Cams in Cockpits

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ vs actual need.

You can count on your fingers the number of commercial airliners that have crashed and never been found.

I don't think the cost of installation, data storage and retrieval, and review could ever be justified.

storage is cheap, just ask the NSA!

Really? The NSA just spent well over a BILLION DOLLARS to build their new storage facility in Utah. The electricity bill alone will be ONE MILLION dollars a month.

How much would it cost?

I can get a nice kit at Sam's Wholesale for a little over $100. Just about every convenience store has a system.

I agree that they're probably not needed, but cost shouldn't stop them.

I also agree that unions fight for zero accountability and perpetual pay raises.

Edit: Now that I think about it, it's not a bad idea. The video/audio feed could go to the same black box that holds the rest of the data.

Get real.

You expect the airlines to go to Sam's Wholesale to buy the parts for $100.00 a pop?

You could get some homeless unemployed people to install them, I guess?

And some more to use their free government phones to monitor the planes?

Then, there's the fact that the hated government will be responsible for all this?

Never gonna happen.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$44 vs actual need don't jibe.

I'm just sayin'...it doesn't have to be expensive.

The cops fought the dashboard cams too.

Dashboard cameras can give key evidence, but cost limits their u
The IRIS cameras were installed in 2007 and cost about $9,500 each. Jones said officials hope to add about 35 to 50 more later this year.
Officials at UCF want to purchase about 40 of the clip-on cameras and accompanying monitors, but they cost about $1,300 each, and that's a stumbling block.

That's government for ya.

My highway patrol buddy, (now deceased), used to be ordered to spend up the entire budget for a training center he ran. They would order computers and other stuff that wasn't needed, and pack them, (unopened), into closets.

https://www.carcameradirect.com/order.php

Edit: It's all moot if you can't find the damned plane.

It does have to be expensive, if only because a gov't bureaucracy, the FAA, has to review and approve the installations.

A one off install for one airplane would probably cost >$10,000US and >30 days per review.

A Supplemental Type Certificate for ONE type of aircraft would probably cost >$500,000US and 6-18 months for review and approval.

Multiply the STC cost times the large variety of types of aircraft to be covered and it quickly becomes uneconomical.

And the above doesn't even factor in the cost of the equipment or actual installation.

The above #'s are guesstimates based on the work I've been involved in for the last 6 years.

Besides that, I wouldn't want to be up there on a long flight without worrying some idiot would catch me picking my nose on camera and deciding to put it on youtube.

Hooker

Yeah. I wasn't thinking government involvement. I was thinking of airlines as private companies that could do what they wanted...but that would be too simple.

Last week I was working in a high dollar house, and the interior designer told me that the owners had cameras throughout. I stopped bothering to try to pull my pants up, and just let my plumber's butt hang out wherever I was working.

That's something else you couldn't do in the aircraft industry.

Painters can just grab a pipe wrench and become plumbers.

Regardless of how simplistically you and AofG look at this, it just isn't that easy. And that's for good reasons.

If you're a general aviator, you are not allowed to charge anyone for riding in your aircraft. That doesn't mean you're not liable, it just means you're a casual operator.

You very likely know the A & P mechanic who does work on it, and he knows you. You check the flight surfaces, motor for defects, oil level, gas level and look for water in each tank, then go flying. You might fly once a week or once a month. Your plane probably isn't pressurized and isn't in the air for more than a couple of hours at a time.

Commercial aircraft are in the air most of the time, or they don't make money. They haul 200 lives at a time and get paid to do it. The same mechanic may not work on the plane for years. They are really complicated. The check lists are like books. If you fail to properly fix one of the thousands of systems in the plane, it may fall out of the sky, killing everybody on board.

The pilot does a quick walk-around and then flies the thing, hoping everyone else did their job correctly.

The thought of Billy Bob wiring a $39.00 camera into the electrical system wound not make him feel more secure.

I take offense to that. I'm part of a union and the best raise that I've ever gotten in 20 years is about 1.2% over 4 years. Thats 0.3% per year. And I'm a "sudo" employee of the federal government. But I do agree to some extent that unions are more of a problem than anything else.

As far as cameras in the pit, well that wouldn't even happen if there was no union involvement. Pilots would cry that its an invasion of their privacy and the idiots at ACLU would jump on that band wagon faster than you could blink.

Now how about the idea of a camera just outside of the door showing who enters and exits? That would be simply a safety device. No issue of privacy. It could be linked to a sat recorder that is wiped clean at the end of flight or beginning of the next. However, if you insist on a camera in the pit it would have to be hidden or impossible to get to from inside of the plane and would have to be controlled by the ground crew only in the event of a mishap. If all is normal in the flight the camera would be inert but if there is a problem (lost comm, suspicious activity, codeword ...) the tower nearest the plane could activate the video and assess the situation.

