
Uncertainty is a painful thing, and in the context of accident investigations, it can be dangerous. For decades, aviation experts have debated whether cockpit video recorders should be required on commercial aircraft. The disagreement remains unresolved.
Currently, commercial aircraft are equipped with two “black boxes” that record flight information: the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). These recorders assist investigators in determining the events surrounding an accident. The FDR records parameters such as altitude and speed, while the CVR captures radio transmissions, pilots’ voices, and other cockpit sounds. Following an accident, these recorders are recovered and analyzed by the NTSB to help determine the probable cause of an accident. Commercial aircraft are required to be equipped with both devices.
While there are tools in place to record flight data and cockpit audio, there is currently no requirement for cockpit video recording. Whether video recorders should be mandated remains one of aviation’s most debated safety questions.
Cockpit video monitoring was first proposed by the NTSB following an investigation of a 1989 incident at Kansas City International Airport, when a Boeing 737 descended prematurely and struck electrical cables. In its report, the NTSB recommended the use of long-duration cockpit video recorders, writing “[a]lthough worthwhile information has been recovered from CVRs and sophisticated DFDRs, in several investigations the use of video technology might have complemented data supplied by those recorders and provided valuable additional information to accident investigators."
While this recommendation launched an important discussion, the proposal was not particularly practical at the time. Video equipment in 1989 was large, heavy, and expensive, making widespread implementation unrealistic, and thus the proposal was rejected. Today, however, recording technology has become significantly smaller, more reliable, and far more affordable. The NTSB has maintained its position that cockpit video recorders should be required aboard commercial aircraft.
On October 31, 1999, EgyptAir Flight 990 departed New York for Cairo. Shortly after takeoff, the Boeing 767 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 217 people on board. Following its investigation, the NTSB concluded that the crash resulted from the actions of the copilot while the captain was absent from the cockpit.
This probable cause conclusion relied heavily on information recovered from the FDR and CVR. According to the data, the copilot disconnected the autopilot while the captain was out of the cockpit, repeatedly stated, “I rely on God,” and continued making control inputs after the captain returned, resulting in the aircraft pitching nose-down and crashing into the ocean. The NTSB said they found no evidence of mechanical failure and concluded that the accident resulted from the copilot’s flight control inputs.
Egyptian authorities strongly disputed that conclusion, arguing that U.S. investigators relied on speculation to support a predetermined theory while ignoring the cultural context of the phrase “I rely on God,” which they argued is not associated with evil deeds. Without cockpit video, it remains unclear whether there was a physical struggle, if the engine controls were manipulated, and what truly occurred during the final moments of the flight. While a video may not have fully resolved the disagreement, it could have provided investigators with critical context. More than two decades later, uncertainty still surrounds what happened aboard EgyptAir Flight 990.
As a result of the limitations exposed by the investigation, the NTSB sent a Safety Recommendation letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) urging the FAA to require cockpit video recorders. The NTSB noted that numerous investigations– including both the 1989 Kansas City incident and the 1999 EgyptAir crash– could have benefited from a capture of the cockpit environment. Twenty-five years after that letter, video recording technology is still not required in cockpits.
The recommendation did, however, prompt a larger conversation within the FAA. The agency initially referred the issue to a special subcommittee, which concluded that cockpit video recording was feasible but that several concerns needed to be addressed before implementation. For years, that remained the FAA’s position: although the technology showed promise, there was insufficient evidence to mandate its use. In 2020, the FAA shifted its position slightly, indicating it agreed that cockpit video recorders do raise significant privacy and security concerns.
The strongest opposition has come from pilots’ unions, who fiercely resist the implementation of video recorders in the cockpit. Below are several of the primary arguments raised.
1) Subjectivity
Pilots’ unions, including the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), argue that cockpit video would add nothing of real investigative value because of its subjective nature. They contend that the current – the CVR and FDR– already provide investigators with the objective information needed to determine the causes of accidents.
For example, a video may show a pilot reaching towards a switch, but it cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the switch was actually moved. The FDR, by contrast, records whether the switch was actually activated. Critics therefore argue that cockpit video could create misleading interpretations while providing virtually no information beyond what investigations already possess.
2) Privacy
Opponents also argue that cockpit video recorders would be a significant invasion of privacy. They contend that pilots should not be under constant video surveillance while performing their jobs. They also point to instances in which, despite regulations limiting the release of CVR data, cockpit audio has repeatedly been obtained and distributed by media outlets. Families of pilots have, at times, had to listen to their loved ones’ final moments publicly. Critics argue that cockpit video would only magnify that harm.
