4 ms·

Bottom of the article: "Consistent with standard practice, video recordings are maintained on a rolling 30 day basis."

Ekaros 3y ago
I find it funny how filming people doing the building of a plane is fine for 30 days, but no way you can record for a day when it is being flown...
- Someone1234 3y ago
  > but no way you can record for a day when it is being flown What are you trying to say?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Pilots in USA are against recording more than 2 hours of black box flight data. When there is many significantly longer flights.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rohansingh 3y ago
    Cockpit voice recorders are frequently overwritten because they are limited to only 2 hours in the US. Pilots' unions have pushed back on increasing this, stating they have privacy concerns.
    - lr1970 3y ago
      Flight recorders are fireproof / water proof / shock proof devices on the airplane and are limited in size of memory they can have. On the factory floor, on the other hand, one can store lots of data or/and upload it to some massive cloud storage for backup / retention. It is totally different ball game.
      - rohansingh 3y ago
        It's not at all a technical limitation here. The cockpit voice recorder will record 25 hours in the EU and only 2 hours in the US, and that's been the case for years.
- Sakos 3y ago
  Who's calling for longer recordings? The NTSB or random people who don't know anything about crash investigations or politicians trying to win points with voters? Would longer recordings really help with investigations? From all the videos I've seen about them, maybe it's just selective memory, I can't recall a single time the NTSB pointed out they needed longer recordings to do or complete their investigation. I also can't think of any case off the top of my head where it would have helped in any way, much less a significant enough number to justify the cost (financial or otherwise). Where is this call for longer recordings coming from, exactly?
  - bin_bash 3y ago
    The NTSB after Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 since the pilots forgot to pull the circuit breaker: > The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was overwritten after the accident. The CVR on the aircraft records a two-hour loop, and the circuit breaker in the cockpit was not pulled to stop the recording after the aircraft landed.[20] NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy subsequently called for extending capacity to 25 hours, rather than the currently mandated two hours, on all new and existing aircraft. If implemented, the new rule will align with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and European Union Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) current regulations.[42]
  - mleo 3y ago
    In this incident with Alaska, the fuse for the recorder was not pulled within two hours and they lost recordings from the moment the door fell out. There have been other lost recordings in the past.
    - Sakos 3y ago
      Okay, and how would that have changed the investigation when the primary cause is Boeing's incompetence during assembly?
  - hklgny 3y ago
    Helios flight 522 had no usable voice recordings due to the nature of the incident. The cockpit recordings begin well after the last pilot actions from what I recall. They were able to piece it together using comms with the towers, but that was more luck. Im not sure I understand the hesitation with it either way, however. Can’t think of a reason why you wouldn’t want the data preserved.
Dalewyn 3y ago
[flagged]
belter 3y ago
We all know, if they don't fall within the first 30 days, they pretty much go on flying for ever....First item on Boeing Rules of Acquisition...
tomashubelbauer 3y ago
You'd think an active investigation would trump standard practice. This doesn't inspire confidence in Boeing's QA process. If it was OK, it would be in Boeing's interest to hold the footage erasure so they could present it as a piece of evidence in their favor. Edit: See child comment. I made a wrong assumption which made me think this was likely intentional. I no longer stand by this comment.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  The work in question was done in, what was it, at the latest October or November if I recall? More likely before even that. The incident then happened in January. Footage stored on a 30 day rolling basis would have been overwritten or otherwise disposed of long ago before anything even happened.
  - phyzome 3y ago
    Honestly, 30 days for security camera footage seems fine to me. I don't see wrongdoing here.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Neither do I, and I despise this article, the author, and the outlet for inducing unwarranted anger and sensationalism that only adds noise to a very serious matter.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      I agree. I wonder to how many months/years would people here agree to if their workplace was to be filmed with security cameras? How long would it be reasonable to keep footage filmed in modern open-office?
      - nameless912 3y ago
