The Unknown Poster

Privacy concerns is a very weak argument for Several obviously reasons. They ready have their voices and control commands recorded for such reasons. They are at work, not home. They are not alone in private. The video would only be used to accident investigation.

(CNN)Latest developments: • 5:32 p.m. ET: Transponder data shows that the autopilot on Germanwings Flight 9525 was reprogrammed by someone in the cockpit to change the plane's altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, according to Flightradar24, a website that tracks aviation data. • 5:14 p.m. ET: Police searched Germanwings Flight 9525 co-pilot Andreas Lubitz's apartment in Dusseldorf, Germany, on Thursday, the city's police spokesman said in televised comments. A team of five investigators went "through the apartment looking for clues as to what the co-pilot's motivation might have been, if he did indeed bring the plane down," police spokesman Markus Niesczery said.

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.

Why would a pilot cover a camera when experiencing a major aircraft malfunction? He wouldn't. End of story.

This is flat wrong. How would a camera stop this? It wouldnt. No one is suggesting that. A camera, like a voice and data recorder gives us a picture of what happened AFTER THE FACT. Two people in the cockpit MIGHT help but quite honestly, not really. Look at AirEgypt which I have references several times. A pilot would have to physically overwhelm and subdue the co-pilot who's efforts would be in pushing, pulling, turning etc to crash the plane, all in a very tight area. VERY difficult to stop a pilot from crashing a plane if thats what he wants to do. The idea that one pilot should never be allowed to leave the flight deck is also somewhat ridiculous. At this point, there is a far greater chance of some sort of malfunction occuring than a pilot deliberately crashing and yet pilots are allowed to leave the flight deck to use the bathroom or whatever reason. if they dont require both pilots remain in the flight deck for the incidents that happen more frequently, why should they require it for the incidents that almost never happen? The key is knowing beyond all doubt what happened.

Do you really think there is no method to protect a camera from being covered up? I suppose a pilot could carry a can of spray paint with him but it's doubtful. it's just another tool. Everyone thinks they should have better tracking but you could use the same argument and say "well if they really wanted it, it would be done". Change happens slowly. Also, in regards to covering the camera, pilots deliberately crashing the plane is still very rare. So even if in those rare cases, the pilot covers the camera, that action in itself tells part of the story. In the majority of crashes there would be no cause for covering the camera and thus the information gleaned would be useful. Egypt Air was a case of one pilot crashing the plane but the outcome is still disputed. Even though the data recorder shows contrary flight control inputs Egypt explains it away as a malfunction. A camera would have shown exactly what the pilots were doing physically. Remember, modern aircraft are fly-by-wire. In fact, the Airbus in question this week doesnt even have a steering column anymore. Thats why they refer to the co-pilot as "pushing the button" to descend. When they make inputs, it's telling a computer to effect the air craft, it's not direct control anymore. In that case you could potentially have doubt about the computer responding to what the pilot is commanding. If the data recorder records what the computer does but the pilot think he's commanding something different, unless he vocalizes that for the voice recorder, there is nothing to SHOW us what actually it taking place on a flight deck.

if you watch Mayday there are many cases where investigators use the voice and data to guess at what the pilot was doing, or how he was reacting.

I wondered this on these boards a little while ago about whether any of Myers, Buff or Trouba could play the left side. I would think Buff is most likely as he played both wings.

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.

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless. Thats not even close to what I wrote though is it? I dont do a job that requires a camera on me at my desk. But one aspect of my job requires handling of large amounts of money and in that room there is a camera on me. And it is monitored by security. I dont believe airlines can pull the voice recorders and listen to them anytime they want to to discipline the pilots. This would be the same thing. Cameras there for the safety of the crew and passengers to be reviewed in the event of an incident. And if it was set up the same as the flight recorders, it couldnt even be used to review something that happened mid-flight since it only records the final 30 minutes. it's designed to help investigators when there is a major crash. Ask investigators if they'd love to be able to plug in to a lap top and immediately hear AND see what happened during the final moments of the plane. It's a no brainer, really. Well i asked if you would be ok with a camera focused on you all day at work and then you answered me about them having acsess to your comp and being able to see what you see. Im not arguing it with you im just saying what im hearing on CNN and pilots seem to say no. And like i said they could just cover it up. How do you stop that? You also mentioned airlines being able to see it at any time. Im saying that's an easy solution since they cant access the voice recorder at any time as is. Have the camera feeding the recorder. Last 30-120 minutes of action and thats it. Im sure there is some way in the security industry to make a camera resistant to being covered. I guess. I just really dont see how it helps anything. Having a camera is not going to stop anything from happening or detour anyone from crashing a plane if thats what they are set out to do. If they are going to spend billions on something it should be on something better then that. IMO. My question would be this... If this plane had a camera.... what would you learn from watching? They already know what the guy did, they dont know why he did it and he didnt talk. So what would a camera tell anyone? By that logic though, why do we have voice and data recorders? They dont stop anyone from crashing a plane if they really want to. But they do help tell us what happened and why. A camera wouldnt just be valuable in cases of pilot action. In cases of malfunction it can still show what the pilots were doing, how they reacted non-verbally to the situation and each other, body language, facial expressions. This isnt a matter of "we never needed it before", its that technology didnt catch up. Now there is no excuse.

I thought the year only gets burned if he plays 10+ games? otherwise why would you burn a full year for 8 games?

