4 ms·

It is reasonable that passengers know that the desires for the crew to have "idle chat" are less important than safety. But t0mas88 made clear that what is reas

It is reasonable that passengers know that the desires for the crew to have "idle chat" are less important than safety. But t0mas88 made clear that what is reasonable is less important than what is "accepted by the crew". The crew apparently makes the decisions on safety matters.

t0mas88 3y ago
The crew makes a lot of decisions on safety matters, that's basically the most important part of the job :-) But joking aside, in most places there are checks and balances between privacy impact and benefit. We all accept that some government agencies know some of our data, because the net benefit to society is bigger than the loss of privacy. And you would normally try to do such things in the least invasive way possible while achieving the benefit. Where you go wrong in your passenger rant, is in assuming there is a big safety benefit in more recording of pilots. There were a total of 2 fatalities on US airlines in the last 10 years [1], while billions of passengers were transported. The safety record of airline transport is stellar, without more recording. So yes, I believe it is very reasonable to consider what is and isn't acceptable to the crew being recorded. [1] https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-carriers/ https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-ca...
- mcculley 3y ago
  Passenger rant? If ICAO can require keeping 25 hours why should a crew get to choose 2?
- CaptainZapp 3y ago
  I mostly agree with your take. Alas, I think it's ridiculous to fight a 25 hour recording requirement with the privacy argument. The recording should anyway only be retrieved under specific conditions and in a controlled environment. In this specific case the longer recording duration may have actually aided the investigation and thus further improve airline safety.
  - t0mas88 3y ago
    Agree. My comment was responding to someone saying "Why stop at 25? Record all of every flight and archive it." There is also more nuance to the debate around the 25 hours change. Like you say it should only be used under specific conditions and in a controlled environment, but in the US unfortunately recordings have been leaked and have been used for disciplinary purposes instead of a blame-less investigation for safety. Europe has had rules for 25 hour recording since 2021, as far as I know without any opposition. But European recordings have also not been misused before.
volkl48 3y ago
"Idle chat" is important for safety. - They need to work well together, and the better rapport they have with each other the better they're likely to perform in an actual incident. Regular interaction on the job is a part of that. - They work a job that is often remarkably boring for much of the time. Drowsiness setting in is a real concern - a degree of social interaction is good at both keeping people engaged, and at helping them gauge how alert the other crew members are.
- mcculley 3y ago
  I operate tug boats. It is also remarkably boring for much of the time. The crew knows that they have no privacy when in the wheelhouse operating hundreds of tons of steel. They do have privacy when not on watch. Regardless, decisions around safety are not made by what is "accepted by the crew".
- mcculley 3y ago
  > "Idle chat" is important for safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_flight_deck_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_flight_deck_rule I agree that the crew should feel free to chat. And when there is an accident, they should expect that the recordings are kept.
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    > during critical phases of flight
  - reciprocity 3y ago
    This rule applies to the taxiing, takeoff, and descent into landing phases of flight only. It isn't enforced above 10k feet. Idle chatter is important for numerous reasons in any professional working environment and it isn't a reasonable conclusion to say that it should not be allowed in this one. It's also unfathomably unreasonable to call for storage of all voice recordings of the flight deck in perpetuity. That's ridiculous and is privacy invading. If you want to improve the state of this industry, you are looking in the wrong place.

t0mas88 3y ago

The crew makes a lot of decisions on safety matters, that's basically the most important part of the job :-) But joking aside, in most places there are checks and balances between privacy impact and benefit. We all accept that some government agencies know some of our data, because the net benefit to society is bigger than the loss of privacy. And you would normally try to do such things in the least invasive way possible while achieving the benefit. Where you go wrong in your passenger rant, is in assuming there is a big safety benefit in more recording of pilots. There were a total of 2 fatalities on US airlines in the last 10 years [1], while billions of passengers were transported. The safety record of airline transport is stellar, without more recording. So yes, I believe it is very reasonable to consider what is and isn't acceptable to the crew being recorded. [1] https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-carriers/ https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-ca...

mcculley 3y ago
Passenger rant? If ICAO can require keeping 25 hours why should a crew get to choose 2?
CaptainZapp 3y ago
I mostly agree with your take. Alas, I think it's ridiculous to fight a 25 hour recording requirement with the privacy argument. The recording should anyway only be retrieved under specific conditions and in a controlled environment. In this specific case the longer recording duration may have actually aided the investigation and thus further improve airline safety.
- t0mas88 3y ago
  Agree. My comment was responding to someone saying "Why stop at 25? Record all of every flight and archive it." There is also more nuance to the debate around the 25 hours change. Like you say it should only be used under specific conditions and in a controlled environment, but in the US unfortunately recordings have been leaked and have been used for disciplinary purposes instead of a blame-less investigation for safety. Europe has had rules for 25 hour recording since 2021, as far as I know without any opposition. But European recordings have also not been misused before.

volkl48 3y ago

"Idle chat" is important for safety. - They need to work well together, and the better rapport they have with each other the better they're likely to perform in an actual incident. Regular interaction on the job is a part of that. - They work a job that is often remarkably boring for much of the time. Drowsiness setting in is a real concern - a degree of social interaction is good at both keeping people engaged, and at helping them gauge how alert the other crew members are.

mcculley 3y ago
I operate tug boats. It is also remarkably boring for much of the time. The crew knows that they have no privacy when in the wheelhouse operating hundreds of tons of steel. They do have privacy when not on watch. Regardless, decisions around safety are not made by what is "accepted by the crew".
mcculley 3y ago
> "Idle chat" is important for safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_flight_deck_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_flight_deck_rule I agree that the crew should feel free to chat. And when there is an accident, they should expect that the recordings are kept.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  > during critical phases of flight
- reciprocity 3y ago
  This rule applies to the taxiing, takeoff, and descent into landing phases of flight only. It isn't enforced above 10k feet. Idle chatter is important for numerous reasons in any professional working environment and it isn't a reasonable conclusion to say that it should not be allowed in this one. It's also unfathomably unreasonable to call for storage of all voice recordings of the flight deck in perpetuity. That's ridiculous and is privacy invading. If you want to improve the state of this industry, you are looking in the wrong place.