(Bloomberg View) — Thanks to cockpit data recorders,investigators know the precise time Andreas Lubitzsent Germanwings Flight 9525 into a mountainside and themaneuvers he used to do so. But when it comes to evaluatingLubitz's psychology as the plane crashed, investigators have hadlittle more to work from than a cockpit voice recording that,according to French prosecutors, revealed he was breathing steadilyduring the plane's descent. Images that more clearly portrayLubitz's state of mind — and offer more insight into how suchtragedies can be prevented in the future — aren't available. That'sbecause cockpit video cameras have never been required by anyairline regulator.

Fortunately, that may soon change. According to a report lastweek in the Wall Street Journal, the International CivilAviation Commission, the U.N. agency that sets global aviationsafety standards, is preparing to make a “big push” for cockpitcameras later this year. (It's unclear whether it will recommendthem, or outright require them.) In doing so, it will have thesupport of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, theU.S.'s lead airline accident investigator, which in January listedcockpit cameras among eight safety-related recommendations it madeto the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.

At first glance, the proposal might seem like overkill. U.S.commercial aircraft have been equipped with data recorders sincethe late 1950s, and were required to install voice recorders in the1960s. These days, voice recorders are required to log at least thelast two hours of a flight's cockpit conversations, while flightdata recorders are required to chronicle 88 separate parameters.(In practice, many recorders log over 1,000 parameters.) In theevent of tragedy, those “black boxes” typically provide sufficientinformation to allow investigators to figure out what happened.

Typically, but not always. One critical factor that airlineinvestigators are keen to review during an investigation is what,precisely, pilots saw during an emergency and subsequent crash.Were the conditions foggy? Was the cockpit filled with smoke? Whatdid various instrument readouts — including navigation displays —tell the pilots? If the instruments are mechanical, they could befrozen with their last reading at the time of impact. But ifthey're digital, those readings — including weather-relatedinformation — are easily lost for good. Consider the 2009crash of Air France flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. Thefinal investigative report on the crash pointedly notes: “Wedo not know what images of the meteorological situation the crewhad on the ND [Navigation Display], which are not recorded.” A fewparagraphs later, the report adds: “As we do not have the radarimage which was provided by his ND, it is difficult to assess theCaptain's appraisal.”

The investigators eventually concluded that the crash was causedby pilot error related to a temporary instrument failure. But theinvestigation would have been much easier — and conclusive,especially with regard to the captain's appraisal of weather radardata — if the investigators had access to images of his instrumentpanel.

Cockpit cameras could also provide information on who was in acabin, who exactly was controlling a plane at the time of anaccident, and even where their hands were in relation to theplane's controls. The U.S. NTSB has specifically cited this kind ofdata as essential to help unravel cases of alleged pilot suicide.Take, for example, the notorious case of EgyptAir Flight 990, whichcrashed in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New England in 1999.U.S. investigators call it a case of pilot suicide; Egyptianinvestigators suggest mechanical failure. Cockpit video, in alllikelihood, would help to settle the disagreement.

It might offer longer-term safety benefits, as well. Jim Hall,chairman of the NTSB from 1994 to 2001, during which time he ledseveral investigations into pilot suicides, made this point in aMarchcommentary for Time. Referring to crash investigators,he noted: “Without video, they cannot fully understand the actionsof the pilots or make safety enhancements to prevent similar eventsfrom occurring in the future.” Those enhancements could includemore finely tuned protocols for profiling the psychological healthof pilots.

U.S. law currently requires that cockpit voice recordings onlybe used for air safety investigations, and forbids their release toairlines, the press, the public, or even courts. (Although leakshave been known to occur.) If cockpit cameras are required, theyshould be subject to the same restrictions, especially given thecertainty they would sometimes record pilot deaths.

That's a macabre thought, and one that has inspired pilots andtheir unions to oppose cockpit video for years on privacy grounds.The concern is legitimate, but the argument is not. Pilots, asstewards of planes that might contain several hundred passengers,have no more right to privacy in the cockpit than a school busdriver has in the driver's seat while driving down a busy highway.Safety, in both cases, should be the primary concern.

Copyright 2018 Bloomberg. All rightsreserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,or redistributed.