4 ms·

> And finally: It goes beyond my comprehension that someone would decide to build a version of the voice recorder specifically for the US that only stores 2 hou

> And finally: It goes beyond my comprehension that someone would decide to build a version of the voice recorder specifically for the US that only stores 2 hours of voice, while the international version of the same plane stores 25. What kind of cost reduction per unit is that, $1 per airplane? Having two different models to "certify", produce and warehouse just to save a dollar or something per unit does not sound like any sane business decision. pilots unions strongly fight against this for privacy reasons is why.

crazytony 3y ago
yes. It wasn't about cost at all. It's the same reason there are no cameras on the flight deck.
contravariant 3y ago
Normally I would agree with them that making the recording much longer than it plausibly needs to be is not a good idea. Preventing life-or-death situations is about the only reason I'm in favour of recording anything at all. However evidently 2 hours of sound isn't long enough. Just because a plane keeps going for more a few hours doesn't mean the incident wasn't serious enough to warrant recording.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Sure, more time would be good for investigators. But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely.
  - account42 3y ago
    > But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. They have concerns. Legitimacy is a matter of opinion. > Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely. Actually, they don't. Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      > Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical. This is an uncharitable and dangerous take. If you are unwilling to listen to their concerns how can you so confidently dismiss them? Pilots care about safety. They’re on the same planes as the passengers. They have a personal interest in improving safety. Their concerns should be heard and given consideration. If pilots don’t feel safe communicating they wont, which undermines safety for everyone involved. Creating a disincentive to communicate is dangerous. I agree we should have more data for the purpose of investigating incidents but the blameless culture must be maintained. If pilots have doubts or concerns about that they need to be addressed.
  - pants2 3y ago
    That's crazy. I would venture to say that most workplaces have security cameras, many with sound recording, that can be accessed at any time by management or building security. But commercial airline pilots can't be recorded?
    - mulmen 3y ago
      I didn’t say they can’t be recorded. I said pilots concerns should be heard and addressed. Your immediate, inaccurate, and adversarial response is exactly the kind of behavior that undermines trust. Blameless culture is critical to aviation safety so undermining trust undermines safety. > I would venture to say that most workplaces have security cameras, many with sound recording, that can be accessed at any time by management or building security In the presence of surveillance equipment you should behave as if this is the case but is it? Can management freely access audio and video recordings of employees? I’d be very surprised if that is the case in a corporate setting and I have never seen anything to suggest that it is. I would absolutely like to have a voice in how recordings of me are used by management. Pilots were smart enough to organize and demand that voice. Every organization I have ever worked for had strict data retention policies to protect the organization in case of a lawsuit. If there were audio or visual recordings of the workplace they were retained only as long as required by law. I have never seen those recordings myself or heard of them being used in any analysis. Already in this comment section the suggestion has been made to mine these recordings with “AI”. This is the kind of ill conceived problem seeking pilots are right to be afraid of. For the recordings to be useful pilots need to communicate freely. That means they need to feel safe from retaliation. Without these protections pilots will not communicate freely and the situation may actually be less safe.
  - contravariant 3y ago
    I'm not calling their concerns illegitimate, heck I probably agree with most of them. Some people are way too happy to record everything and use it however they like, even suggesting the recordings should be used to to blame pilots (!). They deserve to put forward their concerns regarding the use of the recordings. They may have to concede the point on the length of the recording though, that one is hard to justify if it impacts a legitimate and reasonable investigation. And if these recordings are abused then their length is not the most damaging aspect.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      I don’t think it is constructive to say they “may have to concede”. I think it is more constructive to say a compromise must be reached. Some give and take will be required on all sides. Their concerns require consideration to avoid the chilling effect on communication. If pilots aren’t on board with the changes the intended benefits may not be realized. Pilots aren’t robots. You can’t dictate behavior to them. They’re human and intelligent, that makes the environment complex and delicate. The mutual trust from a blameless culture must be maintained. That means treating pilots with respect and listening to their concerns. If the concern is retaliation (reasonable concern IMO) then pilots need stronger protection to alleviate that. They are probably most likely to trust those protections if they come from the union rather than FAA or the company who can then “alter the deal.”
Fischgericht 3y ago
Wow, that's crazy. I understand the privacy reasons, but this concern should be addressed by access control to the recordings. Just make sure that only for example the NTSB is authorized to download the full recording. If you as a pilot have just barely survived a near fatal event, you probably won't mind an NTSB investigator listening to the dick jokes you have done as a pilot inflight. And if it was a fatal crash the dead pilot won't mind at all.