3) Pilot Performance
Pilots also argue that constant video recording could affect their job performance. There is a phenomenon in psychology called the "observer effect", in which people modify their behavior when they know they are being watched. Pilots contend that cockpit cameras could trigger this and cause them to second-guess their decisions or become overly concerned with how their actions will be interpreted, potentially affecting performance. Pilots may instead focus on looking good and playing it safe, out of fear of airlines using video recording against them.
Subjectivity:
The concerns raised by pilots’ unions and industry organizations are valid, but they also have limitations to them. Cockpit video is not a replacement for FDR or CVR data, but is a supplement to them, simply another investigative tool. While cockpit video alone may not solve every investigative question, combining visual evidence with FDR and CVR data would provide investigators with a more complete understanding of an accident.
Video cameras could also be an aid to pilots. In many accident investigations, pilot error– or even pilot suicide– become the leading explanation. Video evidence could easily exonerate pilots, vindicating them when the cause of a crash is related to mechanical failures or outside factors.
Privacy:
There is no question that cockpit video would involve some loss of privacy for pilots. However, that intrusion must be weighed against the public safety benefits. More complete evidence would improve the accuracy of accident investigations, helping to prevent future accidents and strengthening public confidence in the aviation system. Viewed in the broader context, a limited intrusion to cockpit privacy may be justified by the safety benefits.
Concerns about the public release of cockpit recordings are also understandable. However, this issue is separate from whether the recordings should exist in the first place. If existing protections for CVR recordings have proven insufficient, the appropriate response may be to strengthen restrictions rather than forgo potentially valuable evidence altogether.
Pilot Performance:
Cockpit recording devices would only need to be reviewed following an accident or incident. Rather than viewing cameras as something capable of causing them trouble, pilots could view them as tools that may help establish what truly occurred and potentially clear them of blame. Surveillance cameras already exist throughout society in schools, businesses, and public spaces and transportation. Limited recording in the cockpit for accident investigations would not be out of the ordinary.
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787, crashed, killing 260 people. A month later, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released its Preliminary Report.
According to the report, the engine fuel control switches “transitioned” from the RUN to CUTOFF position shortly after takeoff. It further states, “[i]n the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”
That snippet became the focus of public discussion. Many interpreted the limited piece of information as evidence that one of the pilots intentionally moved the switches and caused the crash. This fueled widespread speculation about pilot suicide, rather than possible mechanical issues. As a result, a pilot who could no longer defend himself became the subject of intense scrutiny.
The Foundation for Aviation Safety has continuously raised broader concerns about the investigation. That aside, the preliminary report illustrates how cockpit video could assist investigators. A video recording could help establish whether either pilot physically moved the fuel control switches. The FDR and CVR alone do not provide a definitive answer.
Misinformation and speculation flourish in uncertainty. When the probable cause of an accident remains unclear, harmful narratives and conspiracy theories can quickly emerge, undermining public confidence in aviation and delaying meaningful safety reforms. Mandating the use of cockpit video recorders would not eliminate every unanswered question, but it would help to ensure future investigations are based on the most complete and reliable information possible.
The cell phone has become so ubiquitous that it seems everyone is always using their phone everywhere. There is a lot of debate as to whether this is a healthy habit or not, but that’s for another story. The real question that many people have is a simple one. Why can’t I make cellular phone calls while flying on a commercial airliner? Am I really going to cause a crash or some other disaster because I want to call my mom? Let’s take a shot at answering all the most common questions passengers might have.
There are several layers to this prohibition on cell phone use. The truth is that worldwide there are some carriers that allow cellular phone usage (foreign carriers) and others that do not. In the U.S. the Federal Communications Commission explicitly prohibited the use via the 1991 regulation 47 CFR §22.925 — “Prohibition on airborne use of cellular telephones.”
In 2018 Congress stepped in and created the federal law that codified the regulation:
49 USC 41725: Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications
§41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications
(a) Prohibition- The Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations-
(1) to prohibit an individual on an aircraft from engaging in voice communications using a mobile communications device during a flight of that aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation; and
(2) that exempt from the prohibition described in paragraph (1) any-
(A) member of the flight crew on duty on an aircraft;
(B) flight attendant on duty on an aircraft; and
(C) Federal law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity.
You may be thinking, “why did the FCC require this law and not the FAA?” This is because the FCC is concerned with the entire mobile phone network. When your cell phone is on it is continually attempting to connect to a tower. Imagine planes full of passengers taking off and landing at major airports (cell phones can connect to towers only when at lower altitudes, typically below 3,000 feet) with thousands of phones attempting to connect to towers as the plane is moving at relatively high speed compared to those on the ground. Each phone would be continually bouncing from tower to tower and could conceivably overwhelm, interfere, or degrade the system. There were documented incidents within the cell tower networks prior to the 1991 ban. Since then, the system has become more resilient to interference, but at the same time the number of towers has increased dramatically. The FCC has made the decision to keep the ban in place as a preventive measure. As a sidenote, the FAA has documented over 100 cases involving aircraft radio altimeter anomalies linked to 5G towers located near airports. Mitigation efforts were undertaken in 2023 in coordination with cellular providers and the airlines.
