine that was broken. Then you looked at the video and of course it showed the operator doing exactly what the controller logs said it did.

You're trying to compare the motion of CNC machining or robotic motion, which is programmed into the system; this is an invalid comparison because multiple lives aren't at stake. Pilots aren't preprogrammed. Pilots have to react to real-time stimuli and make split-second decisions.

If everything is logged, perhaps it tells the whole story.

Everything action and reaction is already logged (recorded) in the FDR

 

[Pablo]

Neophyte here.

Data on valves that were shut and should obviously been open - will there be a time stamp?

 

[edyvw]

It's going to happen. Perhaps not an FAA requirement, but it's going to happen. At least outside of the United States.

And I would think that the big players in the cockpit recording industry are going to be making the equipment - General Electric, Honeywell, L3Harris, and Collins.

I am actually surprised it didn’t happen in China. Which might be actually indicative of how problematic this is.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Yet you attempt to compare aviation with CNC and robotics.

Never mentioned CNC. Generally do repetitive jobs off-site, and more often than not are open loop, because they don't react to anything. Also was not comparing a pilot to a robot, only that camera's can and have been used unobtrusively by directly monitoring the controls and nothing else. Somehow pilots are too sensitive to have their actions recorded.

I don't see anyone misunderstanding CNC and robotics.

Was mentioned that Industrial systems have no feedback devices, which is patently false. Also CNC is just repetitive machining, which you keep bringing up (I didn't)

You're trying to compare the motion of CNC machining or robotic motion, which is programmed into the system; this is an invalid comparison because multiple lives aren't at stake. Pilots aren't preprogrammed. Pilots have to react to real-time stimuli and make split-second decisions.

No, only that camera's can be used to track operator actions without being otherwise obtrusive. Clearly this is a sore subject.

Everything action and reaction is already logged (recorded) in the FDR

The thing about redundancy is for something to be truly redundant it needs to use unlike technology so if one is rendered useless the other possibly will remain.

So at worst case a camera is redundant, hence why such anger?

Not surprised the wagons got circled.

I'll just leave this here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzann...2/26/pilotless-autonomous-self-flying-planes/

 

[Astro14]

I don't see anything to support 1. other than your desire for it to be so. Thus 2. is no more.

Cockpicts have been spied on for half a century via voice recording. If anything, pilots are the earliest professionals in history to have gotten used to be recorded.

Adding cameras to monitor controls (or even the humans) is not a fundamental change. That they would undermine a supposedly excellent system is pure nose-string theory.

I’m sorry - but what is your aviation experience? The basis for your judgement that a camera “is not a fundamental change.”?

I made the argument against cameras quite clear - then those with no aviation safety experience, started talking about industrial production as if that was comparable.

You would have to know how things work to understand why this is a bad idea. I’ve tried to convey some of that, but clearly, I am not getting through.

This last couple of pages reminds me of the “50% of men think they could land an airliner” thread.

 

[MolaKule]

Neophyte here.

Data on valves that were shut and should obviously been open - will there be a time stamp?

Considering the fact that 2000 flight parameters are recorded on a 787, I would say yes.

The data travels on a fast Full Duplex Fiber Optic system, via the ARINC 767 characteristics.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/2955.pdf

 

[MolaKule]

So at worst case a camera is redundant, hence why such anger?

No anger here, just facts devoid of paranoia and other off topic artifacts.

 

[Astro14]

Never mentioned CNC. Generally do repetitive jobs off-site, and more often than not are open loop, because they don't react to anything. Also was not comparing a pilot to a robot, only that camera's can and have been used unobtrusively by directly monitoring the controls and nothing else. Somehow pilots are too sensitive to have their actions recorded.


Was mentioned that Industrial systems have no feedback devices, which is patently false. Also CNC is just repetitive machining, which you keep bringing up (I didn't)

No, only that camera's can be used to track operator actions without being otherwise obtrusive. Clearly this is a sore subject.

