WBBFanWest

Thank you. From the article: Currently, the cockpit voice recorder allows investigators to listen to the cockpit. But without video, they cannot fully understand the actions of the pilots or make safety enhancements to prevent similar events from occurring in the future. They can, through the flight data recorder and voice recorders, "see" exactly what the pilot is doing or not doing as the case may be. Do you honestly think that looking at the pilot's face as he's doing something is going to provide that "aha" moment? "See that sardonic smile he has when he turns off the autopilot? Clearly he has murder on his mind..." or "Hey, the video shows that he really did forget to lower the wheels. I know that we had no voice confirmation that the wheels were down and that the flight data recorder shows that they were never lowered but with this video, now we know!" or "Oh hey, look, he picked his nose right before it happened. We'll need the FAA to immediately ban nose picking in the cockpit." Honestly, if some in the NTSB want them, if seems that they can't really justify them or they would already be there. The FAA doesn't fool around with safety stuff.

If we can also mandate the use of a unicycle in some way, I'm all for it!

News Axiom: If it bleeds, it leads.

Me? lol Sorry, clicked the wrong one...

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested. Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday. Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators. Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... We don't need satellite gps in real time of planes either because I didnt hear anyone on cnn demand it. Well as far as I know, all commercial planes use satellite gps. What I think you are trying to say is that a lot of planes do not use real time satellite monitoring. Some do, but not many because of the high cost of satellite communications. There are some groups that are advocating installing the monitoring equipment in all aircraft but not activating it unless the plane's systems detect an issue or the crew turn it on. The discussion continues.

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video...

What we are seeing today is the "We have to be seen doing something" syndrome, because the alternative is to admit the truth: there really is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening. So you have the "we need camera" and the "we need two people in the cockpit at all times" demands, neither of which actually do anything to fix this problem. But at least it looks like someone's doing something.

Ummm, because the purpose of the bus camera is to monitor the passengers and/or the interaction of the driver with them. Neither of those is the issue with a cockpit cam. Seeing that a lot of agencies use dash cams, I expect you'd think that these would be a good idea on planes too?

In this case, the voice recorder captured steady breathing and the sound of someone trying to break down the door. The data recorder captured input command to drop altitude. A camera would confirm beyond all doubt that there was no medical issue. Body language could tell them a lot. It's a tool. So what doubt is there? It seems to me that if they are prepared to make a pronouncement this quickly, there must be some pretty strong, to the point of overwhelming, evidence to support it. It also appears to me that, for the most part, the only people who are calling for cameras are the people that don't actually do the investigating. If air crash investigators and regulators really believed that cameras were important, they'd already be on the plane. I'm pretty sure that no investigator is going to want to have to depend on a device that can be rendered useless with a post-it.

And the point of the camera would be what exactly? It's not going to prevent anything from happening and it doesn't appear that the investigators are having too much trouble figuring things out using just the voice recorder and later when they confirm it with the flight data recorder.. Again, if someone's going to do this, all the pictures in the world will not change anything. Personally, I think that watching the last moments of terror before someone dies are something that no one should have to do unless there's a real good reason to have to do it. Don't see that reason here. What would be useful is being able to track aircraft the are outside radar coverage so we never have to have another Korean Air Flight 902 or Air France Flight 447

The reality is that if a pilot or co-pilot wants to do something like this, there is pretty much no way to stop it. That's life sadly. We want to believe that we can prevent stuff from happening, but a lot of the time, we just can't. The illusion of control...

Alright guys, in fairness, if you lived in Saskatchewan, wouldn't you desperately want to be somewhere else and then send pictures to all your friends back home, just to show them that not only have you escaped, but you've learned to operate a camera too?.

Each time I go to Alberta, I'm reminded that the only bad part about it is the Albertans...

Maher is what passes for a liberal in the US, but he is still obnoxious. It is is possible to make your point without coming across as an arrogant twit. Maher is what passes for a liberal in the US, but he is still obnoxious. It is is possible to make your point without coming across as an arrogant twit. His stance on political correctness is Big C Conservatism. No offence, but this makes no sense whatsoever. The phrase "big C Conservative" or "big L Liberal" is referring to someone belonging to a specific political party. Small c conservative is someone who holds a conservative ideology, completely different than belonging to the party. Maher is a classical liberal, which is usually called libertarian now. Ummm, libertarian<>liberal

I'll cut to the chase and tell you how the Viking series ends. They all end up in Minnesota and Gimli.

For those of you that are truly interested in educating yourselves about this isssue, I'd suggest this as a starting point: https://www.overdrive.com/media/966616/the-inconvenient-indian It's written to be more easily read than a lot of other books on the same topic, but it really does leave a lot of stuff out. Still, it is a good starting point for those who think that the residential school system was "a good idea, but poorly implemented" or have a "Pat indians on the head , treat them like children and tell them how wise valuable and interesting their old fables, traditions and culture are and beg them not to change a thing...." mentality.

To be so unapologetically ignorant about the steps taken in building this country isn't much better. Ignorant because I refuse to be a guilt-ridden white liberal and apologize for wanting to bring indians into modernity ? Well thank you for making sure that we understand who you are and what you believe. It will certainly color anything that I read from you in the future.

Anglicans and Presbyterians also ran schools. The churches were contracted by the government to provide this "service".

You know what,I'll take a stand and say residential schools were a not terrible idea that was just handled really poorly. Should a just assimilated everyone from the start then there'd be a lot less problems with reserves Clearly, you're not too familiar with the stated aim of the Residential Schools either. Their primary purpose was to eradicate First Nations culture, to get rid of "indians" once and for all. Explain to me how that can ever be "not a terrible idea"?Because assimilation is not a bad thing. Could have had just a whole bunch of Canadians rather than the government protected racism that currently exists. Signing treaties hundreds of years ago was an easy solution at the time but they have long lasting negative effects that manifest themselves in this day and age Ah yes, assimilation. Not sure how you assimilate a people that were seen as inferior in virtually every way possible. Assimilation was never the goal, because no one of that day would have ever considered First Nations people as equals, no matter how much education they had. They would simply become "better behaved savages". That's not assimilation, it's something very different.

Some, it would seem, don't understand what was in the treaties either. You might want to educate yourself a bit.

You know what,I'll take a stand and say residential schools were a not terrible idea that was just handled really poorly. Should a just assimilated everyone from the start then there'd be a lot less problems with reserves Clearly, you're not too familiar with the stated aim of the Residential Schools either. Their primary purpose was to eradicate First Nations culture, to get rid of "indians" once and for all. Explain to me how that can ever be "not a terrible idea"?

That is one of the most ignorant comments I've read on here so far, and I truly hope that it really was spoken out of ignorance. If not, shame on you sir. Shame.

Here's a thought. If you think "cowboy church" is silly, don't go. If you think that regular church is silly, don't go. But judge not...