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

Indian Express

3 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