[dubcanada]

No neither black box stores video. One stores audio on flash memory and the other stores flight details, sensors etc.

I don’t think video is a bad idea. I assume there is a reason why it wasn’t done. Data wise black boxes actually store very little data (maybe a 100mbs), I don’t know if that is due to how old they are, or the requirements of withstanding extremes.

[interestica]

This isn’t true. This was a 787. It does not use a separate recorder for voice and data (CVR, FDR).

(Most media outlets also got this wrong and were slow to make corrections. )

Rather, it uses a EAFR (Enhanced airborne flight recorder) which basically combines the functions. They’re also more advanced than older systems and can record for longer. The 787 has two of them - the forward one has its own power supply too.

There should be video as well, but I’m not sure what was recovered. Not necessarily part of the flight data recording, but there are other video systems.

https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/enhanced-air...

[wkat4242]

That's really interesting. From reading air crash reports there's a lot of times I've seen."Nothing is known about the last 30 seconds because the damage broke the connection to the flight recorders in the tail"

[bonoboTP]

In the US, the NTSB has been recommending it for over 20 years. The pilot unions have been blocking it, due to privacy and other things.

I'm not in aviation. But my between-the-lines straightforward reading is that unions see it as something with downsides (legal liability) but not much upside. It could be that there are a million tiny regulations that are known by everyone to be nonsensical, perhaps contradictory or just not in line with reality and it's basically impossible to be impeccably perfect if HD high fps video observation is done on them 24/7. Think about your own job and your boss's job or your home renovation work etc.

Theoretically they could say, ok, but the footage can only be used in case the plane crashes or something serious happens. Can't use it to detect minor deviations in the tiniest details. But we know that once the camera is there, there will be a push to scrutinize it all the time for everything. Next time there will be AI monitoring systems that check for alertness. Next time it will be checking for "psychological issues". Next time they will record and store it all and then when something happens, they will in hindsight point out some moment and sue the airline for not detecting that psychological cue and ban the pilot. It's a mess. If there's no footage, there's no such mess.

The truth is, you can't bring down the danger from human factors to absolute zero. It's exceedingly rare to have sabotage. In every human interaction, this can happen. The answer cannot be 24/7 full-blown totalitarian surveillance state on everyone. You'd have to prove that the danger from pilot is bigger than from any other occupation group. Should we also put bodycam on all medical doctors and record all surgeries and all interactions? It would help with malpractice cases. How about all teachers in school? To prevent child abuse. Etc. Etc.

Regulation is always in balance and in context of evidence possibilities and jurisprudence "reasonableness". If the interpretation is always to the letter and there is perfect surveillance, you need to adjust the rules to be actually realistic. If observation is hard and courts use common sense, rules can be more strict and stupid because "it looks good on paper".

You also have to think about potential abuses of footage. It would be an avenue for aircraft manufacturers, airlines, FAA, etc to push more blame on the pilots, because their side becomes more provable but the manufacturing side is not as much. You could then mandate camera video evidence for every maintenance task like with door plugs.

I wonder how the introduction of police body cam footage changed regulations of how police has to act. Along the lines of "hm, stuff on this footage is technically illegal but is clearly necessary, let's update the rules".

[bgwalter]

Airlines would certainly try to surveil regularly, but if the video data is only sent to the sealed FDR, they'd need to tamper with the system.

Additionally, footage could be encrypted with the NTSB having the keys.

Or simply make it a crime to use the footage in non-accident situations (this should be applied to other forms of surveillance, too ...).

[sabujp]

If you work in a job where the lives of hundreds could be ended in seconds due to an error or intentional action then there is no excuse to not have critical control surfaces recorded at all times. Non-commercial/private flights/flight instructors and trainees have cameras, trains have camera, stores have cameras, casinos have cameras, buses have cameras, workers who work for ride hailing services have cameras as do millions of other people who just drive.

Hopefully other countries will start deploying recording systems or start forcing manufacturers of planes to have these integrated into cockpits.

[account42]

> The answer cannot be 24/7 full-blown totalitarian surveillance state on everyone.

Surveillance is actually pretty common in many high-risk environments. And piloting is very much not just any other job but an exceedingly rare situation where the lives of hundreds of people are in the hands of only two people without anyone else being able to do anything to influence the outcome.

That pilot unions don't want surveillance is to be expected (the union is there to act in the pilots interest) but ultimately it isn't just up to them.

> Should we also put bodycam on all medical doctors and record all surgeries and all interactions?

Yes. We are finally starting to do so for police. These are all situations where an individual or very small team has direct control over the life of others who can't defend themselves.

[superasn]

Not sure why something so important isn't included.

Heck they can make a back up directly to the cloud in addition to black box considering I'm able to watch YouTube in some flights nowadays.

[sokoloff]

ALPA (pilot union) has consistently objected to cockpit video recording. I believe other pilot unions have a generally similar stance.

[account42]

So? Those unions act in the interests of pilots so that is to be expected. That doesn't mean that a regulator should be swayed by their objections.