        IMO, at least however long the statute of limitations in that jurisdiction is for things like sexual harassment, physical/sexual assault, etc. Way too many of those types of cases go totally unpunished because there's no camera evidence, and it seems quite reasonable to me to retain that footage so that if an issue arises, the relevant evidence is available. I don't think you should have any reasonable expectation of privacy for committing crimes at work, and while yes that means that there would be a camera overhead recording my every move, I'm not the kind of person that necessarily sees that as a bad thing; that footage would both protect and bind all of us to a clear social contract, and that seems better than just throwing our hands in the air and saying "oopsies, the footage was overwritten! So sorry!"
dist-epoch 3y ago
Disk space is so expensive today, they couldn't possibly afford to keep more than 30 days. Also, their video cameras probably shoot in 8K 10bit RAW uncompressed.
- ies7 3y ago
  For video (especially with proper 3-2-1 backup) it is somehow expensive. 5 years of our sales and finance data from 10+ countries takes less than a petabyte Our 2 years backup of hundreds CCTV for only a single factory compressed, reduced to 15 fps takes around 4 PB. This data only used when we have a complaint case. Most of the times it just overwritten with new data without a single person ever see the video.
  - nameless912 3y ago
    My back of the napkin calculation for S3's glacier tier says that would cost roughly 50 grand a year. That seems...reasonable?
    - ies7 3y ago
      It's very reasonable. I should wrote somehow "feel" expensive because : This data only used when we have a complaint case. Most of the times it just overwritten with new data without a single person ever see the video.
nameless912 3y ago
This may be true, but I would expect Boeing, a titan of the industry and up until recently assumed leader of aviation safety, to retain footage for much, much longer for training and QA purposes. Yes, I'm aware this opens them up to all kinds of liability, but corporate liability is worth so much less than data that could save human lives. I'm of the opinion that corporate retention policies are specifically encouraging companies to cover up mistakes rather than fixing them. It feels to me like, if we required companies to retain data for years rather than days, and then rewarded companies that use that data to fully cooperate with investigators, swiftly admit fault, and take corrective action when the screw up, with lower fines and penalties, that that would trump the perceived "danger" of retaining data for too long. The fact that companies are actively encouraged to delete evidence of wrongdoing so that when a situation emerges where that data would be useful, the company can just shift blame on an asinine written policy is completely nuts to me, and shows that we've totally lost the f**ing plot when it comes to actually encouraging better safety practices.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >This may be true, but I would expect Boeing, a titan of the industry and up until recently assumed leader of aviation safety, to retain footage for much, much longer for training and QA purposes. I mean, as someone who grew up two minutes from Boeing's Everett plant with pride, I would've said the same thing up until about a decade or so ago. Everything we have learned about Boeing's culture in the time since strongly suggests that we should expect the opposite from them.
- abadpoli 3y ago
  It isn’t just “corporate liability”, it’s literally illegal in some jurisdictions to retain camera footage for that long. There are significant privacy implications for recording someone at their workplace and deciding on a retention period has to take that into account. My guess is that the workers unions at Boeing’s plants would fight tooth and nail to keep those recordings from being retained longer.
  - nameless912 3y ago
Stranger43 3y ago
So this is essentially on the FCC for approving an quality assurance scheme that leaves them with no clue to figure out if this event would have been prevented if Boeing had followed it's own processes. The problem for this investigation is that it's not a single door but an entire line of planes designed, made and inspected using processes and policies that the FCC should probably never have approved in the first place creating an situation where half the us aviation industry would collapse if a halt operations until everything have been reinspected under a more correct regulatory framework. So there is a huge pressure on the NTSB for finding something fixable wrong as the alternative is to start the certification process for both the MAX 8/9 designs and the Boeing manufacturing lines in question from scratch.
- sophacles 3y ago
  The FCC is not involved here. You might be thinking of the FAA, they are in charge of airplane things. What makes you think that boeing - a company scrutinized over the last few years for shoddy work, negligent employees and incomptent management - actually followed an approved procedure? There's been a lot of reports lately of missing paperwork and lack of qc, both of which are supposed to be part of the procedures (and are in fact in the approved procedures).

