As another FAA reauthorization bill makes its way through the legislature, the decades-old debate over cockpit video recorders has reared its head once again. While the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has had cockpit cameras on its “Most Wanted” list since 2003, Congress and the FAA still refuse to implement a mandate.

When the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced its version of the FAA reauthorization bill in June 2023—the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act (H.R.3935)—it included a provision that would require all aircraft flying under Part 121 rules to be equipped with both a cockpit voice recorder and a cockpit video recorder, each capable of recording at least 25 hours of data. Under that provision, airlines would have seven years to install crash-proof video recorders in their fleets, and the FAA would have three years to draft requirements for the devices.

By the time the bill made it through the full House in July, legislators had cut the language around video recorders. Rather, the amended bill calls only for cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders that would store at least 25 hours of data, whereas current regulations require just two hours to be stored. The full House of Representatives approved the amended bill on July 20 by a vote of 351 to 69.

Rules around cockpit video recording devices were absent from the Senate’s version of the FAA Reauthorization Act, which passed through the Committee for Commerce, Science, and Transportation in February. However, the committee maintained bipartisan agreement over the 25-hour rule for cockpit voice recorders.

In an industry that’s all about safety, it may come as a surprise that cockpit video recorders have been such a contentious subject. The NTSB claims the technology could help with accident investigations and prevent those same kinds of accidents from happening again in the future. Meanwhile, pilots maintain that video surveillance is an unnecessary invasion of privacy that could affect their job performance.

NTSB’s Futile Efforts

The NTSB first proposed cockpit video monitoring in 1989 after investigating an incident at Kansas City International Airport (KMCI) in which the flight crew of a Boeing 737 commenced a premature descent on an instrument approach and struck some electrical cables 7,000 feet short of the runway. They executed a missed approach and landed at a nearby airport with no injuries reported. Because the airplane flew for another hour after the incident, cockpit voice records were overwritten and lost. Following that investigation, the NTSB called for “longer-playing CVRs, which can record cockpit sounds for as long as two hours” in addition to “long-playing video recorders.”

At the time, the equipment needed to capture and store video footage was much bigger, heavier, and more expensive than it is today, and the NTSB’s proposal was quickly dismissed as technically and economically infeasible. However, with recent advances in video technology, that argument has become all but obsolete. Cameras and data storage devices have gotten smaller, lighter, and more affordable. Mandatory cockpit voice recorders now store at least two hours worth of data, and the FAA recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to increase the minimum to 25 hours. Yet cockpit video mandates remain elusive.

Union Pressure

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the world’s largest union of airline pilots, has vehemently opposed efforts to mandate video surveillance. The association also holds significant lobbying power in Congress.

In a statement issued nearly 20 years ago, union representatives claimed that video footage “would add virtually nothing of real value to the investigative process, and could, due to its subjective nature, lead investigators down the wrong path.” It argued that digital flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders already provide sufficient information for accident investigations and that those devices are “far more useful” than cameras.

For example, the ALPA says, “If an image shows a pilot’s hand moving toward a switch or moving his or her leg, that does not prove that he/she activated that switch or made an input to the rudder, whereas the DFDR will show the exact state of each switch, the exact amount of rudder input.”

The union has also expressed concerns about pilot privacy and data security. Although many countries have laws that restrict access to cockpit voice recordings, transcripts are often released during investigations, and tapes used as evidence in court proceedings become a matter of public record. “Tort lawyers will find video recordings to be an irresistible gimmick to increase damage claims for pain and suffering and for alleged negligence,” the ALPA argued.

Furthermore, cockpit voice recordings have been acquired and distributed by media outlets, despite regulations that prohibit the public release of such tapes. After the 1995 crash of American Airlines flight 965 in Cali, Colombia, the voice recorder tape was leaked to the media and aired live on “Dateline: NBC.” The pilots’ families heard their loved ones’ final moments on television. If that were to happen with video footage of a fatal accident, the consequences could be even worse. In ALPA’s statement, an unnamed pilot was quoted saying, “I don’t want my spouse and children and grandchildren and a million strangers to be able to watch me die.”

Industry Prefers Proactive Solutions

While the NTSB asserts that cockpit video recorders will aid in accident investigations, industry organizations have argued that the investigative agency’s proposed mandate would not proactively save lives and could only serve to boost the NTSB’s clearance rate, as it may increase the likelihood that it will crack tough cases.

For example, the trade association Airlines for America has cautioned that the aviation industry should focus on proactive solutions to reduce the chances of an accident, rather than reactive strategies designed to examine the cause of the crash.

“We don’t think that the video recorder, like the voice recorder and flight data recorder before it, is always going to provide the ‘golden nugget’ that solves the mystery; and yet, some believe that to be the case,” Robert Frenzel, who served as the organization’s senior v-p of safety and operations, testified before the Senate during a hearing on the deadly EgyptAir Flight 990 crash of 1999. Frenzel has since joined the FAA as a senior attorney and manager of the agency’s operations law branch. 

The cause of the EgyptAir crash is still unclear, but the NTSB determined from flight recorder data that it resulted from the intentional inputs of the relief first officer on the flight. Pilot suicide has been widely speculated to be the cause, although many people disputed that, suggesting that a mechanical failure instead was to blame.

Video footage could have potentially settled the EgyptAir debate—but that’s not guaranteed. And even if the cause was confirmed to be pilot suicide, how will having that video footage prevent a similar tragedy from happening again? In this case, proactive programs to support pilots’ mental health might be more beneficial than video footage confirming that a pilot was unwell after it was already too late.

The Observer Effect

Some have also argued that the presence of a video surveillance system in the cockpit could have adverse effects on pilot performance, potentially even making aviation less safe. The feeling that “Big Brother is always watching” can trigger what’s known as the “observer effect,” a psychological phenomenon in which people modify their behavior when they know they are being observed. It’s also a term used in quantum physics to describe how the act of observing a system can fundamentally alter its state.

While psychology research has found that productivity among industrial workers increases when employees become aware of an observer, the same isn’t necessarily true for pilots. Video surveillance may deter pilots from breaking rules, but it may also cause pilots to second-guess themselves, hindering their ability to make quick decisions when stakes are high. Exactly how a camera could affect pilot behavior is not yet well understood, though, as no such studies have focused on professional pilots.

Speaking at the EgyptAir hearing, then-Rep. John Cooksey (R-Louisiana) said, “I think air safety and the safety of the flying public is more important than privacy;” however, “there is also a threat that the airlines could use this video recording against pilots, and I think the pilots could become more focused on, you know, looking good.”

Video Options Already Available

While lawmakers continue to kick around the idea of a cockpit video requirement, equipment manufacturers aren’t waiting for mandates to bring the technology to market for those who wish to use it. Several airlines and aircraft manufacturers have already decided to begin using the video cameras on their own accord.

For example, Airbus Helicopters has made the Appareo Vision 1000 cockpit imaging and flight data monitoring system standard in multiple helicopter models. Thales also offers a cockpit video and avionics digital recording system for Hawk aircraft. Eye in the Sky is another company that offers video, audio, and data recording devices for helicopters. Company founder Louisa Patterson said she invented the small $4,500 device after her son was killed in a helicopter accident and investigators could not determine the cause.