The thing about redundancy is for something to be truly redundant it needs to use unlike technology so if one is rendered useless the other possibly will remain.

So at worst case a camera is redundant, hence why such anger?

Not surprised the wagons got circled.

I'll just leave this here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzann...2/26/pilotless-autonomous-self-flying-planes/

No.

Worst case, the camera is misleading.

That is unacceptable.

You’re not seeing anger, just disbelief that people with no experience in the process of accident investigation, or even how airplanes are flown, seem to be firmly convinced that they are able to understand how to improve the process. You have to understand what’s going on, first, and that hasn’t been done.

Self-driving cars haven’t worked out that well, they are far behind where their proponents claimed they would be, and aviation is several times more complex.

Far greater speeds, more complex machinery, far more complex decisions, and more variables, like weather.

“Program it, one click, and it runs its mission” says the proponent - and how does it integrate with other traffic? Avoid weather? Manage system degradation? Handle a change in parameters?

The US military has been operating autonomous aircraft for a while - they crash more often than folks realize - and most of the “drones” are, in fact, controlled by a remote pilot, so, the numbers of autonomous airplanes aren’t as great as some claim.

I read articles 50 years ago claiming that fusion was a decade away - much like this one claims small autonomous passenger aircraft are a decade away.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

[MolaKule]

I'll just leave this here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzann...2/26/pilotless-autonomous-self-flying-planes/

" Still, the same report flagged a bright red public perception problem. A 2017 global survey found that a majority of people would be unwilling to fly in a plane without a pilot, even if the airfare were cheaper."

 

[Dave Hess]

Maybe one of the pilots had mental problems and this was his way out ?

 

[SC Maintenance]

" Still, the same report flagged a bright red public perception problem. A 2017 global survey found that a majority of people would be unwilling to fly in a plane without a pilot, even if the airfare were cheaper."

This I believe, but its not a technical problem.

 

[Astro14]

Maybe one of the pilots had mental problems and this was his way out ?

That has happened before. Egypt Air 990. German Wings 9525. And, of course, Malaysian Air 370.

It has yet to be proven in this accident.

 

[Opelman]

No. Just.

No.

The idea that you could video me for several hours at a time, watching everything I do, and then download the video and seek to find fault with everything I do, is absolutely unacceptable.

It doesn’t improve safety, because they wouldn’t prevent anything. but it does destroy the concept of privacy, of presumptive innocence, or of decency.

Not even China has cockpit cameras.

Besides, I think you would find those cameras frequently “fail“.

Let me know if I can just put a camera in your kitchen, living room, study, and bedroom, and just watch, just to make sure that you’re not committing crimes.

I’ll allow your employer to download my video content, and if they find you doing a single thing that’s against the employee handbook, ensure that they terminate you.

I mean, it’s all about safety, right?

There is a good reason that Pilot unions, and even Airlines themselves, are opposed to the concept.

But yet this very thing is happening in the trucking industry with inward facing dash cameras.

 

[y_p_w]

But yet this very thing is happening in the trucking industry with inward facing dash cameras.

There were recommendations for cockpit camera recording by the NTSB going back at least 25 years. Here's a letter from the Chair of the NTSB to the Administrator of the FAA back from 2000:

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A99_59_63.pdf​

During the past 2 years, the Safety Board’s investigations of several accidents involving Cessna 208s and similar turbine-powered aircraft have been hampered by the lack of FDR and CVR information. In some instances, radar data were available but did not provide sufficient detail concerning the aircraft’s flight path or flight conditions. The Safety Board notes that,although the installation of conventional FDRs and CVRs on these types of aircraft has been economically impractical, recent technological advancements have made video recorders technically and economically viable recording devices. A typical video recording system, which has an estimated cost of less than $8,000, consists of a camera and a microphone located in the cockpit to continuously record cockpit instrumentation, the outside viewing area, engine sounds, radio communications, and ambient cockpit noises. The entire system is similar to a conventional FDR or CVR in that the data are stored in a crash-protective unit to assure survivability. Such avideo recording system likely would have significantly aided investigators in determining the cause of the accident in question and other accidents involving turbine-powered aircraft.​

 

[Astro14]

But yet this very thing is happening in the trucking industry with inward facing dash cameras.

