logo
The third black box: Despite obvious benefits for air crash probes, debate on cockpit cameras has dragged on for decades

The third black box: Despite obvious benefits for air crash probes, debate on cockpit cameras has dragged on for decades

Indian Express3 days ago
What happened inside the cockpit of the doomed Air India flight AI 171 has become a matter of significant speculation globally, with various theories doing the rounds. Even at this early stage in the investigation, which could take months to conclude, many have insinuated pilot action—inadvertent or even deliberate—as the probable cause. Then there are those who appear convinced that it couldn't have been the pilots, and believe that something was wrong with the aircraft. Amid all the speculation and theories, an old debate has relighted: should aircraft have a third black box—a cockpit video recorder—in addition to the cockpit voice and flight data recorders?
Recently, global airline industry body International Air Transport Association's (IATA) Director General Willie Walsh said in Singapore that there is a 'strong argument to be made' for having cockpit video recorders, and based on what little is known about the Air India crash, 'it is quite possible' that a video recording in addition to the cockpit voice recording would 'significantly assist the investigators'. While investigators have been pushing for their installation for over 20 years, cockpit video recorders have been staunchly opposed by pilot unions over privacy and trust issues.
The preliminary investigation report into the crash, released a month after the accident, said that the Air India Boeing 787-8 aircraft crashed after both its engines were starved of fuel as the two fuel control switches transitioned from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' position within a second of each other moments after lift-off. From the cockpit voice recorder data, the preliminary probe report notes that one of the pilots asked the other why he cut off the fuel, to which the other pilot responded saying he did not.
To be sure, the report doesn't mention that fuel control switches—which allow and cut fuel flow to the plane's engines—moved physically, and uses the term 'transitioned' to describe the change of mode from RUN to CUTOFF. It also does not state these were moved by either of the pilots, and does not provide any other input from the cockpit voice recording. The selective information presented in the report has many believing that it implicitly pointed a finger at one of the pilots.
The current debate essentially boils down to one question: was it pilot action or a technical issue that brought the aircraft down? While the cockpit voice recording and flight data might lead to more clarity, it is a no-brainer that the presence of a cockpit video recording would have definitively confirmed or ruled out human action.
Convinced of the positive impact cockpit video could have on air crash investigations in cases of suspected crew error or action, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) first cited the need for video recording of the cockpit in 1989, and officially recommended the installation of video recorder to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)—the American aviation regulator—in 2000. In a safety recommendation to the FAA in April 2000, NTSB's then chairman Jim Hall made a strong case for cockpit video recorders citing multiple aircraft accidents where videos would have answered important questions that remained unanswered.
The then most recent accident mentioned in that letter was that of EgyptAir Flight 990, a Boeing 767 that plunged into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 217 passengers and crew. '…the Safety Board is concerned that the full circumstances that led to the descent into the ocean may never be fully understood because of the lack of electronic cockpit imagery,' the letter noted. Indeed, the crash remains controversial to this day with the Egyptian authorities not agreeing with the NTSB's conclusion that deliberate action by one of the pilots caused the crash. A video recording could have helped resolve the disagreement by providing additional clarity.
Although flight data recorders show what the aircraft did, they don't always uncover why it did it. Cockpit voice recorders certainly capture what was said in the cockpit and also record other sounds, but they don't tell investigators how pilots physically reacted to a situation, or record their actions, which could be crucial information in air crash investigations. Back in 2004, Ken Smart, the then head of the UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch, had said that cockpit video would offer essential additional information in almost all aircraft accident probes.
Investigators have been arguing that cockpit video could expedite investigations, bring more clarity, and provide important context to existing data from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Over two decades ago, technology and cost-related challenges could have been an argument against installation of cockpit video recorders. In 2025, that's no more the case. There are no technology-related challenges now in installation and operation of these devices.
In fact, cockpit video recorders are being used on various aircraft—like helicopters involved in offshore operations, police choppers, search and rescue aircraft, and test and training aircraft—in different parts of the world. But airliners don't have them.
Thanks to the presence of a cockpit video recorder, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recently concluded that pilot negligence and error were major factors in a 2023 helicopter crash. According to the investigation report, the pilot was 'occupied with non-flying related tasks…specifically, mobile phone use and the consumption of food and beverages' when the helicopter hit turbulence. The cockpit video also highlighted other errors made by the pilot as he tried to deal with the crisis.
Despite air accident investigation agencies pushing for cockpit video recorders in commercial aircraft, the needle hasn't really moved in the last 25 years. That's because influential pilot unions in the US and even other parts of the world have been strongly pushing back against the idea. The biggest reason for opposition being privacy concerns. They have been arguing that the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder have proved to be sufficient in successfully conducting a vast majority of air accident investigations, and the need for cameras has been felt in very few cases.
But given that CCTV cameras are now commonplace in offices, why should the cockpit be treated differently as it is, after all, the pilots' work space? Pilots argue that the cockpit is not a regular office space, but a specialised one where high-pressure decisions and safety-critical operations take place, which may include occasional expression of frustrations and even fear. Having a camera capture all that is something that they are not comfortable with. But those in favour of the cameras argue that the device need not be focussed on the faces of the pilots, but rather on the instruments in the cockpit to capture them accurately, while also capturing the pilots' operation of the instruments.
'Given the high demand for sensational pictures, IFALPA (International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations) has absolutely no doubt that the protection of AIR (airborne image recorders, or cameras) data, which can include identifiable images of flight crewmembers, would not be ensured either. If released, this will affect safety and could have a devastating effect on the families of the victims, following a fatal accident,' the global federation of airline unions IFALPA had said in a December 2021 position paper on the issue.
The bigger concern is the fear of how the footage may be used after an accident. There are concerns that videos may be leaked during the investigation, which could tarnish the pilots' reputation. Such concerns stem from the fact that there have been several instances of cockpit voice recordings being leaked to the media during air crash investigations, leading to distress for the families of victims and crew. Pilots and their unions fear that the distress would be far more if cockpit videos of an ill-fated aircraft find their way to the media and the general public.
There are also fears about the videos being used by airlines and even investigators to appropriate blame, footage being used in legal proceedings against pilots, and their actions being misinterpreted or misrepresented.
'Until the misuse of recordings and transcripts has been effectively prevented, IFALPA will remain strongly opposed to the installation of AIRs in aircraft. The Federation supports expanding the existing technology of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) to provide a better understanding of the state of the aircraft and believes that Safety Management is the most effective way forward for proactive safety improvement,' IFALPA said in its position paper.
In its letter to the FAA in the year 2000, the NTSB had stated that while it recognised 'the privacy issues with recording images of pilots', it believed that 'given the history of complex accident investigations and lack of crucial information regarding the cockpit environment, the safety of the flying public must take precedence'. The NTSB has been arguing that if regulators ensure that cockpit footage gets the same level of legal protections that cockpit voice recordings get, there shouldn't be any reason why they should not be mandatory on airliners. The FAA has so far said that it encourages voluntary use of cockpit video recorders, but doesn't mandate it as it also recognises the associated privacy and security concerns.
Sukalp Sharma is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express and writes on a host of subjects and sectors, notably energy and aviation. He has over 13 years of experience in journalism with a body of work spanning areas like politics, development, equity markets, corporates, trade, and economic policy. He considers himself an above-average photographer, which goes well with his love for travel. ... Read More
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DGCA sends four show notices to Air India for violation of norms
DGCA sends four show notices to Air India for violation of norms

