Bird strike, eject. Is onboard video usual?

[RJM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=5nUUzGwmoPA&search=jet

There was a discussion elsewhere over the usefulness of cabin video recorders on commercial flights. Are they common on military aircraft with HUD, as this video could suggest?

[CBA_caption]

Yes they are, almost universal in my experience. They are used for debriefing though, not generally for a momento of some unfortunate aircrafts' last minutes.

CBA

[Rakshasa]

Wow, that 155 clip is certainly doing the rounds.

[dervish]

RJM

What a great question. Inevitably raises the vexed question of CVRs and ADRs.

I’m sure the pilots will answer your immediate question but in my experience the issue is one of funding (and, of course, operational need). Many recording systems are mission related. For example, most ASW cabs have for 25 years had a multi-track Mission Analysis Recorders and/or Snapshot Recorders. Most recorders have an audio recording facility. There are typically two problems here;

1. It is easy and cheap to fit a recorder. (A relative term – 20 years ago a MARS 2000 was £50k a pop). But, the post flight analysis is hugely expensive and time consuming. Ask any trials officer how long it takes to download, process and analyse a data bus capture, be it raw data, video, audio. Multiply this by the number of aircraft when in-service and the support facility becomes all consuming.

2. If one wants to record audio, especially in today’s aircraft with secure intercoms, the recorder must have TEMPEST clearance or else it sits outside the boundary and strictly speaking can only record clear traffic. Either arrangement, but especially the latter, is expensive, as it involves heavy mods to the intercom (although, paradoxically, the older systems would be easier to modify as they have secure overlays). Also, recording clear only would be of little benefit.

[RJM]

Thanks for the considered response, Dervish.

Like most things to do with aviation, complex and not without compromises...

[Ray Dahvectac]

... the post flight analysis is hugely expensive and time consuming. Ask any trials officer how long it takes to download, process and analyse a data bus capture, be it raw data, video, audio. Multiply this by the number of aircraft when in-service and the support facility becomes all consuming.

I am not trying to pretend that PFA is cheap, but it is not correct to just 'read across' the type of reconstruction carried out for a trials sortie for every flight, especially if you also suggest (multiply this by the number of aircraft when in-service) that a high level of PFA is carried out for every sortie flown - it is not.

I would suggest that for the 'everyday/routine' trips little, if any, PFA is carried out. The effort is applied when and where it is required.

[dervish]

Ray D

Yes, in today's MoD you are right. You're talking to an old sod who remembers a fully manned STAC at Culdrose and 16 Helicopter Acoustic Analysis Units (HAAU) who, they always claimed, worked flat out.

Cheers

[CBA_caption]

RJM,

To add to my earlier post: The Hawk 155 (i.e BAe 115) has a HUD camera because NFTC (NATO Flying Training Canada) uses only simulated weaponeering based on a blended nav solution and a good DTED rather than actual weapon scores. The tape is required for assessing release parameters and target marking. It is nothing more than a fancy camcorder and a VHSC tape. How it survived the impact is anyones guess. It's not a crashworthy item.

CBA

[Hueymeister]

How do I get a copy of this video?

[idle-centralise]

go to:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm#Videos

it's under hawk strike.

Save target as......

I-C