There is no worldwide agency that could mandate the installation of cameras.

Indeed there are over 250 aviation authorities worldwide.

Granted, most all commercial aircraft are made in 4 or 5 countries, but...................

We're back to the old, "why can't 'they' do something"?

The risk does not justify the cost.

Never mind that the paranoid idiots here in the USA can do it to us all with no justification.

The fact that the new NSA facility was built in the heart of Utah, a location known to be populated by persons who have historically feared persecution, and outsiders, is not lost on us all.

Don't be offended.

When I talk crap about "government" or "unions", it's not the rank and file workers that I have a problem with...it's the leadership, and the absolute corruption that exists. You can include the incestuous relationships that go on between government and certain corporations, in that list also.

It's never about the workers, unless they decide to get violent, destroy property, etc., as they did in Wisconsin.

Mostly, I agree.

But, there are instances where lazy union workers milk the system.

There are instances where a union person is the only person allowed to perform mundane, every day, tasks that could be performed by anyone. "Because it's in the contract."

Sure there are. There are also hard working union members that are getting screwed, because they have to make up the work that the lazy ones aren't doing....but everybody gets paid the same, and good luck firing the lazy ones.

Unions do a good job of depicting the ultimate unfairness of collective socialism. Individuality is lost, and all are equal, regardless of output. If it is allowed to expand to the rest of our society, (as so many are working towards), we're finished.

Anyway, we digress. America deserves a raise, and we're raising the minimum wage.

Why?

Because people deserve that much, simply because they exist, and business owners are greedy if they try to fight it.

Funny that we don't hear about giving people raises through the earned income tax credit.

GA from me.

Good intelligent and practical thoughts and ideas...Thanks from me personally for the post.

Sound like we should have gotten the pilot's union to argue the privacy concerns on the searches the TSA does on passengers. Sounds like they have more pull then the voters.

Ain't that the truth!

We should get them to argue against all of the illegal privacy invasions by our government.

They just don't want everyone to see how much they sleep....

What's next? Lightning cams so we can record people getting struck?

The problem here is not a missing aircraft, but the freakin' news.

While interesting, this is so out of proportion that we have people pouring out of the woodwork suggesting how we can throw money at the problem when it really isn't a problem at all.

As Lyn stated, how may times do we have this problem?

How selfish!

Money shouldn't be an issue here, as long as we can prevent one more plane from being lost.

Since I was typing, you probably couldn't hear the sarcasm.

even if just for training purposes, I like the idea........should be in operating rooms over surgeons shoulders as well

How much are you willing to pay for these things?

You can't go to Walmart and buy a $25 camera and make it work. Lawyers make sure of that, but both FAA and FDA have strict rules and guidelines that must be followed.

I am painfully aware of this, because my first engineering jobs have been in the medical (surgical) fields, and now in avionics. The hoops you must go through for certification are magnitudes more intense than what consumer electronics or white goods undergo in the design, test, and manufacturing process.

Aviation and medical procedures already cost more than what people can afford. Piling on more regulation and the hardware to support it is not financially sensible.

cost is always a concern, you shound like a politician using scare tactics

The truth sometimes hurts. It is still THE TRUTH, not scare tactics.

AH is correct in everything he says.

I've been involved in many aerospace projects that were nonsensical in their requirements, too. That didn't change the fact the they were requirements of the customer. You can't go repair a satellite component if it fails in space.

No, not I. Politicians don't care what anything costs because the tax well is believed to be infinitely deep.

I think 51% of the voting public believes that, too. ;-)

Sorry Fredski, but I have to call you out on this one. It isn't reasonable to disparage someone by saying they are behaving like a politician, when your original comment (they were responding to) represents classic bad politician behavior; specifically the urge to legislate 'solutions' without thoroughly considering consequences.

.

So you don't mistake this for a baseless attack, let me give you an example that isn't that far off of what you suggest. A few years back, in a well intentioned move to bring more transparency to medical procedures, rules were changed in Florida that made the monthly physician peer review held for all cases a matter of record and admissible in court.

.

Great, right? Certain to benefit patients, right? Wrong. To understand why, it is important to understand a little bit about the importance and dynamics of physician peer review.

.

Physician peer review is probably the most important program for both continuing education and evaluating performance of physicians, where it still functions correctly. These regular periodic reviews involve physician being critiqued on their performance by their peers. The physicians are grilled on questionable decisions and asked to defend their actions. Typically in these regular reviews, all cases are fair game, regardless of outcome.

.

