The Renewed Push For Cockpit Image Recorder Systems
The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) seems to agree with our headline. In a recently released study of 186 pages, the CAA’s bottom line is that the advantages far outweigh the perceived disadvantages and it recommends a Regulatory Impact Assessment of the technology.
It should be noted that “Require the installation of video recording systems in small and large aircraft” has been an item on the “Most Wanted List of Safety Enhancements” of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for several years. What is it that the CAA likes about the idea? Basically, it’s that once you have an image, you really don’t need an imagination.
Admittedly, there’s a lot more to it than just that. Even the control inputs on the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) can be tied into video pilot exertions. Cross correlation and corroboration is the name of this video game. What’s recorded on the FDR can also be confirmed as having been what the pilot saw displayed. The insights gained through cockpit video can give a far more certain read-out in the aftermath of an accident of exactly what happened, and why.
Most encouragingly for the detection of latent and “missed” causation, the CAA says that: “The use of flight deck image recording systems could enable a more comprehensive investigation to be made which may eliminate pilot error as an attributable cause.”
One of the major issues faced by accident investigators is that commercial flight crews frequently act in unison without the need for discussion. This can be particularly true when the flight crew workload is very high. A clear example of this occurred when the First Officer’s displays failed during one of the trial scenarios. Although the image recorder showed that this had happened, the flight crew did not discuss it at all.
FDRs can only record system status (i.e., what was done and what was not done to it). They can’t provide information about actions that did not occur or that were not FDR recorded. If a crew’s workload is particularly high they may well resort to visual communication — e.g. gesturing, looking or pointing — rather than actually saying anything.
CVRs can only provide information on flight crew discussions and aircraft environmental noise. A perceived absence of data could result in the flight crew being censured for not taking appropriate action when, in fact, they tried but were unable to do so. Among their distinct and unique advantages, image recorder systems can provide clear evidence of the failure of aircraft electronic displays. It has also been shown that image recorder systems provide images of sufficient resolution to enable investigators to identify both missing data and data failure flags.
Stress And Observable Crew Actions
Although it is not possible to state that an individual’s facial or verbal expressions are always accurate indicators of their level of stress, there are several known motion- related and “body English” behavioral patterns associated with stress and this research has found that image recorders could provide data relating to these.
This data, once correlated with the CVR, would allow investigators to make an initial assessment as to whether a flight crew was exhibiting the physical manifestations of stress or a coordination breakdown under a high workload.
There is an ability to record significant amounts of data from instrument panels without additional cabling, associated weight and cost disadvantages. The CAA research has shown that a set of carefully located forward facing cameras could provide a good view of the flight deck displays. If the resolution of the image was good enough, it is possible that this could provide significant amounts of additional information, without the need for expensive modifications to the FDR system.
It’s also noted that the light level in the flight deck can affect the quality of an image, and that the CAA research did not include quantifying the extent of that effect. Cameras could also detect the presence of visible smoke.
The main disadvantage from a pilot’s point of view is the intrusive invasion of privacy. Pilots are also keenly aware that CVR data has been misused in the past. The issues of misuse and data protection would have to be addressed by some technical means, such as multi-key encryption. The current laws of subpoena can overcome all data protection laws that apply to flight recorder data. Once demanded, the encrypted data would have to be decrypted and supplied to the judiciary.
The futility of encryption within law has already been discussed within international working groups such as EUROCAE WG-50, but it should be noted, the CAA says “that these techniques will need to be supported by adequate legal measures”.
Most people will have seen the impressive color footage used in the Ansett commercial in the 1980s where a camera was mounted atop a 727 tail and the aircraft flown up the Whitsunday Passage at 1,000 feet, visiting all the tropical isles on a clear summery day.
That panoramic footage probably sold more tourist seats than all other airline advertisements since Orville and Wilbur sold their first pax-ride. In the aftermath of Swissair 111, the lengths that Swissair took to allow crews to camera-detect hidden smoke should also not be forgotten. That imagery can be viewed at: tinyurl.com/yyzpsv and tinyurl.com/yb5l4u