crazytony 3y ago

yes. It wasn't about cost at all. It's the same reason there are no cameras on the flight deck.

contravariant 3y ago

Normally I would agree with them that making the recording much longer than it plausibly needs to be is not a good idea. Preventing life-or-death situations is about the only reason I'm in favour of recording anything at all. However evidently 2 hours of sound isn't long enough. Just because a plane keeps going for more a few hours doesn't mean the incident wasn't serious enough to warrant recording.

mulmen 3y ago
Sure, more time would be good for investigators. But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely.
- account42 3y ago
  > But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. They have concerns. Legitimacy is a matter of opinion. > Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely. Actually, they don't. Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    > Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical. This is an uncharitable and dangerous take. If you are unwilling to listen to their concerns how can you so confidently dismiss them? Pilots care about safety. They’re on the same planes as the passengers. They have a personal interest in improving safety. Their concerns should be heard and given consideration. If pilots don’t feel safe communicating they wont, which undermines safety for everyone involved. Creating a disincentive to communicate is dangerous. I agree we should have more data for the purpose of investigating incidents but the blameless culture must be maintained. If pilots have doubts or concerns about that they need to be addressed.
- pants2 3y ago
  That's crazy. I would venture to say that most workplaces have security cameras, many with sound recording, that can be accessed at any time by management or building security. But commercial airline pilots can't be recorded?
  - mulmen 3y ago
    I didn’t say they can’t be recorded. I said pilots concerns should be heard and addressed. Your immediate, inaccurate, and adversarial response is exactly the kind of behavior that undermines trust. Blameless culture is critical to aviation safety so undermining trust undermines safety. > I would venture to say that most workplaces have security cameras, many with sound recording, that can be accessed at any time by management or building security In the presence of surveillance equipment you should behave as if this is the case but is it? Can management freely access audio and video recordings of employees? I’d be very surprised if that is the case in a corporate setting and I have never seen anything to suggest that it is. I would absolutely like to have a voice in how recordings of me are used by management. Pilots were smart enough to organize and demand that voice. Every organization I have ever worked for had strict data retention policies to protect the organization in case of a lawsuit. If there were audio or visual recordings of the workplace they were retained only as long as required by law. I have never seen those recordings myself or heard of them being used in any analysis. Already in this comment section the suggestion has been made to mine these recordings with “AI”. This is the kind of ill conceived problem seeking pilots are right to be afraid of. For the recordings to be useful pilots need to communicate freely. That means they need to feel safe from retaliation. Without these protections pilots will not communicate freely and the situation may actually be less safe.
- contravariant 3y ago
  I'm not calling their concerns illegitimate, heck I probably agree with most of them. Some people are way too happy to record everything and use it however they like, even suggesting the recordings should be used to to blame pilots (!). They deserve to put forward their concerns regarding the use of the recordings. They may have to concede the point on the length of the recording though, that one is hard to justify if it impacts a legitimate and reasonable investigation. And if these recordings are abused then their length is not the most damaging aspect.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    I don’t think it is constructive to say they “may have to concede”. I think it is more constructive to say a compromise must be reached. Some give and take will be required on all sides. Their concerns require consideration to avoid the chilling effect on communication. If pilots aren’t on board with the changes the intended benefits may not be realized. Pilots aren’t robots. You can’t dictate behavior to them. They’re human and intelligent, that makes the environment complex and delicate. The mutual trust from a blameless culture must be maintained. That means treating pilots with respect and listening to their concerns. If the concern is retaliation (reasonable concern IMO) then pilots need stronger protection to alleviate that. They are probably most likely to trust those protections if they come from the union rather than FAA or the company who can then “alter the deal.”

Fischgericht 3y ago

Wow, that's crazy. I understand the privacy reasons, but this concern should be addressed by access control to the recordings. Just make sure that only for example the NTSB is authorized to download the full recording. If you as a pilot have just barely survived a near fatal event, you probably won't mind an NTSB investigator listening to the dick jokes you have done as a pilot inflight. And if it was a fatal crash the dead pilot won't mind at all.