Originally published at: Without Video, We'll Never Really Know - AVweb
Will the real cause of the crash of Air India 171 ever be known?
Having a video camera in the cockpit would not help in a case like this since if it was suicide by pilot the perpetrator would pull the circuit breaker for the video system.
Almost willing to bet, Boeing with its current PR issues, would love to see cameras, if simply for the convenience of screaming pilot error/ suicide. And any and all monitoring would be fought tooth to nail by those on the other side.
The question as to why the fuel cutoff was even possible without further acknowledgement in the most critical phase of the flight, is puzzling.
From previous comments I gather, that there appears to be no scenario during which the airplane could shut these two switches off by itself (reboot, electronic error/ fault, parameter mismatch). Additionally, a fuel cut off switch can be disabled unless the power lever is on idle or the aircraft is at altitude with sufficient speed.
There is a FADEC operational that basically watches countless parameters and when the pilots request a certain power, FADEC decides by itself whats reasonable, safe, economic and what is not. One may hope, that both fuel cut off switches being moved to off, at close to max power in T/O config, is considered bit unreasonable?
Every PC/ Laptop/ Tablet confirms a users actions by asking the user to acknowledge a shutdown. Even a forced shutdown requires prolonged pushing of the powerbutton. This way, the act of killing the system is deliberate and on purpose. Nobody will be able to claim this happened âby accidentâ.
The preliminary accident report smells on the possibility of switches missing the pull up and out of detent feature. There was a SAIB which Air India chose to ignore, yet the panel was replaced twice for unknown reasons.
My question centers on the various other failsafe systems actively preventing catastrophic outcomes, IOW, the computers checking for plausibility prior to executing input. Why not put a additional guard up against deliberate or accidental fuel cut-off?
Of course, its not fair to expect suicidal nutcases occupying the pointy end of a mass transportation device, but maybe times are changing and there is a need for more automation, not lessâŚ
So, you canât imagine a scenario where the pilot does not have access to that breaker? How many pilots have âpulled the circuit breakerâ on the CVR or FDR?
Given the poor stewardship of CVR recordings or various local FOI regulations Iâd certainly hate the thought of a clip showing me being squashed circulating on social media.
As for reasonable, the Embraer E-Jets wonât react to the engine shut-off switch if the thrust lever isnât in idle.
Iâd assume further investigations to reveal whether one pilot might have had a motive / medical condition that could explain a suicidal action. Even with a video thereâd be no way to tell us why he moved those switches.
Agree with the cameras, itâs just a matter of time. There will be an acceptable solution, Iâm sure. The next generation of pilots will accept it as part of the job. Our neighborhood bus has them. Trains have them. Monitored flight is here to stay. Pilots whined at FOQA, now itâs common and accepted. Oh and BTW, OK to use your own Go-Pro, apparently.
On another subject, there is not one single switch in such a cockpit that âcosts less than $100â. Several thousands, most likely. Iâm used to corporate jet part prices and they are mind blowing, with every order.
but if I can afford a decent action camera setup to capture my many foibles in lurching around in the 140, United, Delta and American can spring a few bucks for something similar.
Itâs always tempting to make fiscal decisions when itâs other peopleâs moneyâpoliticians are especially good at that. I would agree with the sentiment expressed here if we were talking about the cost of your average GoPro camera or something similar. Thatâs not what weâre talking about here. Whatever system you install would have to be hardened to survive a crash, and since it would be installed on a certified aircraft it would have to be certified by the FAA. For a preview of THAT process just talk to any of the plethora of companies reported on here at AvWeb.com trying to get FAA-certification for the products theyâd like to sell.
Even after getting one certified (who would pay for that?) airlines would still have to pay for the devices, aircraft modifications, installation, and testing. I found an inexpensive CVR after a brief Google search that sells for $5K. Figure double that for aircraft mods and installation, and weâre up to $15K per. With a fleet of over 1000 aircraft, thatâs $15 million to equip United Airlinesâ fleet, and thatâs not even counting device development and certification costs.
If the forces experienced at rotation are enough to knock these switches into the off position, one would expect a mx history showing the same (bumpy taxiway etc). Hopefully digging into Air Indiaâs records on this aircraft will show something of this nature versus the darker picture Iâve imagined.
If a pilot is committing suicide why would he even care about being filmed? Sure, letâs put video cameras in the cockpit but the ultimate solution will be totally automated airplanes. Modern airliners are so reliable and the accident rate so low, that most of what is left is pilot-related. I will grieve the day as much as anyone but there is no denying that automated aircraft will ultimately be safer that those flown by human pilots.