In our modern hyper-litigious society where base annual malpractice premiums for many specialties run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per physician, attorneys can put good physicians through the ringer (and do) or even out of business (and do) on what ultimately amounts to suggestions of being less than perfect. Making regular physician peer review a matter of record admissible in court effectively killed the process. Although some review meetings may continue to be held, nothing is said that might subject a physician to litigation, unless the doctor clearly needs to be stopped from practicing any further.

.

Losing the most important ongoing training and education is a horrible price to pay merely because some politicians thought doctors were up to no good talking behind closed doors.

.

There are moves afoot to restore doctors ability to provide critical peer review in Florida, but AFAIK in Florida most physicians continue to miss the most important ongoing training because of this well intentioned 'solution'.

A GPS tracking device on every plane would solve the issue. I understand they are putting them on some planes now. I think this would solve the current problems and no invasion of privacy issues.

I tried to get GPS plus duress alarms in our local government fleet 5 years ago but the exec staff blocked it. Insurance premium savings from having GPS installed would have paid for the installation and in subsequent years, the premium savings would pay to run the lot. And then there are the fuel savings from reduced 'private use' considerations. GPS is now even cheaper.

In Perth, on the west coast of Australia, the 30 city councils are being reduced to about 15. Our local government amalgamation is with a council with 100% GPS and duress alarms so that will annoy our local execs ... I say bring it on. Duty of care issues like falling off a ride on mower or being attacked when delivering support to the aged by someone who loses their marbles just did not figure in our management's considerations. And as for a majority of my fellow councillors at the time, the staff lobby effort got to them.

On the CCTV front, same deal. We had kids burning the soft fall and using the shade cloth canopy as a trampoline at one $150,000 playground installation. The exec staff also would not allow CCTV, even for forensic records, of the same playground. One staff argued how terrible it was that in the 5 transport bombings of London, that by tracking backwards through the CCTV, it was possible to determine out of which front doors that the bombers originated on that fateful day.

As for me, I run a 16 camera CCTV system. Cost with cameras less than $500. Yes, it was imported direct from China. The video has been used in court at least 3 times in support of the prosecuters. Here is a link to part of my website where you can see a recent occurrence where a young girl comes onto my property with a knife to cut a piece of hose for a bong I guess. Yes, it was reported to the police. And yes, my local government execs will do nothing ... except to propose that the nearby skaeboard track should now be floodlit at night, so I guess my cameras will see more action.

Sorry but you will not purchase a FAA approved cameras for less then 50,000 thousand by the time they go through testing to get installed in cockpits. The current approved camera for installion on most of our high security facilities currently are costing us anywhere from 1,800-5,500 each not including additional software and specialty hardware for each install that can run as much as an additional 2,000 per install. Then you have to consider the rough service they will be subjected to in their service life. Their up-keep will not be cheep. It is not a forgone conclusion that a large part of their up-keep may cost almost what their original cost was. I agree they need to install something along these lines, just one thing more to add to your travel expenses.Duke

I bet more than a few thousand people today wish that 777 had been so equipted

Count me in on that point!

I also believe that a modern system, with say 5 cockpit cameras, should be both light (important for aircraft) and cheap, certainly less than the $5000 someone else mentioned......but even if it was double that, it would be well worth having!

Maybe insurance costs would be reduced on aircraft so fitted out, that might offset these costs to some degree......

I'm sure that even passengers might be more prepared to fly on an aircraft that had a higher level of security (possibly scaring off possible hijackers onto other aircraft not fitted!).....just a thought!

It should also be possible to transmit a video stream to the ground via sa satellite if activated.....secretly of course.

as usual....a sound comment on your part

the train from Malaysia to Beijing is a longggggg one

I am neither scared of flying, or of dying, so you are completely wrong AGAIN!! Its HOW you die and how long it could take that makes the difference.....

Bad luck, but your guesses are really awful.....and 100% wrong again!!! What a surprise!!!

I am certain that many passengers would welcome a flight more on a plane with certain security features added... I believe it might scare off some hijackers, maybe not all, but it might make them go for an easier target! Perhaps we should ask the people on CR4?

Also, you could post links showing in some manner why you are right and we are wrong, now that would be REALLY nice!!! I find the Guys that lean the furthest out of the window have an even smaller chance of producing REAL VERIFIABLE facts......over to you!!

Other people have flown more than I (when I worked), but mostly they were pilots and cabin crew......

My record was 5 flights (and a train journey!) in less than 40 hours.......plus customer visits and firmware updates and testing....

I cannot see why today that a full monitor camera system, just for the flight deck, should be so expensive. HD cameras are tiny today, they can be fitted in really small corners and can be simply "lit" with IR LEDs, for perfect pictures in complete darkness. they only need to be active for the longest possible flights, say less than 24 hours and then reset....

Though 100% perfect is probably not needed......anything is still better than nothing.....

