Cockpit video recording -- the time is now.

On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to mandate use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate a accident diagnostic device?
I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or any
other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
with its performance).Â* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back when
I took a position against mandating FLARM.Â* It's the mandating part that
I object to, not the device itself.

By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
--
Dan, 5J

What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that be
removed?




At 14:29 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:


On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to
mandate
use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate
a
accident diagnostic device?
I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or
any
other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
with its performance).Â* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back
when
I took a position against mandating FLARM.Â* It's the mandating part
that
I object to, not the device itself.

By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
--
Dan, 5J

Roy,

This will be an over-the-shoulder view; so nobodies plumbing parts are in the picture. Let's not worry about that.

Again, I understand that it doesn't sell well as a strictly voluntary thing for folks to want to buy individually. I like your autopsy insurance analogy. We're looking for the best idea to solve that. The miracle of collaboration happens when a lot of people think about the problem. I think the best idea so far has come from Paul Agnew yesterday. Paul suggested that the incentive come from insurance discounts. That could do the trick. Sort of like when car insurance is cheaper if you purchase airbags.

Let's say the camera cost is $200. Let's say your glider insurance costs $100 more if you don't use a video logger. That would do a good job of motivating the unit without the need of a mandate per se. Most people would buy one and install it for the economic benefit and not worry much about their privacy concerns. Furthermore, there would then be a built-in mechanism to motivate its proper usage if the insurance is in some degree jeopardized if your logger is not being used or not operating when an accident happens..

Clearly the insurance idea requires a bit of distortion field around the insurance pricing. As we've noted, having a camera won't actually reduce the insurance risk. So the rate difference isn't strictly rational as it is in the case of airbags. The good news is that there are only about 3 companies in the US that insure gliders. If those few players could each be convinced or incentivized to enter the distortion field, then we're golden.

Steve Koerner

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:33:50 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
Steve:
let me briefly respond to your points - but in reverse order.

FLARM is an active and useful accident avoidance device - albeit at a cost. Yet everybody still resisted making it mandatory. Although it is useful in the air to avoid collisions it has achieved less than 1% penetration into gliders operating and flights being conducted. Competition flying (where FLARM is well accepted now) is a microscopic subset of glider flying in the US and the accidents that you want to learn about are not happening for the most part in SSA sanctioned contests.

But your camera idea does not even qualify as an accident avoidance device - it's a post accident diagnostic device that might "possibly" assist in some types of accident investigations if it captures useful diagnostic information and if it survives the crash. And it also has a cost particularly if it is to be made crash-worthy. To use a silly illustration of the comparison with FLARM - it's the difference between Health insurance (that keeps you or gets you healthy) and private autopsy insurance (that tells others why you are dead). Of course nobody buys or sells autopsy insurance - there is little perceived value in it and the government does a generally acceptable job doing it free. The same will be true of your cameras and any attempt to make them mandatory: Little perceived value for the cost and the government does a generally acceptable job at accident investigation.

I also disagree that an electronic stream of GPS data points that requires an intermediary program to collate and present into what is essentially a cartoon presentation of the flight (like SeeYou) is the same type of invasion of privacy as a video which is immediately usable, publishable and understandable. Yes- we all fly with multiple GPS trackers but I retain the option (even in a SSA contest) of refusing to submit my flight log and accepting the penalty for that. And need I mention that none of the tracking devices I use carry the problem of being focused on the control stick area while I am fitting and using the catheter in flight? And if you say "OK - we can turn it off then" - you have just made it non mandatory and ruined your whole argument.

In the end Steve, your strongest argument is "We gotta do something." That maybe true and I respect the feeling - but it's not this mandatory camera idea that we should do.

All the best,
ROY

How y'all going to feel when your buddies, or your self's, footage of spinning in ends up on the news and interwebs. Don't kid yourself with any chain of custody BS. Gory footage gets 'released' all the time. Never mind policy/law to the contrary.

Garmin Virb cameras might be a perfect choice perfect for the purpose indicated in this thread. They record their own GPS data parallel to the video, plus you can add several useful sensors like inside/outside temperature and heartbeat rate, which will also be recorded on the microSD card.

At 02:33 03 October 2018, Roy B. wrote:
But your camera idea does not even qualify as an accident avoidance
device
=
I have found my camera to be an excellent diagnostic device that may
prevent me having an accident in future by showing me what daft behaviours
I can display in field landings etc.

Also, in UK competition, it is very rare for any pilot to be called before
the safety committee. This has a lot to do with buddies not wanting to
sneak on each other but also because there is no real objective evidence of
miscreant flying which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness in
discussion. Poor discipline in racing gaggles shows up very well on my
camera.

Jim

At 11:28 03 October 2018, Jim White wrote:
At 02:33 03 October 2018, Roy B. wrote:
But your camera idea does not even qualify as an accident avoidanc
device
=
I have found my camera to be an excellent diagnostic device that ma
prevent me having an accident in future by showing me what daft
behaviour
I can display in field landings etc.

Also, in UK competition, it is very rare for any pilot to be called befor
the safety committee. This has a lot to do with buddies not wanting t
sneak on each other but also because there is no real objective
evidence o
miscreant flying which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness i
discussion. Poor discipline in racing gaggles shows up very well on m
camera.

Jim


It's OK Jim, we forgive your "inventive" thermal joining. It's only a
problem for one or 2 climbs anyway ;-)

At 08:49 04 October 2018, Dan Pitman wrote:
It's OK Jim, we forgive your "inventive" thermal joining. It's only a
problem for one or 2 climbs anyway ;-)

Was that you? Shouldn't have such big wings....

I too am against any mandated surveillance. We can help by voluntarily recording flight info. If we survive a flight (ugh, better choice of words?) we can maintain privacy by erasing the recording(s), if unlucky, they may solve the cause and save lives.

The problem is that recorders we can readily use will likely not produce a recording that will survive an accident. We need data storage that will endure extreme Gs including shock, smashing against rocks after plummeting, becoming wet for a long time, and scorching in a hot fire. Would creating a glider black box lead to usage mandates?

Yes, please log GPS 1/second or faster if possible.

I don't use PowerFlarm because almost all of my close calls were with powered civilian an military aircraft, and would have done no good. We need a truly universal solution.

Wit, HZ.

Just to be clear, the FFVV (now FFVP) never mandated anything. It is asked for any pilot to be responsible and use Flarm to be visible to other pilots when flying the Alps. It is therefore common practice to use this tool and nobody in a sane condition would fly there without it. Like having anti-collision decals on your glider to be more visible against a snow cap for instance. You won't be fined if you don't have it, you would just be a complete jerk.

When you are flying the Parcours with probably several dozens of gliders in the vicinity, it is a VERY useful tool to avoid crashing into one another and look for potential collision hazards in the right direction. It would require superhuman capabilities to do this without this tool.
Now, it doesn't stop people from being complete a-holes and charge against other gliders just to get in a thermal or avoid deviating from their 'best energy' routes. Not everybody is a gentleman.

Flying is a privilege that should be preserved, the safer it gets, the more enjoyable it will be. Cameras, Flarms, ADS-B, etc... it's up to every pilot to be responsible in which tool they use to make themselves (and thus the others) safe.