I find it funny how filming people doing the building of a plane is fine for 30 days, but no way you can record for a day when it is being flown...

Someone1234 3y ago
> but no way you can record for a day when it is being flown What are you trying to say?
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Pilots in USA are against recording more than 2 hours of black box flight data. When there is many significantly longer flights.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rohansingh 3y ago
  Cockpit voice recorders are frequently overwritten because they are limited to only 2 hours in the US. Pilots' unions have pushed back on increasing this, stating they have privacy concerns.
  - lr1970 3y ago
    Flight recorders are fireproof / water proof / shock proof devices on the airplane and are limited in size of memory they can have. On the factory floor, on the other hand, one can store lots of data or/and upload it to some massive cloud storage for backup / retention. It is totally different ball game.
    - rohansingh 3y ago
      It's not at all a technical limitation here. The cockpit voice recorder will record 25 hours in the EU and only 2 hours in the US, and that's been the case for years.
Sakos 3y ago
Who's calling for longer recordings? The NTSB or random people who don't know anything about crash investigations or politicians trying to win points with voters? Would longer recordings really help with investigations? From all the videos I've seen about them, maybe it's just selective memory, I can't recall a single time the NTSB pointed out they needed longer recordings to do or complete their investigation. I also can't think of any case off the top of my head where it would have helped in any way, much less a significant enough number to justify the cost (financial or otherwise). Where is this call for longer recordings coming from, exactly?
- bin_bash 3y ago
  The NTSB after Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 since the pilots forgot to pull the circuit breaker: > The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was overwritten after the accident. The CVR on the aircraft records a two-hour loop, and the circuit breaker in the cockpit was not pulled to stop the recording after the aircraft landed.[20] NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy subsequently called for extending capacity to 25 hours, rather than the currently mandated two hours, on all new and existing aircraft. If implemented, the new rule will align with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and European Union Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) current regulations.[42]
- mleo 3y ago
  In this incident with Alaska, the fuse for the recorder was not pulled within two hours and they lost recordings from the moment the door fell out. There have been other lost recordings in the past.
  - Sakos 3y ago
    Okay, and how would that have changed the investigation when the primary cause is Boeing's incompetence during assembly?
- hklgny 3y ago
  Helios flight 522 had no usable voice recordings due to the nature of the incident. The cockpit recordings begin well after the last pilot actions from what I recall. They were able to piece it together using comms with the towers, but that was more luck. Im not sure I understand the hesitation with it either way, however. Can’t think of a reason why you wouldn’t want the data preserved.

Dalewyn 3y ago

[flagged]

belter 3y ago

We all know, if they don't fall within the first 30 days, they pretty much go on flying for ever....First item on Boeing Rules of Acquisition...

tomashubelbauer 3y ago

You'd think an active investigation would trump standard practice. This doesn't inspire confidence in Boeing's QA process. If it was OK, it would be in Boeing's interest to hold the footage erasure so they could present it as a piece of evidence in their favor. Edit: See child comment. I made a wrong assumption which made me think this was likely intentional. I no longer stand by this comment.

Dalewyn 3y ago
The work in question was done in, what was it, at the latest October or November if I recall? More likely before even that. The incident then happened in January. Footage stored on a 30 day rolling basis would have been overwritten or otherwise disposed of long ago before anything even happened.
- phyzome 3y ago
  Honestly, 30 days for security camera footage seems fine to me. I don't see wrongdoing here.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Neither do I, and I despise this article, the author, and the outlet for inducing unwarranted anger and sensationalism that only adds noise to a very serious matter.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    I agree. I wonder to how many months/years would people here agree to if their workplace was to be filmed with security cameras? How long would it be reasonable to keep footage filmed in modern open-office?
    - nameless912 3y ago
      IMO, at least however long the statute of limitations in that jurisdiction is for things like sexual harassment, physical/sexual assault, etc. Way too many of those types of cases go totally unpunished because there's no camera evidence, and it seems quite reasonable to me to retain that footage so that if an issue arises, the relevant evidence is available. I don't think you should have any reasonable expectation of privacy for committing crimes at work, and while yes that means that there would be a camera overhead recording my every move, I'm not the kind of person that necessarily sees that as a bad thing; that footage would both protect and bind all of us to a clear social contract, and that seems better than just throwing our hands in the air and saying "oopsies, the footage was overwritten! So sorry!"

