Visual Monitoring of Control Surfaces in Flight

[UPP]

Something I've often wondered over the years....

We often hear (sadly) of accidents where 'the pilot shut down the wrong engine' or suchlike.

Given the size of pinhole cameras these days, could there not be several mounted on the external surfaces of an a/c such that all control surfaces + the actual rotation of the engines - and views of the sky all around, for that matter, can be seen as required on a monitor in the cockpit?

I think that on some airlines they show a live view of the sky foward of the a/c (is that true?), so I'm sure it's possible, just never heard it mentioned and often wondered why.

[SNS3Guppy]

I don't know that such views would give us any useful information in flight.

With regard to shutting down the wrong engine, that's a pilot error issue, because a pilot has rushed, misread his instrument indications, and failed to follow procedure.

An engine with a malfunction generally looks just like an engine that's perfectly fine, from the outside. A camera with a picture of an engine that looks perfectly fine wouldn't help us much. Instead, I have nearly 20 gauges, annunciators, alarms, and lights per engine to give me fairly detailed information about what's going on with that engine. If I reach for the engine and simply shut it down without consulting that instrumentation, you can bet a picture on a monitor of an engine that looks perfectly normal wouldn't help me one bit.

In the cockpit we have something like 900 annunciators, instruments, alarms, switches, lights, indicators, etc. That's a lot to be monitoring. For flight controls we have control position indicators which show us what the control itself is doing, flap position indicators, leading edge device position lights on two different instrument panels, trim indicators, stabilizer brake lights, warning horns, etc. Numerous indicators to give us all kinds of information, to say nothing of the hydraulic gauges, annunciators, lights, and other warnings that notify us not only of the state of the hydraulic control power of each source (most have more than one), but it's supply, the air pressure feeding the hydraulic supply, the temperature of the fluid, and the condition of each pump in the system...a lot more information than what the camera would tell us.

There have been a few occasions over the years when an external camera would have proven useful, but not too many. Perhaps the most useful place might be during taxi, as our visibility is somewhat limited by our height above the ground and our view out of the cockpit. However, particularly when taxiing, we really don't need to be heads-down in the cockpit trying to decipher a monitor when we ought to be heads up and outside the cockpit, managing the airplane.

Cameras have proven useful security devices for some aircraft, particularly some corporate or executive aircraft, and the newer enhanced vision systems coming out which allow a picture through the night or through the cloud has some usefulness...but presently we have just about everything in the cockpit that we can handle, and that we need, to do our job.

I think cameras might be of greater interest to passengers, up to a point...There comes a point when passengers begin seeing things they want to see, or that they feel like we need to know about, when the usefulness of such entertainment has reached a point of diminishing returns. Don't get me wrong...I'm certainly not contending against a legitimate passenger observation or concern...but it can go the the point of absurdity.

Purely for example...when my mother left England for the first time, she did so on her first flight. When the flaps were first extended, she was quite certain that part of the wing had fallen off, and wasted no time letting the crew know. While we do appreciate the concerns, we'd prefer that they be whittled down to legitimate ones...and cameras may tend to introduce more observation reports than they might provide useful entertainment...which doesn't really help us much in the cockpit.

For now, I'd say bring a good book. I do.

[radeng]

But waht about a remote video feed from a camera on a ground mounted dolly so you can really check the effectiveness of de-icing?

[SNS3Guppy]

You really can't tell by looking at the deicing if it's been effective, or how it's holding up after application.

A large buildup of ice is obvious, to some degree, but runback and failure of the fluid out of holdover time isn't. Much less so by camera.

[Tmbstory]

It may tell you if you have physicaly lost an engine from the airframe. That would have saved lives in the past.


Tmb

[SNS3Guppy]

That's what the engine severe damage/fire/separation checklist is for...and again, we have a lot more information in the cockpit that's used to determine what's wrong, than looking for a "picture" on a TV screen.

[BladePilot]

SNS3Guppy
Being a relative newbie to PPRUNE I am amazed at the number of posts you have credited to your name and the sheer length of many of those posts. I thoroughly enjoy the content and wondered have you ever published a book? are you still flying?

I agree that cameras have limited use and appeal and as you rightly point out in many circumstnaces they wouldn't help the guys up front. In some instances they would help and the crew of the British Midland flight that landed short of East Midlands in the UK many years ago may have benefited from a forward looking tail mounted cam (wrong engine shutdown).

This may be a novel thought, how about the airline companies using the IFE to show a short film about how an aircraft works? or even offering the passengers an easy to read book (theirs free to take away) or even just a piece in the inflight mag describing the mysteries of flight? would certainly help a lot of passengers feel more comfortable when they see a substantial piece of the wing 'disappear'.

looking forward to reading your next post.

Rgds.

[SNS3Guppy]

Bladepilot,

I'm actively flying. I can't really address what an airline should or shouldn't do so far as public relations, though that's probably a good idea. I'm afraid that the present trend of cutting back on frills and features will probably continue, however. It's certainly becoming a bigger issue in the US. Presently one can't even get a glass of water on US air without paying for it...customer service is nearly non-existent. It won't surprise me a bit to see them try to start charging for the use of the seatbelt, before long.

My only role on the airplane is safety. I've been a corporate pilot and a fractional and charter pilot, however...where I had a much geater part in customer relations and comfort. I agree that it's very important. Little things go a long way.

Though it's not pleasant to consider, one area where a great befefit to cameras might be realized would be accident investigation.

[BladePilot]

SNS3Guppy,
Nice to know a bit more about you, keep it straight and level:ok:

Catch you on another thread.