Snooze cam - just like ADSB that was supposed to be only used for safety, one can imagine all sorts of mission creep for such a âsnooze camâ. Maybe even add a passenger channel so the passengers can have a cockpit view from the back rows.
We can beat around the bush on mental health, automation or the lack of automation.
A fact remains, that todays airliners are marvelous machines stuffed with thinking, sensing and ultimately deciding electronics. When the plane senses a stall, it pushes the nose down. When FADEC thinks 91% power is enough, 91% power is what you get.
Heck, SAFE technology enables most beginners in the RC world to keep and play with their toys a second time. The plane will do what it can to rescue itself. Most of them will RTH and many will even land by themselves.
But we keep telling the public, that disallowing a fuel cutoff to both engines during the beginning phase of a departure is OUTRAGEOUS in a flying computer screen with wings, carrying hundreds of people.
We have had 100+ years to figure out that we just can not idiot-proof everything, because the answer will just be a bigger idiot.
In the end, even if there was a deliberate act to kill those engines, the plane should and could have rejected it, due to its configuration.
As to the investigation, the CVR audio when properly analyzed will reveal if the switches were moved, they make a small but distinct click. The NTSB audio people are very good at analyzing minute details of CVR audio.
As to idiot proofing airplanes, I am reminded when the Piper Arrow came out and Flying magazine crowed it would take a âspecial idiotâ to land an Arrow gear up. It only took three weeks for that special idiot to be found.
We really do not âneed to knowâ everything.
If the switches were off then the plane goes down.
Beyond that reality, all the rest will always be speculation.
As a retired airline pilot I am 100% TOTALLY AINâT NO WAY I WANT A CAMERA! As someone said âI would find the CB (they would wire it another way) and pull itâ. It is only wanted by those who donât truly understand the operations involved. I am old enough to remember the hubbub over Voice RecordersâŚâOh but Captain, we totally can ensure you that the recordings will NEVER ever be made publicâŚhow long did that last?â I do not want my familyâs last contact with me being a voice recording of the crash or a video of my plane/body being ripped to shredsâŚdonât tell me it wonât be made public. YOU put a camera in your car, office, house, bathroom, bedroom ⌠you name itâŚPrivacy is gone. Was this one suicide? Donât know and there is nothing anyone can do in that situation to stop it. The Egypt Air dive into the ocean, the German Wings dive into the mountainsâŚnothing can be done to stop those. This suggestion is being made by people that are totally in the dark as to human nature. PS. That is why I do not allow videoing in my cockpit now.
Iâm just trying to figure out what a âPart 21 airlinerâ is. And a few other things in there as well.
Or maybe Russ needs to sit back and think a while after heâs written something before he hits âSENDâ.
From Russ:
Yep, I do need to do that and thought I had. What else, Ron. Need to fix them.
With the reading and comprehension issues these days, a Part 21 airline is basically a Part 121 airline without the 1. 
Maybe one switch could fail. But not both within .1 second of each other. The DFDR confirms that both switches were selected off. The CVR will clarify who asked the question âWhyâŚâ And we go from there. Cameras in the cockpit? Sure, why not a YouTube live event for every flight? Iâll admit cameras would make a nice place to hang my hat.
Cockpit cameras can improve discipline when used for safety. But a camera is not enough. I support cockpit video, an aural warning, and a panel-mounted fuel cutoff RUNâCUTOFF annunciator. Retrofit the fleet, they should have been standard instrumentation from day one.
@jjbaker. Well said, Jason. You clearly explained what many missed. Thereâs no reason a modern FADEC-managed system should accept both fuel cutoff switches moving to OFF during high-power takeoff. Your point about the lack of detents or confirmation logic was spot on. If the aircraft questioned inputs the way you do, it might have stopped an inappropriate switch positionâand the loss of 260 souls. For want of a nailâŚ
TWO things definitively contradict the premises made in that preposterous âwhat ifâ article: 1) One of the two pilots VISUALLY confirmed the movement to the switches and asked the other why he moved them. 2) The two switches after being SEQUENTIALLY turned to cutoff from the run position were then also SEQUENTIALLY returned from the cutoff to the run position; multiple mechanical joints acting in timed sequenceâŚjust TWICE and ONLY TWICE for a total of FOUR sequential actions? Youâd really have to be an idiot to NOT KNOW⌠Also, the rotation G premise is nullified by the change in switch position being sensed 4 seconds after rotation. So, WE know what happened, for all but less than 1% who are just fantasizers, that a pilot moved those switches. For me it was likely the one who was next stuck with taking care of a shutin for the rest of his life, but either way.