dist-epoch 3y ago

Disk space is so expensive today, they couldn't possibly afford to keep more than 30 days. Also, their video cameras probably shoot in 8K 10bit RAW uncompressed.

ies7 3y ago
For video (especially with proper 3-2-1 backup) it is somehow expensive. 5 years of our sales and finance data from 10+ countries takes less than a petabyte Our 2 years backup of hundreds CCTV for only a single factory compressed, reduced to 15 fps takes around 4 PB. This data only used when we have a complaint case. Most of the times it just overwritten with new data without a single person ever see the video.
- nameless912 3y ago
  My back of the napkin calculation for S3's glacier tier says that would cost roughly 50 grand a year. That seems...reasonable?
  - ies7 3y ago
    It's very reasonable. I should wrote somehow "feel" expensive because : This data only used when we have a complaint case. Most of the times it just overwritten with new data without a single person ever see the video.

nameless912 3y ago

This may be true, but I would expect Boeing, a titan of the industry and up until recently assumed leader of aviation safety, to retain footage for much, much longer for training and QA purposes. Yes, I'm aware this opens them up to all kinds of liability, but corporate liability is worth so much less than data that could save human lives. I'm of the opinion that corporate retention policies are specifically encouraging companies to cover up mistakes rather than fixing them. It feels to me like, if we required companies to retain data for years rather than days, and then rewarded companies that use that data to fully cooperate with investigators, swiftly admit fault, and take corrective action when the screw up, with lower fines and penalties, that that would trump the perceived "danger" of retaining data for too long. The fact that companies are actively encouraged to delete evidence of wrongdoing so that when a situation emerges where that data would be useful, the company can just shift blame on an asinine written policy is completely nuts to me, and shows that we've totally lost the f**ing plot when it comes to actually encouraging better safety practices.

jjulius 3y ago
>This may be true, but I would expect Boeing, a titan of the industry and up until recently assumed leader of aviation safety, to retain footage for much, much longer for training and QA purposes. I mean, as someone who grew up two minutes from Boeing's Everett plant with pride, I would've said the same thing up until about a decade or so ago. Everything we have learned about Boeing's culture in the time since strongly suggests that we should expect the opposite from them.
abadpoli 3y ago
It isn’t just “corporate liability”, it’s literally illegal in some jurisdictions to retain camera footage for that long. There are significant privacy implications for recording someone at their workplace and deciding on a retention period has to take that into account. My guess is that the workers unions at Boeing’s plants would fight tooth and nail to keep those recordings from being retained longer.
- nameless912 3y ago

Stranger43 3y ago

So this is essentially on the FCC for approving an quality assurance scheme that leaves them with no clue to figure out if this event would have been prevented if Boeing had followed it's own processes. The problem for this investigation is that it's not a single door but an entire line of planes designed, made and inspected using processes and policies that the FCC should probably never have approved in the first place creating an situation where half the us aviation industry would collapse if a halt operations until everything have been reinspected under a more correct regulatory framework. So there is a huge pressure on the NTSB for finding something fixable wrong as the alternative is to start the certification process for both the MAX 8/9 designs and the Boeing manufacturing lines in question from scratch.

sophacles 3y ago
The FCC is not involved here. You might be thinking of the FAA, they are in charge of airplane things. What makes you think that boeing - a company scrutinized over the last few years for shoddy work, negligent employees and incomptent management - actually followed an approved procedure? There's been a lot of reports lately of missing paperwork and lack of qc, both of which are supposed to be part of the procedures (and are in fact in the approved procedures).