The high costs come when instead of buying "off the shelf", someone idiot develops a system from new/scratch. That is simply stupid. Thats what many do just to drive the costs/profits up.

Like the $600 toilet seat for some US Air force plane years ago (I forget which or when!)....

Links? Links to what? Your wild accusations? Verifiable facts? You are delusional!

I'm done debating with you.

"Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. -Greg King"

You are stating unfounded opinions and so am I. Fact is, mine are much closer to reality than yours.

In case you missed it,

"I, for one, am perfectly happy to not have cameras on planes if the only motivation is the astronomical chance that we are going to crash and never be found.

Otherwise there is NO JUSTIFICATION for cameras on planes.

Will they stop a hijacking? No.

Will they be of any help with any other airborne emergency? No.

Let's say there was a camera in the cockpit, and it was the pilot who hijacked the plane. Then what?

Would it have helped the passengers? No! They're dead and they would have died anyway, camera or not.

A camera in the cockpit would not tell you where the plane is, the heading of the plane, fuel load, condition of the aircraft, who's doing what in the passenger cabin, etc, etc, etc.

It'd be a total waste of money, no matter the price."

How about this↓ That will deter your terrorists and hijackers. Fake cameras make as much sense as anything you've said here so far.

Sunforce Solar Decoy Securi...

Sunforce Solar Decoy Securi...

If your knowledge on this subject is at the same level as the quality of the missing pictures you posted.......need I say more?

After 9-11 there was a big push to put cameras in the cabin so the pilot could watch what was going on.

I guess reality set in because the idea pretty much died in the womb. We were tooling up to do this with our EFIS displays for Boeing, et al, but it never got traction.

They did fortify the flight deck doors, which in my mind was money better spent.

I would not go so far as calling Andy and Fred idiots. They clearly mean well, but unless you have developed products for the aviation industry you will have no idea what hurdles you must bound. Even then, you will not get a clear picture unless you manage such projects. It's a completely alien world.

Let's see, not much for the aviation industry, lots for military and counterintelligence agencies both earth bound and orbital.

Probably didn't have to jump through as many hoops as you did, at that.

It's a specialty field and one that I have grown to like and be thankful for the experiences I have gained.

AH you are exactly right it is totally not like doing business with any company you have ever done business with before. There have been pilots in the past ask for upgrades to security in 1993 or 94. In a previous post to Lyn I spelled out what happened to our company when we tried to up-step security for one airline it is amazing the control a manufacturer has on an outdated part replacement. The current reinforcements are almost a duplication of the upgrades we proposed in 1993-94. I am just glad they were done, it only took a disaster with severe loss of life to get it done.Duke

Looks like they exist. It could be tied right into the existing voice recorder, or possibly even transmitted.

The price isn't bad.

http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop/product/15727

The price is TINY!!

Thanks very much for the link. It simply demonstrates distinct possibilities that SOME here cannot believe!!!

No names, no pack drill!!! They know who they are (so do I!!)

Its so cheap, even I cannot believe it (almost!!)

So $5,000 should bring a really well thought out system for anyone wanting one.....

narrow minds are easily fooled

You are the best one to know that first hand....

Hey! Fredski is on your side. I'm used to the harshness between CR4ees, but that seems wantonly abusive.

The narrow mind thing totally lost me.

But as long as we all acknowledge that in this case, our camera argument is moot, I guess it doesn't matter.

Since all communications with the plane were lost, I can only assume that it would have included any video feed, and nothing about this situation would be different. The video would have been stopped along with voice communication, and the plane would still be lost...._{which I don't believe.}

I think they know what happened to the plane, and there are international talks taking place to paint the rest of us a plausible picture. Nothing to see here.

A-K-A: C'mon guys. If you help us make this screw up go away, we will owe you forever. PLEASE?

I personally see that if Rolls Royce (surely they are not alone?) can see how engines are performing dring a flight etc etc, then it cannot be difficult to add other data secretly, especially if IFF is turned off say....or the flight crew DON't press a button from time to time, or something.....moving the control column when on Autopilot.....there must be many ways to trigger an incident.....if you are going to die anyway......

Actually, I did not say anything THAT WASN'T ALREADY IN THE POST I REPLIED TO.

If that had been a kind comment, mine would have been too, without changing a word!!!

But that does take some brain cells to fully understand......think about it.

Also you show/demonstrate a totally biased opinion......openly!!

TRUTH! I think that you do not know its meaning!!!

But if you continue to read my posts, eventually some of the truth will/may rub off onto you.....hopefully!

Have a great day anyway, after "outing" yourself so obviously......

Wow! You are seeing enemies everywhere today. Well, despite your attempts to insult me suggesting I can't distinguish what is true, I am still not your enemy.

.

My guess is that you have had a bad day or perhaps a bad week. I hope things improve.

