View Full Version : Why don't they????

3rd Jun 2007, 07:02
Although there are many dollars and man hours put into improving air safety, it appears that there are a few obvious things that have not been done. They do not usually ask working pilots for input. (I have never seen it done anyway)
For instance.
1 Why don't they put thrust indicators in multi engined aeroplanes alongside the power levers? If there had been a row of lights (or some other indicator) alongside the power levers indicating the ammount of thrust, would that english crew have shut down the wrong engine?
2 If we had traffic lights at holding points would we have so many runway incursions? It works with cars. Mostly.
This is just two. There are many more.

4th Jun 2007, 06:58
The same english crew that shut down the wrong engine could not see the flames and sparks coming from the engine. If they had they would almost certainly have got the right one.
WHY DON'T THEY FIT VIDEO CAMERAS, so the crew can see important parts of the aeroplane?
The Concorde pilots could not see the flames.
There are tiny video cameras available now. The crew should be able to look at the engines, tyres, brakes etc instead of wondering.
They could also look into the cabin for security purposes. If there were problems in the cabin, the video could be transmitted to ground security.

4th Jun 2007, 11:11
I too would have thought TV cameras in critical control areas would have been worthwhile...... A key hole camera behined heated/heat proof glass somewhere in the U/C and elevator etc and linked up to a small 6"x6" somewhere in the cockpit with one button to toggle between several cameras. The seem to do this on boats and heck...... could almost get all the parts you need from a local electrial store.

4th Jun 2007, 11:38
"Why don't they put thrust indicators in multi engined aeroplanes alongside the power levers?"

For the same reason you don't have a tachometer next to the accelerator pedal of your car, it is not where you (should) be looking when that information is important to you. From memory, I believe that a contributing factor to the mis-identification was that the engine display was wired incorrectly, telling the crew that the good engine was the failing one. If that was the case, your proposed solution would not have helped.

Having said that, I think that the aircraft in question had that LCD combined engine display that I found extremely poor compared to the old dials or the NG display.

Another Number
4th Jun 2007, 11:43
"There are tiny video cameras available now. The crew should be able to look at the engines, tyres, brakes etc instead of wondering.
They could also look into the cabin for security purposes."

And on new aircraft like the 380, there are such cameras...

4th Jun 2007, 12:05
717's have three cabin video cameras fitted.

Should be mandatory, you can see whats happening to your dinner!!:eek:

4th Jun 2007, 22:40
If they had cameras on GA aircraft they would always be U/S :hmm:

5th Jun 2007, 04:57
Why do we persist in using the same system that we used during world war two? You know, the limited capacity one that can only handle one call at a time, and is error prone, because transmissions are often over transmitted by another staiion.
Taxis can do it.
I know that data links are used for many aviation purposes, but we still have "yabb yabba yabba"in terminal areas. We have lost aeroplanes due to communications errors.
If those instruments were wrongly wired I would expect the aircraft manufacturer to be sued for huge ammounts, along with all the crews and engineers who flew or maintained this aeroplane before this accident.
Do you really just grab for a lever without looking at it? If you do then the thrust indicators could be put somewhere else.
That is another important subject that no-one is doing anything about.

6th Jun 2007, 01:39
Not so silly as arriving at the golfcourse in a 747. I can immediately think of two airlines that would have been very grateful for an emergency braking parachute in recent times. I'm sure there are many more.
Sure, I know, if you get it right EVERY TIME you should not need one. But how many lives and dollars have been lost already when aircraft overrun the runway?
Humans sometimes malfunction. And so does machinery.

6th Jun 2007, 02:31
Not a bad idea. Simple, effective and proven technology (on a smaller scale), probably why it will never be introduced as a standard in aviation.

Although, 300,000 kilo worth of aircraft might require too large an area of parachute to arrest a 200KT to 300KT landing.

Worth pondering though...

6th Jun 2007, 03:13
Bushy, you could get a job designing Pommy aircraft...

Datalink has been used for ATC for the last dozen or so years at least.

Most commercial jets have the equivalent of a braking parachute, they are called spoilers. Not only do they cause drag, but unlike the drag chute, they dump the lift from the wing allowing the brakes to be more effective.

The QF1 accident at Bangkok was caused by the extremely poor airmanship exercised by the captain, specifically changing a go around decision on the runway and also manipulating flight controls when he was not the pilot flying.

6th Jun 2007, 04:32
Probably easier to extend the tarseal onto any golf course that may be in the way. :hmm:

6th Jun 2007, 05:53

Let's see now, 80% (or other favourite number) of accidents primary cause is/are pilot/crew error. :rolleyes:

Remove pilots from the cockpit and you have an instant 80 something %age decrease in accidents.:E Surely you must agree.:\

Must see if we can get Dick on this bandwagon.:p

Back Seat Driver
6th Jun 2007, 06:33
Acknowledge that pilots are their betters because we pay twice as much to play this game:ok::oh:
Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations
Schedule 1 Fees for aviation regulatory services

Part 5 Qualifications of flight crew
5.21 Issue of a commercial pilot licence— $130.00
5.24 Issue of an aircraft endorsement on a flight crew licence —$130.00

Part 14 Air traffic services personnel licensing
14.1 Issue of an air traffic controller licence — $65.00
14.2 Issue of a rating on an air traffic controller licence — $65.00

6th Jun 2007, 08:05
Back seat driver,

ATCs do not pay CASA for licences or endorsements. It's paid for us by the company. Also ATCs do not pay the DAME for the medical. It's paid for by the company.

Who are our betters?:cool:

Back Seat Driver
6th Jun 2007, 08:59
Bugger, I guess we're just better looking then.:ok:

6th Jun 2007, 09:22
please dont say things like that! you probably sent numerous beancounters reaching for their calculators.

Your point does bring us back to the universal aviation area which has the greatest potential for improving safety -peoples.

...and for the beancounters who are still holding their calculators...planes don fly without peoples.

6th Jun 2007, 10:50
i thought 80% of accidents were casued by CASA :confused:

6th Jun 2007, 11:53
I would like to see two particular features installed in jet transports:
1. A synthesised voice warning of a pressurisation problem if the cabin altitude reaches 10,000 ft.

2. A voice message at 500ft above field level on landing approach which says something along the lines of "500 Feet -VREF Plus 20 Knots" And another similar automated call at 200 ft afl. This hopefully will indicate to the crew that the airspeed is at or above the limit for a stabilised approach. A warning such as this is difficult to ignore and transcends the cultural barrier where the first officer is reluctant to demand a go-around

7th Jun 2007, 00:46
.... just issue the inter/tempo/FM without the requirement for the pilot to then change the issued forecast periods and apply the 30' buffer / and or change the FM to a new time if deemed an improvement or deterioration etc etc. It's not calculus but why are we taking it to the next mathematical step?

A forecast should be issued and read and any operational application made in our planning... end of story. Spend your extra time digesting the info not doing a Sudoku puzzle.

Why don't they... ... issue TTFs at locations that have a BoM and BoMologists?

Why DO WE lose the continual TAF coverage at many locations when some of us have to keep working?