Would a CVR really add anything useful in terms of light GA accident investigation?
I don’t know the stats, so this is a massive generalisation, but nonetheless, this is my view.
No. It seems most GA incidents can be attributed to something that post investigation can be taken as a reasonable conclusion. Lack of fuel, ice, flight into terrain, aerobatics too low or gone wrong. Now in some cases, maybe all, pilot error or at least a pilot decision on how to handle an issue is somewhat attributed to the successful ending of a dilemma. But if that pilot is on his own, or even with non-pilot passengers, I can imagine most phrases are muttered swear words and not a huge amount might come from a CVR. And your older type PA28 C172 etc. doesn’t have the capacity to be backdated to produce any meaningful FDR stats.
Now in an complex multi-crew machine, there will be conversations worth recording, as there will likely be a dialogue, and two-way discussion or decision making about interpretation of warning, discussions about options, read out aloud evidence of having worked through the appropriate emergency check list and so on. This wont happen in a SEP GA. Arguably it might happen more in a MEP or perhaps even a commercial flight in a SR22 type machine (thinking ferry flights here, not burger runs).
I am not against it someone wants to spend the cash or doing some retrofitting, but cant see any significant benefit in enforcing anything beyond on-board locator beacons.
What surprises me is that handheld GPSs record your 3D track, usually as a default setting (my G496 seems to do it all by itself, all the time, and it holds about a year’s flying) but panel mount GPSs don’t seem to record anything (as far as is documented, or as far as any accident reports have revealed).
On the face of it, recording everything imaginable would be in the manufacturer’s interest, as a defence in litigation. But then maybe not. Today’s big companies are advised to shred everything after 1 or 2 years, as this is a preferred position to be in case of litigation (no evidence of bad or dodgy decisions is preserved). So maybe not logging anything is intentional.
Logging voice as an mp3, inside the intercom (a.k.a. “audio panel”) would be technically trivial but it would be destroyed in a fire. Making a fireproof device, suitably mounted too, would really jack up the cost, way beyond the Mode S / ELT kind of area.
…Making a fireproof device…
All that needs to be protected from fire and water would be the memory card. A little metal box with some insulation, not bigger than a mobile phone, should do the job.
The bottom line however is that the USA is not going to go for this, which means nobody is going to be making it in any volume.
The bottom line however is that the USA is not going to go for this…
Why not? They brought us the FDR and CVR for aircraft above 5,7 tons as well. Let’s wait and see, after all they have been recording all our cellphone conversations and E-Mail exchanges since many years, without even telling us…
Aircraft above 5.7 T are not light aircraft. The original article said light GA aircraft (which in pretty much everyone’s view means small single engine aircraft and light twins). EASA mandating this is just barmy. Sure you might be able to learn the cause of some accidents but if you look at the accident reports the vast majority of GA accidents are repeats of the usual categories of crashes that have been going on for years, and a CVR (certified, and at enormous cost to the aircraft owner) won’t really do much to tell us more than what we already know and will almost certainly be taken advantage of to be used in evidence against a pilot for other things.
I am not against it someone wants to spend the cash or doing some retrofitting, but cant see any significant benefit in enforcing anything beyond on-board locator beacons.
I used to have more or less the same view, but that view recently changed.
We had a “mishap” by one of the pilots that flies for a charity that I volunteer for. No damage, no injuries to anything other than pride. But it did cause a 737 to go around, and another one had to wait a few extra minutes at the hold.
Not only the authorities were interested in what had happened, but we were too. By coincidence, this flight had a GoPro camera in the cockpit, making a video of both the pilot and his passenger. We also had one of these intercom adapter cables so we had most of the audio. (We did not have the bits where the avionics were switched off, obviously, as the intercom was not working at that time. And as it turned out, those bits would have been helpful too.)
The video was very, very enlightening. It gave us far more insight in what happened on board than from what we had gotten from the pilot and from ATC. And in retrospect, we’ve had a few more “mishaps” in the past where it’s one word against the other, and an audio or preferably video recording would have been very helpful to find out what really happened.
So particularly when whatever happened was the result of pilot error (still the majority of incidents, AFAIK), a CVR or better yet, some sort of video recording, will give you a much better answer to the question “What the xxxx was he thinking?”
The bottom line however is that the USA is not going to go for this
The FAA has allready regulations in force for these “light aircraft” to carry an CVR. It is about multi engine turbine aircraft below 5700 kg “light aircraft” which are used for commercial passenger transport for six passengers or more.
EASA’s proposal is to do this also for EASA multi engine turbine aircraft below 5700 kg “light aircraft” which fly under an AOC for commercial passenger transport for 9 passengers or more.
The proposed EASA CVR requirements, nor the active FAA CVR requirements are not applicable for non commercial aircraft below 5700 kg, AND not for any piston powered aircraft under EASA or FAA control!?
Why bash EASA? Why always suggest FAA is ALWAYS better? If comparing these two, please keep it fair.
Aircraft above 5.7 T are not light aircraft. The original article said light GA aircraft (which in pretty much everyone’s view means small single engine aircraft and light twins). EASA mandating this is just barmy.
It is about the upper end of light aircraft, depending on configuration a <5700 kg MTOW Beechcraft King Air 200 could be an example. No piston powered aircraft, no single engine turbine, no non AOC aircraft.