Then you obviously did not understand the post from Fredski, or my reply, or my post to you......Its all basically normal English/American.....look back and have another go, you may surprise us all!!

Bias is difficult to lose once attained......

Best of luck anyway.....

"...Bias is difficult to lose once attained...."

.

I've heard the arrogance variety of bias is particularly vexing, but at least you've taken the first step of admitting you have the problem. Congratulations on extricating yourself from denial.

.

...and while your need to wish me luck in dealing with you is endearing, I won't be relying on luck, just calm persistence. You'll get it sooner or later, though whether you admit it or not has more to do with how much progress you have made against your particular bias affliction.

.

In the mean time, while you still have yourself convinced that I am failing to comprehend the things you and others are writing, why in the world would you attempt to carry on a conversation with someone you believe doesn't understand the meaning of what you write? How abstruse.

Please add the following "mentally" as my answer in the future to any post of yours:-

"BIASED"

It will save me time in the future, as all of your comments are simply "compromised."

Thanks for your valued help in this matter.

I'm glad you made it clear earlier that you can 'handle it' and that you always maintain perfect composure, because it would be wrong of me not to inform you of the obscene dissonance between what you claim and what you actually do (as of recent, though not completely unknown in times past). If you somehow have been generally unaware, then this is valuable notice. Even if you have been aware, it should still be valuable for you to realize that despite daydreams off grandeur about outsmarting everyone and shooting them down in flames, the view from this side of the curtain is not really awe inspiring at all.

.

Case in point: it is downright silly to ask me to 'mentally add BIASED' to any of your answers 'in the future to any post of' mine. As much as I'd like to do you that favor and help you out, it simply won't work. There is no way you will see any of my 'mentally added' notes and so you will not gain any awareness that you, just like all of us, are susceptible to bias. If you think "BIASED" should appear in all your responses, then it is up to you to put it there. It is a commendable first step towards tackling what seems to be severely troublesome for you. I've heard that recovering from pride and arrogance addiction can be as tough as recovering from a heroin addiction, and you can't waste time on silly things like asking others to add mental notes to your commentary.

.

By the way, since you start fresh and new with every blog and don't carry anything over, what is with all the planning future responses presumably not even in this blog....? Doesn't that suggest, not just that carry-over will occur, but that you are actively scheming intentional carry-over?

Definitely Pisces... LOL!!!

Definitely still unable to answer the reasonable question, nor make any attempt to provide support for the claims you made. You do realize this effectively makes your insult indistinguishable from the childish name calling to which you were just proclaiming your opposition.

.

Childish and hypocritical...you really are striving to distinguish yourself.....good thing you never carry over.

I think some subtle but important nuances of the English language have been forgotten, perhaps temporarily, by you.

.

The 'narrow minds' comment could just as easily been about your vocal detractors as it could have been about you. It is sufficiently ambiguous, that without clarification by Fredski, it cannot be know with certainty.

.

Your response to the 'narrow minds' comment, that he was in a position to know first hand, is cut and dry. It doesn't switch from being mean to being nice, depending on whether Fredski's original comment was referring to you or too your detractors. Your comment is relatively unambiguous.

.

.

Just for future reference, since you haven't picked up on it thus far, my fault is over analyzing things. Very rarely is under thinking something a reasonable criticism of my interaction. So coming from a chronic overthinker, might I suggest you step back from this a little, you seem to be relying on the low-sleep reactionary part of your head right now.

Your bias is seemingly getting stronger and stronger? Will it bring in a few more cents into your current account, or improve the love you have for your fellow man????

Then its valueless.....

Also, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, I also did not expect anything else really......but thats just me being sceptical again.......

But that's par for the course here....you can either handle it, or not!! I can!!

I really think you should change your online name to something more "truthful", I can offer suggestions if you wish!! I have a "Dewsey" for you just up my sleeve!!

A final comment or though for the day, whatever the blog or the subject, I ALWAYS call it as I see it, (is there any other way to live? I think not, but many in this world change back and forward with no rhyme or reason).

Also, have you never noticed that I NEVER EVER carry a grudge from one blog to the same people in another. I allow every one to start anew, as I do myself....

So each and every time I start anew with no preconceived thoughts or ideas abut the other CR4 posters. Whereas, others here, not that many, get deeper and deeper into personal problems with other users.......now how childish is that.......???

BUT, if they try and get childish again with me for no obvious reason, these people are (sadly) very easy to "expose and to shoot down in flames", time after time after time.....

Its like "shooting fish in a barrel."

Are you a Pisces by the way?

