4 ms·
> The pilots' union responded with fury, branding the recorder a snooping device, and insisted "no plane would take off in Australia with Big Brother listening"
by shusson 7y ago
> The pilots' union responded with fury, branding the recorder a snooping device, and insisted "no plane would take off in Australia with Big Brother listening"
interesting I never thought this from the pilots perspective.
- jhbadger 7y agoYeah, I suppose they thought that the recordings would used primarily to assign blame to pilots, but I don't think this has been the case. Even when the cause of a crash is assigned to "pilot error", there is a general recognition that it is a failure of the whole system and that the plane often didn't give (or gave misleading) information to the pilots.
- throw0101a 7y agoI think one way of assuaging these types of concerns in ensuring that the contents are not externally accessible. I've heard similar privacy rumblings about putting 'dashcams' in cockpits, but as long as they're not streaming and only accessible either (a) in post-crash debris, or (b) some kind of NTSB 'warrant' for near-misses, I think that may lessen concerns.
- shoo 7y agoanecdotally: i have heard that new equipment that gets installed in or near the driver's compartment in trains needs to be built to be extremely rugged. Some drivers are suspicious that new equipment is to let management spy on them or automate away part of their jobs, and will endeavour to render it non-functional.
- WalterBright 7y agoI've advocated that the CVR record cockpit video, too. Lots of crash investigations have difficulty answering questions like what was the pilot looking at, what was he doing, what the instruments were saying, what were the switch positions, what was visible out the windows, even who was in the seat. The objections were the same.