Hindustan Times

time3 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

DGCA sends four show notices to Air India for violation of norms

NEW DELHI: India's aviation regulator on Wednesday issued four show cause notices to Air India for violations related to operational procedures, cabin crew training rules and their rest and duty norms. FILE PHOTO:A statement from Air India said it would respond to the notices within the stipulated two-week period. (REUTERS) The four notices were issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on Wednesday, following the airline's voluntary reporting of the violations on June 20 and 21. A statement from Air India said it would respond to the notices within the stipulated two-week period. 'We acknowledge receipt of these notices from the regulator related to certain voluntary disclosures that were made over the last one year by Air India. We will respond to the said notices within the stipulated period. We remain committed to the safety of our crew and passengers,' the statement said. The airline has been given two weeks to respond to the notices. In all, the airline had reported 25 violations of norms. The violation of rules relating to the crew's duty and rest period, the notice stated, was in connection with flights operated on June 24, 2024, and June 15, 2025. Another notice was issued following voluntary disclosure on June 21 that reported three violations in cabin crew training and operational procedures. These were related to flights on December 1, April 10 and 11, 2024, and May 16 and 19, 2025. To be sure, the government has also started holding direct meetings with Air India management amid mounting safety incidents and ordered the carrier to maintain the highest safety standards. The first such meeting was held on Wednesday, in the midst of week in which an Air India aircraft caught fire at Delhi airport after landing from Hong Kong, a Kolkata-bound flight aborted takeoff due to technical issues, and a Kochi-Mumbai flight veered off the runway during landing in heavy rain. Air India has been facing enhanced surveillance after its flight from Ahmedabad following the June 12 crash of Air India Flight 171 that killed 260 people. The Boeing 787 crash in Ahmedabad marked one of aviation's deadliest tragedies in recent years and prompted comprehensive safety reviews. A preliminary report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) has identified the fuel control switches, which were set to cut off during takeoff, as the main cause of the crash. Why the switches were flipped, or by whom, is now at the heart of the probe. Since that incident, at least 15 other operational issues and serious incidents have been reported involving Air India and its low-cost service arm Air India Express.