Wrong again, 'sharp shooter'. I am neither a Pisces, nor a believer in astrology, religion, or other fantasy based belief systems. _{(Don't worry, Tex Andy, your 'Pisces in a barrel' attempt at appearing clever didn't fail to be noticed, it merely failed to impress. Perhaps you will redeem yourself by laying me low with the 'Dewsey' you have for me 'just up your sleeve'. It would be great if it truly is a zinger, I do enjoy a good roast, but your recent commentary doesn't give much reason to get hope up.)}

.

.

'...So each and every time I start anew with no preconceived thoughts or ideas abut the other CR4 posters....'

.

What an odd thing too say just after suggesting I might be incapable of recognizing the truth and almost immediately prior suggesting I might need to change my screen name. That certainly seems like you have ideas that carry forward about at least one CR4 commenter.

.

I'm just going to take your word about your ability to 'handle it', that you 'NEVER EVER carry a grudge', that you aren't ever bothered 'in the slightest', that you avoid childish conflicts yet revel in seeing yourself 'expose and shoot down in flames, time after time...' those who you judge to be 'getting childish' at you _{('at' not 'with' since 'get childish with you' would imply that you are along for the 'getting childish' venture, and you have made it abundantly clear that you do not consider any of your actions childish and I wouldn't want to trigger a tantrum).}

_.

I'm willing to take your word for those previous claims of yours mainly because I am obviously not the primary target for that type of ego stroking message. If there are any discrepancies, you'll have to take it up with yourself.

.

While I believe you are being genuine when you relate your belief that you 'always call it as' you 'see it', and while I furthermore have witnessed, in times past, your ability to deftly evaluate the critical aspects of some situation, i.e. 'see it' well, your arbitrary combativeness and flippant (if feeble) personal attacks suggest you are either unwilling, or unable, to consistently access that formidable insight, right now. However, I am not dismissing the possibility that I might be misjudging you either.

.

Perhaps, to make it more evident who exactly isn't well aligned with reality, perhaps you will be so kind as to point out the things in this blog (since you don't carry grudges or notions from other blogs) that you feel make it inappropriate for 'truth' to appear in my screenname. I'd actually appreciate that even more than the "dewsey you have just up your sleeve for me", so if a choice has to be made, citing specific examples supporting your attempt at an insult would be the way to go.

.

Oh, you continue to harp on this bias thing, (as if there were people meaningfully devoid of bias), so I suppose I should comment on that. Yes I have biases. I try not to delude myself with fantasies running contrary to reality. Instead I do my best to mindfully take notice of my biases, the biases of others and how those influence perspective and choices. From there I work to rid myself of biases that are nnot advantageous. I also make a concerted effort to moderate and influence those biases that remain with rational, purposeful ideals likely to potentiate influences likely to benefit those close to me.

First off, I work in the industry. The "distinct possibility" you discuss is a one time purchase and installation for a privately owned aircraft installation. Private owners can do a lot to an aircraft without FAA overview and approval. Zero required in this case to install this camera in a private aircraft for personal use.

One can NOT take this off the shelf item and install it in a commercially operated aircraft for hire (especially for passengers) without review and approval by the FAA as I described in an earlier post.

Please, guys, there's no use insulting each other without understanding the intricacies of a regulated industry!! There are many different categories defined by the FAA for operating aircraft. Discussing this stuff outside of that context is a total waste of time.

Hooker

In public transport(bus,taxi,train,cable car,aircraft,ship etc) CCTV cameras should be approved for installation for security purposes. If someone want privacy let them travel in their own private transport.

Since many preparations for hijacking take place in aircraft bathrooms are you willing to sacrifice privacy there, too?

Are there any limits?

Hooker

If you install a camera at the entrance to the bathroom,when the person comes out security officers in aircraft can monitor whether he/she wears a facemask or similar deceptive gadgets.

I would think people could would recognize that even without a camera.

Just an observation.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?????

A casual search of news reports brings up quite a number of hijackings that involved retrieving or prepping something in lavatories.

Under the criteria that seems to be used here to prevent happenings such as the missing Malaysian Airlines aircraft, only one such incident is enough justification to plant a camera there, right? Privacy be damned.

Hooker

That was meant to be funny! Sorry.

Arrrghh, my bad. It's been a rough day and I'm having trouble recognizing funny!!!

Dear Hooker, that happens to us all from time to time, no problem.......

In fact it makes you more sympathetic......."Null Problemo" as Alf used to say!!! (Though I have never seen Alf in English, so that may not be quite true.......! But words to that effect!!)

There are others here (sadly) who I do NOT react so friendly to though!!! YOU KNOW WHO!!!

I found this today on a BBC News Website, it shows the timing and just how long the aircraft remained flying after switching off the IFF and changing direction, into the Inian Ocean.

Some wreckage has been reported as well on German radio today.

So it appears to have flown of more than 7 hours, still pinging the satellites.....

Duly noted.

