Are flight deck cameras finally on the horizon after the Air India crash?
July 20, 2025
The recent Air India crash in Ahmedabad has reignited a long-standing debate: should commercial aircraft be equipped with cockpit video cameras?
While flight data recorders (FDRs) and cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) are already a standard feature on modern aircraft, calls for video monitoring inside flight decks have resurfaced as investigators seek a clearer picture of what occurred in the crucial moments before the crash.
Proponents argue that video footage could provide vital context often missing from audio and data recordings.
The visual behaviour of pilots – such as confusion, distraction, or failure to respond to cockpit alerts – can be critical in understanding incidents.
Air India puts issue of flight deck cameras in the spotlight
One notable post-Air India crash intervention has come from International Air Transport Association (IATA) chief Willie Walsh, who said CIRs would give investigators useful additional information.
In the case of the Air India crash, preliminary findings suggest a possibility that crew actions may have played a role.
With Cockpit Image Recorders (CIR), investigators might have a clearer understanding of what went wrong, who took what actions, and why.
Despite this, progress toward mandating cockpit cameras has been slow.
Pilot unions and privacy advocates have consistently raised concerns over misuse of footage, fears of surveillance overreach, and the potential erosion of trust between flight crews and airlines.
Many pilots argue that existing recorders already provide sufficient insight for safety investigations, and that video monitoring could be exploited for disciplinary rather than safety purposes.
Pilots groups oppose the move
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents more than 79,000 pilots at 42 US and Canadian airlines, has long argued against such a move.
“While on the surface these may appear to be reasonable and justifiable claims, closer examination proves otherwise,” ALPA says, in a note released prior to the Air India crash.
“Current technology already provides investigators with the tools they need to determine the causes of airline accidents.
“The digital flight data recorder (DFDR) can record hundreds of parameters ranging from basic values such as altitude and speed, to details such as rudder pedal position, the position of every switch, and even the onset of smoke alarms in the lavatory.
“The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) provides an audible recording of voices, radio transmissions, and sounds in the cockpit.”
The advocacy group adds: “Investigators have a wide array of analytical techniques to tease information out of forensic evidence from the wreckage and other sources.
“While any accident will leave unresolved questions, the fact is that it is extremely rare for investigators not to be able to reach the findings and conclusions necessary to determine the cause of an accident.
“Video imaging would add virtually nothing of real value to the investigative process, and could, due to its subjective nature, actually lead investigators down the wrong path.”
How will regulators react?
Regulators have been cautious. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have discussed the concept for years, but no binding requirements have emerged.
IATA’s Walsh said earlier in July that CIRs would fit within the broader trend within the aviation, which “has always been very open in sharing information”.
He added: “Based on what little we know now, it’s quite possible that a video recording, in addition to the voice recording, would significantly assist the investigators in conducting that investigation on the issue of mental health.”
Proponents have also historically included the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which argues that CIRs would benefit accident investigations and thereby improve safety.
“Commercial airliners are required to have only flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders, commonly called “black boxes”, but the NTSB has long called for cockpit image recorders, as well,” the organisation says.
It argues that such video would have been helpful in determining flight crew actions in a number of crashes in recent years, including ValuJet Flight 592, SilkAir Flight 185, Swissair Flight 111, and EgyptAir Flight 990.
In each, the NTSB says there was a “lack of information regarding crewmember actions and the flight deck environment”.
Video footage was used by Australian investigators examining a Robinson R66 helicopter crash in 2023.
They found the pilot was “occupied with non-flying related tasks … specifically, mobile phone use and the consumption of food and beverages”, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
The NTSB is urging the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require that all newly manufactured non-experimental, non-restricted-category turbine-powered aircraft be equipped with crash-resistant flight recorder systems, including CIRs that provide a clear view of the flight deck. It is also calling for CIRs to be retrofitted on existing airframes.
As the Air India investigation unfolds, pressure is growing for regulatory change. While the debate over cockpit cameras is far from resolved, the latest crash may serve as the tipping point in a long-delayed conversation over balancing safety, transparency and privacy in commercial aviation.