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless. Thats not even close to what I wrote though is it? I dont do a job that requires a camera on me at my desk. But one aspect of my job requires handling of large amounts of money and in that room there is a camera on me. And it is monitored by security. I dont believe airlines can pull the voice recorders and listen to them anytime they want to to discipline the pilots. This would be the same thing. Cameras there for the safety of the crew and passengers to be reviewed in the event of an incident. And if it was set up the same as the flight recorders, it couldnt even be used to review something that happened mid-flight since it only records the final 30 minutes. it's designed to help investigators when there is a major crash. Ask investigators if they'd love to be able to plug in to a lap top and immediately hear AND see what happened during the final moments of the plane. It's a no brainer, really. Well i asked if you would be ok with a camera focused on you all day at work and then you answered me about them having acsess to your comp and being able to see what you see. Im not arguing it with you im just saying what im hearing on CNN and pilots seem to say no. And like i said they could just cover it up. How do you stop that? You also mentioned airlines being able to see it at any time. Im saying that's an easy solution since they cant access the voice recorder at any time as is. Have the camera feeding the recorder. Last 30-120 minutes of action and thats it. Im sure there is some way in the security industry to make a camera resistant to being covered.

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless. Thats not even close to what I wrote though is it? I dont do a job that requires a camera on me at my desk. But one aspect of my job requires handling of large amounts of money and in that room there is a camera on me. And it is monitored by security. I dont believe airlines can pull the voice recorders and listen to them anytime they want to to discipline the pilots. This would be the same thing. Cameras there for the safety of the crew and passengers to be reviewed in the event of an incident. And if it was set up the same as the flight recorders, it couldnt even be used to review something that happened mid-flight since it only records the final 30 minutes. it's designed to help investigators when there is a major crash. Ask investigators if they'd love to be able to plug in to a lap top and immediately hear AND see what happened during the final moments of the plane. It's a no brainer, really.

He may not play. Like Trouba when he signed his ELC at the end of the season, if i recall correctly.

And Little, Perrault (!), Chiarot could be back within the next two games.

if they want to be rid of Slater, they better hope Scheif and Lowry start working on their face off percentage.

If you ask every person in retail, banks etc they will say nah I dont want to be watched. Its not up to the inidividual. Go back a few decades before voice recorders and ask pilots if they want every word they say to be recorded...they'd have said no. Now it's a given. And like i said, this isnt for disciplinary reasons. The voice recorder only records 30 minutes, same would be with the video (though there is thought to increasing this to two hours and/or having wireless transmission). Every tool helps. Absolutely there should be cameras on flight decks.

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable.

One addition I'd like to see is cameras installed in the flightdeck (maybe the cabin as well) that feed into the recorders. Surely in this day and age they can do that. Its one thing to hear whats going on, but seeing it would help as well and leave no question as to what the pilots are doing.

Here is the issue everyone has to keep in mind. And it's sort of a smaller point made in the lawsuit - they are suggesting the NHL KNEW the risks at a time when the players didnt and deliberately withheld that information/medical evidence etc from the players. I believe this was the crux of the NFL Player's lawsuit and why it was settled because there WAS evidence the NFL withheld evidence. If you go back 20 years, its reasonable that both the players and the league had no idea about concussions, how often they can happen, what you should do about it and ofcourse, CTE. The issue will be, when did the NHL become aware of some of these issues and what did they do to protect their players. I feel for these guys though. Playing at a time when millionaires werent routine and decades later they are suffering from the effects of simply playing the game and dont have the financial ability to pay the advanced medical costs to treat their conditions. Players would have taken repeated head shots and told to get back out there. No quiet rooms. No MRI's. No concussion protocol. No million dollar contracts. No million dollar insurance policies. Regardless of legal obligation, i'd like to think the leage AND the PA would want to take care of their alumni. If every member of the PA chipped in a few bucks and the league did too, they could help these guys. Its not as simple as "knowing the risks" because knowing you could hurt is different from knowing you could be essentially fine today but 20 years from now you might be suffering dementia from hockey. Look at the NFL player that just retired rather then risk his future health. That's knowing the risk. These guys didnt know the risk of CTE. They did know the risk of injury and my only caveat is that if the league and players were both as in the dark, then so be it.

Could he be our 4th line centre next season or will he spend some time seasoning with the Moose? If I recall correctly, when Lawless was asked which prospect had the best chance of playing on the big club next season he replied Andrew Copp. He looks like he's got the size. If he can make the Jets I'd love the fact that two of our starting centers would have been drafted in later rounds (3rd/4th). Good scouting.

• 8:39 a.m.: Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin said he was not thinking of the Germanwings crash as a suicide, explaining, "When you are responsible for 150 people, I don't call it a suicide." • 8:39: a.m.: The bodies of the victims won't be released to families until all the DNA identification work has been done, the prosecutor said. • 8:20 a.m.: As of now, there's "nothing to allow us to say that it was a terrorist attack," Robin said. • 8:20 a.m.: Screaming could be heard on the audio recording only in the last few minutes, and death was instantaneous for those on board when the plane crashed, he said. • 8:20 a.m.: The name of the co-pilot was Andreas Lubitz, and he was 28 years old, Robin said.

I was thinking this too but really if the guy beside you wants to crash the plane what can you really do to stop him. You'd have to physically over-power and subdue him while he's inputting negative commands. There was a FedEx incident years ago where an employee tagging along attacked both pilots, injuring them severely. One pilot managed to engage in a prolonged fight with the attacker while the other, also seriously injured, was able to land the plane. It only worked because it was 2 on 1.

EgyptAir Flight 990 had this happen. Both pilots were at the controls. Captain commanding nose up and co-pilot commanding nose down causing a split elevator condition that downed the craft. How does one prevent a pilot who's determined to crash a plane from doing so? Just a horrible development. I can't help but think of MH370 and one of the theories being an intentional act by a flight crew member. It was considered a long shot because it's a rare thing but maybe not so much. What kind of coward takes out 149 other people with him?

Practically unthinkable.