As pointed out in the 'what's in the hold' discussion .. the red arc heads both south and north.

The wreckage report on German Public Radio indicated the Indian Ocean, but of course, any floating wreckage could be hundreds of miles from the "probable" crash site......but I tend to think personally, that if there is any truth in these reports, the aircraft flew west and south, which explains why it was not easy to find completely as this could have been 180° from the original intended course.....

Certainly the BBC reports appear to have better information, or at least, better put together.....time will tell.

The search re-started a few hours ago to the west of Perth Australia as this news flash with videos, pictures and commentary suggests.

Missing Malaysia Airlines Plane Update

If true, no small wonder that no indication was ever found till now (except that the aircraft was still "talking" to satellites almost 8 hours after takeoff!!)

I live in Perth. The 'on the ground' feeling is that the wreckage in the Indian Ocean could be containers or even an upturned yacht hull.

If MH370 flew out to sea and then north at low level over Burma, at night, then it may have been less detectable from the ground. I am often near an outer beacon (near Henley Brook) for the final turn for landing at Perth airport. There are 2x 777's that fly in at low height around 5pm every afternoon from the Middle East. I always marvel on the quietness of the plane, obviously throttled back in their landing cycle, but a clear demonstration of the performance of each plane's wings.

Sporty's sells to private pilots. Commercial aviation regulations are different, and much more stringent.

Not trying to fuel the fire here, but what commercial aviation regulations exist, in regard to in cabin video?

• Cockpit Video Recorders: Lawyers, Cameras, & Money
  
  
• Feasibility of Airborne Cockpit Video Flight Recorders on ...
  
• Video in the cockpit: Privacy vs. safety - Travel | NBC News
  
• [PDF]Cockpit Image Recorders - Rapoport Law Offices, P.C.

I have no idea if there is an applicable FAA requirement, yet.AH might know.You can be sure that airlines are not allowed to casually install electronic equipment in commercial aircraft without specifications, testing, etc, etc.

When I see so many people working towards video in cockpits, eventually it will come to fruition. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Really interesting reading, thanks for posting.

I'm not against real time data transfer, or video.

But, any time you wire something into a commercial airliner, it must be certified, etc.

Lyn you are so right. Try and repair a door lock on a cabin door, It won't happen unless the hardware comes from an approved supplier or an approved storage/salvage supplier. We were slated to replace cabin door locks to a more secure /push-button locking system. Our first guy was slated to do the first one on a round trip to Alaska. Install the hardware, then board another flight back to the states after installing hardware before return flight. We were authorized to do the work as an outside contractor without an A/P licence since the work was specialized. And at the time there was not a licensed A/P trained for install. Our first tech boarded the flight to Alaska upon arrival at maintenance facility he was told to wait for authorization from XYZXY company for authorization from manufacturer. Since we were under the assumption that all of the paper work had all ready been done for this up-step in security we were dumb founded. Our tech was left in Alaska for almost a week until they decided on replacement with used hardware from salvage yards. Needless to say no further up grades were done until after 9/11. Now the cabin doors are reinforced just like were trying to do all those years before. The reason for our attempt to upgrade was the pilots of this airline were worried that the current hardware was not staying locked or closed in flight, they thought that a little more security was necessary. Manufacturer did not!! as they did not make the parts to repair them and had no outside source for them except a JUNK YARD for airplanes in the desert of Arizona.

Excellent question. I would also like to know as well....I bet we are not alone either.....

I am sure anything you bring into the cockpit will light a fire with the FAA.

You have no idea how much effort and years it took before iPads got into the flight deck.

Unless you have worked in the aviation field you really have no idea of how much regulation you need to weed thorough to get things into commercial aircraft.

I believe it.

...and that's just based on my knowledge of anything that involves government. Making things cumbersome and expensive, is what they do.

I always just assumed that commercial airlines had GPS tracking. I'm sure they would find a way to make cameras too expensive to be worth it.

It's not just bureaucracy at work here. It is a system that has been evolving for many decades to eradicate human error from the design and implementation process.

When you first encounter that system of checks and balances you may well think that it is a bloated bureaucracy, but once you go through the process a few times you begin to see how cleverly worked out the system really is.

Another factor that most people are not aware of is the legal end. Most of these systems come from big players like Honeywell, Boeing and others. These guys have deep pockets and might as well have bull's eyes painted on their logos.

When things go wrong, and they always do, the deep pockets are always on the layer's short list of defendants in a case. To mitigate these costs companies build in extra charges to cover liabilities with their products.

Most of us consider the cost of losing a case because a company screwed up as something they deserve. But most lawsuits are not lost, still companies must pay for their defense. This is why companies hire corporate attorneys as part of their staff.

In fact, there are layers of attorneys that corporations use. Some are part of the early design process. Some are part of contracts. The costs get staggering.