Beginning in the 1990s, as digital avionics replaced analog systems, aircraft manufacturers introduced increasingly robust protections against electromagnetic interference (EMI). By the mid‑2000s, these protections had matured into a comprehensive, multilayered defense. Critical wiring bundles were redesigned using shielded, twisted‑pair conductors that reject induced currents from external RF sources. Avionics units were enclosed in RF‑tight housings that function like miniature Faraday cages, preventing stray signals from entering sensitive circuits. Every power and data line feeding those systems was routed through filters and suppressors to block high‑frequency noise. Modern aircraft architectures also physically separate critical flight‑control wiring from cabin systems such as Wi-Fi routers, seat power, and entertainment networks, eliminating the coupling pathways that once worried regulators.
These design practices are validated through certification testing. Avionics must demonstrate immunity to strong RF fields, broadband noise, pulsed interference, and lightning‑induced transients. Entire aircraft undergo system‑level EMI testing before type certification. By the time aircraft like the Boeing 777, Airbus A330, and later the 787 and A350 entered service, the industry had effectively engineered away the risk that passenger electronics could meaningfully affect flight systems. This is why, in 2013, the FAA was able to safely permit gate‑to‑gate use of portable electronic devices: the technical foundation for immunity had already been in place for years.
Despite this high level of EMI protection, airborne cellular voice calls remain prohibited in the United States—not because of aviation safety, but because of FCC telecommunications rules. The FCC’s 1991 regulation (47 CFR §22.925) mentioned above bans airborne use of standard cellular devices to prevent interference with ground‑based cellular networks, not aircraft avionics. Even today, that rule remains in force. When Congress enacted 49 U.S.C. §41725 in 2018, it added a second layer of prohibition—this time for cabin environment and passenger‑experience reasons. The result is that U.S. airlines cannot legally permit airborne cellular voice calls, even though modern aircraft are fully hardened against the kind of interference that once justified caution.
With all of this in mind the FAA does set operational restrictions. Phones must be in Airplane Mode, airborne cellular networks are blocked, and it allows airlines to prohibit cell phone calls for cabin environment reasons. No one wants to be on a flight surrounded by a hundred people talking on cell phones. Airplane mode disables the cellular radio signal; this is required to comply with the law. On some phones it will also disable Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. However, those functions can be turned back on manually and most phones now inhibit only the cellular signal in Airplane Mode.
Many foreign carriers do allow cellular phone use in-flight by using onboard systems that limit the power of cell phone output. Installed Picocells act as small cellular base stations and connect to the aircraft’s satellite or air-to-ground link. Your phone sees the picocell as a normal cell tower and connects with minimum power. This system accomplishes two important goals. It allows your phone to connect to a tower without actually using any ground-based towers and limits the power output significantly thereby eliminating any possibility of electronic interference. Even so, voice use is still generally prohibited. U.S. carriers do not use systems like this since cellular use is prohibited by law.
U.S. carriers typically use Wi-Fi systems that connect to the ground through satellite providers that support SMS, iMessage, browsing, and email. Providers include Viasat, Gogo 2Ku, Panasonic, and Inmarsat although this service provider is often transparent to passengers who simply connect to the airline branded Wi-Fi service offered.
In summary, making that phone call to your mom after takeoff won’t cause a major disaster, but it will violate U.S. law and probably annoy everyone around you. Of course, failing to follow crew instructions is also a violation so you might be in real trouble. Passengers have even been arrested upon landing because they failed to follow the personal electronic device policies, procedures, and/or federal statutes. While you’re thinking about cell phones, also be aware of the hazards associated with lithium-ion batteries. Cell phone batteries can overheat and create a fire hazard. Notify a flight attendant immediately should this occur. They are trained to handle this situation and have the right tools onboard such as battery containment devices and fire extinguishers. Additionally, battery banks present an even greater hazard so be aware of the rules for their use. They cannot be placed in checked bags and often must be used only while in plain sight. Now you’re ready for takeoff… as long as that phone is in Airplane Mode.
Your trust in The Foundation for Aviation Safety is vital to our work – Thank you for standing with us in advocating for accountability, transparency, and safety in aviation. If you’ve set up a donor advised fund (DAF), we’re pleased to let you know that the Foundation is eligible to receive grants via that vehicle.
Here’s how you can direct your DAF to support us:
Thank you for reading the Aviation Watchdog Report. Your continued support for the Foundation and interest in aviation safety is vital to making the industry safer for everyone.
The Foundation for Aviation Safety Team