Air India operated flights violating pilot rest norms and training rules: DGCA
Air India operated flights violating pilot rest norms and training rules: DGCA

Time of India

time3 hours ago

  • Time of India

Air India operated flights violating pilot rest norms and training rules: DGCA

Civil Aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation have issued at least four show cause notices to Air India over multiple violation of pilot rest rules, not fulfilling training requirements and deploying inadequate number of cabin crew on ultra-long haul flights, according to documents reviewed by ET. While Air India voluntarily reported the violations to the DGCA , they were done two days before the regulator was supposed to inspect the airline's records as part of its annual surveillance of the airline's main base at Delhi. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Degree CXO Data Science Technology Others Leadership Data Science Product Management MBA healthcare Data Analytics Digital Marketing Healthcare Finance others PGDM Public Policy Project Management MCA Cybersecurity Operations Management Design Thinking Management Skills you'll gain: Data-Driven Decision-Making Strategic Leadership and Transformation Global Business Acumen Comprehensive Business Expertise Duration: 2 Years University of Western Australia UWA Global MBA Starts on Jun 28, 2024 Get Details In one of the cases, three Air India pilots operated beyond the mandated weekly duty hours. The regulator asked Air India's head of operations Pankul Mathur to explain the lapse. The regulator had earlier asked the airline to remove head of its operations control centre and two other senior officials after it found that the airline had operated two flights on the Bengaluru-London route where the pilots exceeded the stipulated duty limit of 10 hours. In another case, two Air India pilots underwent simulator training but did not start flying within the prescribed time limit, a lapse that requires them to undergo training again. While in another case 17 pilots flew flights in and out of Kathmandu without a mandatory training. To operate out of airports like Kathmandu which are situated in hilly areas pilots require extra training as there can be lack of navigation aids, inadequate en route weather information and sudden weather changes like turbulence due to strong winds blowing through the valleys. 'Despite repeated warnings and enforcement actions in the past, these violations demonstrated a continuing failure to implement effective training governance and compliance monitoring mechanisms. This constitutes a serious safety and regulatory concern,' an official of DGCA wrote in the show cause notice. In another instance the airline operated flights to North America without adequate cabin crew. These flights were operated soon after the Pahelgam terror attack following which Pakistan had shut its airspace for Indian carriers increasing flight time for flights between India and North America. DGCA had temporarily extend the maximum duty hours and rest period for pilots on long-haul routes to allow the airline to tackle Pakistan's airspace ban. "We acknowledge receipt of these notices from the regulator related to certain voluntary disclosures that were made over the last one year by Air India. We will respond to the said notices within the stipulated period. We remain committed to the safety of our crew and passengers," an Air India spokesperson said. The regulator has increased surveillance on Air India following last month's crash of a Boeing 787 aircraft at Ahmedabad killing 270 people. A preliminary assessment by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) said that they are focusing on movement of fuel switches seconds after take-off leading to shut down of engines.

Crashed Russian plane with 49 onboard tried 2nd approach; Video shows burning wreckage
Crashed Russian plane with 49 onboard tried 2nd approach; Video shows burning wreckage

Hindustan Times

time4 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

Crashed Russian plane with 49 onboard tried 2nd approach; Video shows burning wreckage

The wreckage of the Russian passenger plane, which crashed with 49 people on board, has been found in Russia's Far East, local emergency services said. An investigation has been launched over flight safety violations that resulted in multiple deaths, a procedure standard in aviation accidents.(Screengrab/X/@RT_India_news) The crash reportedly left behind no survivors. Visuals from the crash site show the plane's debris in the dense forest, with plumes of smoke rising from it. "An Mi-8 helicopter operated by Rosaviatsiya (Russia's civil aviation authority) has spotted the burning fuselage of the aircraft," Russia's emergencies ministry said on Telegram, Reuters reported. Visuals from the helicopter, assessing the crash site in the dense forest, show visible smoke arising from afar. As it nears above the crash site, the scattered debris of the aircraft can be seen. Russia's Emergency Situations ministry said that they found the aircraft's burning fuselage on a hillside south of the plane's scheduled destination in Tynda. The plane was operated by Siberia-based Angara Airlines. It dropped off the radar screens while approaching its destination, which is in the Amur region bordering China. The weather conditions in the area were difficult, Russia's Interfax news agency reported, citing sources. The crash was caused by a crew error during landing in poor visibility, TASS news agency reported. Plane tried 2nd approach According to the transport prosecutor's office in the Far East, the crash site was just 15 kilometres south of Tynda. In an online statement, it said that the plane tried a second approach while trying to land when it lost contact with the office. Regional Governor Vasily Orlov said that 43 passengers, including five children, as well as six crew members, were onboard the An-24 passenger plane, which was flying from Blagoveshchensk, on the Russian-Chinese border, to Tynda. An investigation has been launched over flight safety violations that resulted in multiple deaths, a procedure standard in aviation accidents. This is the third deadly aviation accident across the world within a span of two months. Earlier on June 12, an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft carrying 242 passengers crashed into the hostel complex of a medical college in Ahmedabad in India's Gujarat, killing all but one. Additionally, 19 others present on the ground at the time of the crash also lost their lives. Just this week, on Monday, a Bangladesh Air Force trainee aircraft crashed into a school and college complex in northern Dhaka's Uttara region, with the death toll standing at 31. Several others also suffered serious burn injuries and wounds in the tragic accident.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store