Apples to Oranges. An airplane is not a truck.

Truckers and pilots are differently trained, certified and monitored.

Again, the camera in this case is a simple, cheap fix, compared with simulators and flight data recorders.

 

[Astro14]

There were recommendations for cockpit camera recording by the NTSB going back at least 25 years. Here's a letter from the Chair of the NTSB to the Administrator of the FAA back from 2000:

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A99_59_63.pdf​

During the past 2 years, the Safety Board’s investigations of several accidents involving Cessna 208s and similar turbine-powered aircraft have been hampered by the lack of FDR and CVR information. In some instances, radar data were available but did not provide sufficient detail concerning the aircraft’s flight path or flight conditions. The Safety Board notes that,although the installation of conventional FDRs and CVRs on these types of aircraft has been economically impractical, recent technological advancements have made video recorders technically and economically viable recording devices. A typical video recording system, which has an estimated cost of less than $8,000, consists of a camera and a microphone located in the cockpit to continuously record cockpit instrumentation, the outside viewing area, engine sounds, radio communications, and ambient cockpit noises. The entire system is similar to a conventional FDR or CVR in that the data are stored in a crash-protective unit to assure survivability. Such avideo recording system likely would have significantly aided investigators in determining the cause of the accident in question and other accidents involving turbine-powered aircraft.​

Well, reading your post, let’s examine what he actually called for:

It was cameras in the cockpit of small turbine airplanes that did not have FDRs or CVRs.

So, very different airplane. And this is a poor man substitute for a CVR or FDR.

Hardly applicable to this case.

In fact, it looks like an admission that the FDR and CVR are the superior instruments

 

[MolaKule]

This I believe, but its not a technical problem.

Well, yes it is. It is a no-faith statement of the technology.

 

[fdcg27]

There were recommendations for cockpit camera recording by the NTSB going back at least 25 years. Here's a letter from the Chair of the NTSB to the Administrator of the FAA back from 2000:

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A99_59_63.pdf​

During the past 2 years, the Safety Board’s investigations of several accidents involving Cessna 208s and similar turbine-powered aircraft have been hampered by the lack of FDR and CVR information. In some instances, radar data were available but did not provide sufficient detail concerning the aircraft’s flight path or flight conditions. The Safety Board notes that,although the installation of conventional FDRs and CVRs on these types of aircraft has been economically impractical, recent technological advancements have made video recorders technically and economically viable recording devices. A typical video recording system, which has an estimated cost of less than $8,000, consists of a camera and a microphone located in the cockpit to continuously record cockpit instrumentation, the outside viewing area, engine sounds, radio communications, and ambient cockpit noises. The entire system is similar to a conventional FDR or CVR in that the data are stored in a crash-protective unit to assure survivability. Such avideo recording system likely would have significantly aided investigators in determining the cause of the accident in question and other accidents involving turbine-powered aircraft.​

Luckily, Air India wasn't operating a C208 nor are there very many US scheduled flights with this light turbine single. There are a handful of EAS routes operated with the type and I have seen them used to ferry visitors from the old San Juan airport out to resorts on the local islands.
This is not a good example of why the airliners of the world cry out for the installation of cockpit cameras.
It is not unusual for the FAA to dismiss NTSB's recommendations.

 

[billt460]

........... I read articles 50 years ago claiming that fusion was a decade away - much like this one claims small autonomous passenger aircraft are a decade away.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

I've said much the same. I remember reading articles in Popular Science back in the 70's that said my car would fly in 10 years.... I'm still buying tires.