Cockpit video recording -- the time is now.

On 10/1/2018 2:06 PM, Steve Koerner wrote:
I'm sick and tired of reading about glider crashes and never knowing what
actually happened. We badly need to be able to learn from the misfortune
of our soaring compadres.

I'm "all-in" on the sentiments of both the above sentences. Have been since
well before I took my first lesson (1972). With the sentiments below...not so
much (and I'm being politely kind, here).
- - - - - -


The obvious answer is that we all have a camera mounted over our right
shoulder that will simultaneously monitor the scene out the front canopy,
monitor the panel instruments and monitor the pilot's flight inputs. Such
a camera would be effective even if operating at a low frame rate --
perhaps something like 5 frames/sec. With today's technology such a unit
could be quite small and the cost would be reasonable. The camera
automatically goes on when flight is detected and off when flight stops by
any of several easy detection means. Flight video would be logged to a
micro SD that is looped over after some number of hours: 10 hours, 24
hours, whatever.

The only technological challenge would be making such a recorder fireproof.
The latest horrible crash did ignite an incinerating fire. But fires are a
rarity in glider accidents. Step one could be a video logger that does not
necessarily address fireproofing.

Just because something may be an "obvious answer" doesn't make it universally
good. "Technology as panacea" isn't...as the history of aviation continues to
make abundantly and intrusively and expensively clear.
- - - - - -

How can we make this happen? Clearly individuals will not be highly
motivated to go out and buy one since they are unlikely to personally
benefit from their own camera. It needs to be somehow mandated. I would
hate to look to the government for a mandate as it would take too long
among other issues. How about a mandate from SSA? Contests? Clubs? OLC? or
tow operators? Every glider needs to have a video logger running on every
flight.

One other sociological factor would be that there not be discrimination
allowed on the release of the data. The data needs to be available for
anyone and everyone to analyze upon its retrieval. Pilots, attorneys,
widows, government entities and insurance companies should not have say in
that matter. We need to think up a good solution to that. Maybe the pilot
doesn't actually own the logger and media. Maybe the SSA owns the logger
and leases them on condition of data availability upon any reportable
accident.

No more mysteries! We need to know what is causing our accidents so we
have a chance to fix the problems.

My knee-jerk response to this "flagpole idea" is, "Surely you jest!"...but I'm
pretty certain you don't.

Personally, the engineer in me finds many mysteries are also life's joys, a
philosophical rabbit hole I won't enter just here and how, beyond noting that
sport soaring contains *many* such enjoyable mysteries. Meanwhile, I'm OK with
the risks...known, conjectured, and unknown. Draconian "solutions" (and devils
ALWAYS lurk in the details) have no place in a voluntary, self-funded,
sporting activity containing very little "overall societal risk," and
undertaken by a minuscule percentage of humankind to boot.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

"I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident."

Sorry Steve -but life and litigation don't work that way. Once you "mandate" the creation and maintenance of the data source it is out there for anybody to subpoena:

The insurance company that doesn't want to pay a claim, The FAA when it wants to revoke your license for busting airspace, the divorce lawyer who wants to see if you really were on a gliding vacation that weekend, the crazy lady who bought a house on airport road but doesn't like towplane noise, . . . they all can get the videos.

And how do we do it? What percentage of the glider fleet now has FLARM (which makes infinitely more sense if something must be "mandated")? 1% maybe? My A&I has to take a course in video installation? CDs have to check video samples before a contest like ENLs? And to what end? Do you really need a video to diagnose a stall spin in? Would a video explain the Arcus/Nephi accident that an experienced pilot who watched and felt it happen can't explain? Is a guy screwing around before his (unexpected) fatal accident not going to disable the camera? Is it coincidence that police and military body cameras have a remarkable failure rate in the field?

Let's all get behind this idea and push it out the window . . .

ROY

Roy B. wrote on 10/1/2018 6:06 PM:
"I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident."
g
Sorry Steve -but life and litigation don't work that way. Once you "mandate" the creation and maintenance of the data source it is out the there for anybody to subpoena:

Even if privacy was protected, the incentive to use a cockpit camera is almost
entirely altruistic; unlike a FLARM or parachute, it doesn't protect the pilot,
though it might help another pilot, or ease the pain of relatives and friends. So,
I suspect few pilots would bother to use one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

The mixture of paranoia and stupidity in the responses in this thread beggars belief.
Nowhere did I see the OP mention mandating a camera. Having one present voluntarily
would be just as useful. I don’t fly in a manner that I want or need to hide, do you?

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:26:10 PM UTC-5, Charlie Quebec wrote:
The mixture of paranoia and stupidity in the responses in this thread beggars belief.
Nowhere did I see the OP mention mandating a camera. Having one present voluntarily
would be just as useful. I don’t fly in a manner that I want or need to hide, do you?

The OP was pretty clear that a camera mandated by the SSA or others, Not owned by the pilot be used for every glider flight. also that the data would be open sourced. He even used the phrase "It needs to be somehow mandated"
At least in the OP I read.

Respectfully

I use a camera in the cockpit. I find it an objective training tool.
Reviewing my flights and landings has led me to make changes in my flying
that have improved performance and safety. Cost under $100. I commend them
to y'all.

Jim

You should get your head out of your ass and read before you open your
mouth.Â* Just for you, here's a paragraph from the original post:

"How can we make this happen?Â* Clearly individuals will not be highly
motivated to go out and buy one since they are unlikely to personally
benefit from their own camera. It needs to be somehow mandated. I would
hate to look to the government for a mandate as it would take too long
among other issues. How about a mandate from SSA? Contests? Clubs? OLC? or
tow operators? Every glider needs to have a video logger running on every
flight. "

Note the word "mandated" in the above.Â* You seem to take pleasure in
tossing garbage at any discussion rather than contributing useful
information.Â* Go back to bed.

On 10/1/2018 10:26 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
The mixture of paranoia and stupidity in the responses in this thread beggars belief.
Nowhere did I see the OP mention mandating a camera. Having one present voluntarily
would be just as useful. I don’t fly in a manner that I want or need to hide, do you?

--
Dan, 5J

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 18:06:51 -0700, Roy B. wrote:

And how do we do it? What percentage of the glider fleet now has FLARM
(which makes infinitely more sense if something must be "mandated")? 1%
maybe?

Speaking of which, and not wishing to side track this discussion, but I
thought this video was interesting:

https://flarm.com/learning-series-basel-flight-school/

..... its a Swiss power instructor talking about how and why he uses FLARM
and, as an instructor, why some he has a portable unit.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

All the situations described in the interview are not glider-specific, but rather general-traffic-specific. A transponder and/or ADS-B Out and ADS-B In will work better with a much bigger range in similar cases.

My opinion is that we don't need two systems in the gliders, and my great hope is in the recently started cooperation between the Flarm people and companies like uAvionix.



Speaking of which, and not wishing to side track this discussion, but I
thought this video was interesting:

https://flarm.com/learning-series-basel-flight-school/


.... its a Swiss power instructor talking about how and why he uses FLARM
and, as an instructor, why some he has a portable unit.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

I agree that filming flights would greatly help solve many of these mysteries. However, the objections to MANDATING it are valid.

I am reminded of the detailed final accident report that was issued for Balleka's accident a few years ago. He had a lot of video footage the investigators were able to sift through, which clearly showed the cause of the accident, and was very instructive for those of us who read it. I learned a lot from it. Next year I plan to film as many of my flights as possible.