Law firms make money by suing people and corporations. They advertise their services as litigation lotteries to anyone that is deemed to have been done wrong.

Don't expect tort reform in the near future because a significant number of lawmakers are themselves attorneys.

In the end the consumer pays for this out of their pocket.

According to many here (I don't know either way), there exists no regulations other than "NONE", so how stringent do they need to be? Or do such Rules and Regs already exist with regard to video in cockpit, aircraft tracking over oceans and and and....?

Maybe someone needs to think out of the box for a complete package of "something", that something being able to track passenger aircraft above a certain size when required, like when they disappear off the controllers radar.......

I certainly don't want anymore 9/11 incidents, who does? Please put your hand up if you wish to see further such incidents......or just post here.....

Can we try to get around the need to buy $1000 screwdrivers for defense yet again?

Here is my award winning solar light with installed cameras that walks smart with you.Total duplication manufactured cost under $1000. And with the defense version, the onboard power is used to smell for passing explosives .... and react as appropriate.

So what was in the hold of MH370 that they flew for maybe another 7 hours after radar contact was officially lost? A couple of tons of Chinese gold might be worth $70 million and that might get people thinking laterally. Sadly most of the passengers when safely on the ground might be expendable.

So who remembers the movie INSIDE MAN....

That was a long list of your opinions.

I saw NO verifiable facts.

Can you be so kind as to supply some for us?

Thanks in advance.

I think we may be getting nearer to the need for a voting system here.....

My question is, what good does it do to have live streaming of a cockpit camera or flight data when the aircraft is flying 35,000 ft. and cruising around .8 mach? Other than surveillance? You can't take any corrective action until it lands, if it lands in one piece. Air France flt. 447 is an example of streaming flight data of failing systems, but nobody was able to put the pieces together until after the flight was lost. And if some mechanic was able to decipher frozen pitot tubes, there's nothing they could other than relay the information to the pilots. But, if Pilots find themselves in a situation where they're fighting to control the aircraft, they may not acknowledge any communications.

Live satellite tracking is an option and could be piggy-backed on existing systems, but still leaves the problem of who's going to responsible for flight tracking or maintaining the servers?

And, aside from finding a lost aircraft, GPS/satellite tracking won't help either.

if you were running a business and were entrusting 2 people with a 35 million dollar machine and the lives of 200 people would you stick your head in the sand and just hope everything was okay while your competition had up to the minute information on the status of what was going on with property?

It's not a matter of having your head in the sand. It's a matter of what can you do about an aircraft that is airborne that is having problems, whether it's mechanical or it's being commandeered? Scramble fighter interceptors and do what, shoot down the plane? No matter how much information that can be sent down to the ground, as long as your on the ground and the plane is in the air, there's not a damn thing you can do about it. And sorry to say, but that's a fact of life.

We do not live in a perfect world and never will. No matter how much security is put in place, we will always have unstable people or situations we can not control.

So here is an idea that while expensive, could have other benefits (like making it more difficult to hijack planes and use the planes as human guided bombs):

.

Autopilot systems in some planes are so advanced that some pilots say pretty much the whole trip could be hands off. Drone technology is giving us a tremendous amount of experience with either autonomous or remotely piloted landings. It doesn't seem like much off a stretch to outfit planes with the ability in an emergency to isolate anyone on board from controlling the plane and then have people on the ground control the remainder of the flight.

.

There might even be controls put in place that do not allow the plane to travel outside a certain area surrounding the planned flight path.

True, well maybe not but how many aircraft get hijacked every year anyway?

Point being, there are other problems in the world that deserve our attention more than investing 100s of millions of dollars into autonomous systems to take over aircraft.

I am probably vastly under estimating the cost because you need to make the system totally spoof proof from hackers, which I am sure they will pile on this opportunity like the sea.

I agree with you completely. It would be very expensive and very difficult to justify. There are certainly problems more deserving of attention.....but in the spirit of making 'on topic' comments (at least a few), it seemed like a good idea to brain storm around the original theme.

Yeah, I see that point. Perhaps some day that will be standard operating procedure, but having a human in the loop seems to be the order of the business for today.

It's good to see engineers getting excited about a solving a problem. Some of the ideas may be off mark and some of the problems may not be that big of a deal, but in the end we should be taking a bow to all of those that are passionate about their field of expertise and willing to contribute.

So, to all of those that I may agree with and those that I may not, your willingness to put forth solutions is something I respect very deeply.

I appreciate the 'lead by example' style of your reminder that treating each other with respect shouldn't be reserved for only those of like opinion. It is a timely suggestion, too. It is so easy to get drawn into the bickering and become a beacon of bickering oneself.

Yet again I own you a thank you for this reminder.