[UPP]

Well, it's nice to know that there are people who have thought about this. I only started the thread because I was genuinely puzzled that since it would be easy to do, cameras aren't mounted externally as another aid to crew if the need them.

I certainly wasn't advocating having these available for entertainment in the cabin - especially if something did go wrong.

Imagine if a pilot spooled down an engine and a muppet took a photo and sent it to the Sun. Seconds From Disaster,,,etc.

But thanks to SNS for the informative reply. I just thought that it was one of those things that since it is possible to do, it may be of some help. Another weapon in the armory. And if it only help once, then it may be worth it.

[Shack37]

Would there not be some advantage in a camera showing whether flaps were extended? Wouldn't it help in a situation where they were not deployed but there was no alarm to indicate this?

s37

[Romeo India Xray]

This has got me thinking. I really dont think cameras would be too much use in flight

but

how about car style parking sensors as a taxi aid. There have been a number of occasions, especially when being marshalled, when such a system would have been quite useful for me. GSUs and the like can get into the strangest of places, and would the weight penalty really be so great?

RIX

[BladePilot]

Rainboe,
Whilst I bow to your seniority here on PPRUNE do you have to be so aggresive and derogatory in your remarks?

Yes the incident happened at night and unless you missed it eyewitness reports stated that flames and debris were seen coming from the distressed engine as it tried to shake itself off the pylon so tell me again why the camera would have been of no assistance at all in this instance?

I think if you take the time to read my original post again you will see that I agree that in the majority of cases cameras would do nothing to help the guys up front however in this situation they may have (just may have) helped the poor blighters a wee bit!

With respect, Reel the neck in.

[BladePilot]

Oh dear! you are indeed a 'toxic' individual aren't you.

So no one other than you is permitted to voice an opinion?

The instuments in this case were of little or no help to the pilots and indeed caused them to shut down the wrong engine. Subsequently due to lessons learned through this disaster which took many lives Boeing applied a mod to the instruments which were 'telling it like it was'!

Stuck in a rut Rainboe? way to go, got your blinkers on? OK lets rotate:D

[Contacttower]

A shutdown engine looks just the same as a running engine. Even the rotating bits are still rotating. So, what other examples do you imagine a camera would be useful for? I can't think of any.I love the way you assume that everyone flies jets....:) a feathered prop certainly doesn't look the same as a spinning one.

I have to say I find the rejection of the concept of cameras by the pro pilots on here slightly surprising.....I mean all of the planes I fly allow a good view of all the control surfaces (except for the rudder on some) which I really appreciate. Things like the flaps and deice boots are checked on the ground visually through the windows before take off....I even have a neat little mirror on the inside of the left engine to tell me if the gear has come down before landing (OK not the same as a camera but it does the same job). You say you have cockpit indicators but surely these can fail?

Granted the likelihood of engineering cross controlling the ailerons or something silly is fairly low but its something I check prior to departure and a camera would enable this to be done on a large jet....to give one example.

Some examples of accidents where a camera may have helped....

The Air Transat Airbus which ran out of fuel and landed in the Azores; for a while a computer problem was suspected and while a night vision camera might not have spotted the escaping fuel it would have stood a better chance than shining torches out of the window which is what they tried and didn't see anything with.

The EMB 120 which crashed near Atlanta in 1995; they knew the prop hadn't feathered but didn't know why....if they could have seen the remains of the engine hanging off the wing they would have realised immediately what they were up against.

The Air Florida 737 that took off without the engine anti ice on and with snow all over the wings....OK a camera wouldn't have told them about the EPR gauges not working but it would have been better than the airline pilot down the back who decided because of "professional courtesy" not to point out how contaminated the wings were.

Even if cameras don't actually help the pilot in accidents which involved the loss of large pieces of the aeroplane....like the AA A300 for example footage would be very useful to accident investigators.

[ford cortina]

I'm with Rainboe on this, there is enough bloody stuff on the flight deck of a 737 Classic to keep an eye on, without the need for a tv camera. Fuzzy picture and having to change channel would be a major distraction. I have enough on the ground with Sky

[SNS3Guppy]

I love the way you assume that everyone flies jets.... a feathered prop certainly doesn't look the same as a spinning one.


Who has made any such assumptions? I flew for years behind every kind of turboprop, and most kinds of pistons, and have had propellers which wouldn't feather, which wouldn't come out of feather, and many hours and years flying behind Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propellers which required watching the propeller feather and manually ensuring that the feather button either popped out or was pulled out...to make sure it didn't go back into feather. I can't recall a time ever, when a camera would have helped. In every propeller driven airplane I've flown, save one (the piaggio avanti P180), I could see the propellers from the cockpit.

Further, in every case, cockpit instrumentation was available to give critical information regarding not only engine operation, but feathering, oil pressure for both operation and feathering, RPM, etc. Again, in the cockpit, we have far more information, in much greater detail, than what a camera provides. You can effectively think of the instrumentation in the cockpit as the bigger picture, and the camera as the idiot picture.

And yes, a windmilling propeller looks very much like a propeller under power. Which I why I made my original statement...it applies to the spinning things...fans, propellers, etc.

Let me ask you this: have you ever experienced a propeller that wouldn't feather, and do you know how that affects the airplane, the control, the feel, and the instrumentation? I certainly have, but that doesn't appear to be the case for you. Have you had experience with a feathering propeller at all?

My last experience with a propeller that failed to feather was two years ago in a single engine turboprop-conversion M18T Dromader with a Garrett TPE-331-10 powerplant, in which the rear turbine bearing failed and all the oil was lost overboard. The propeller didn't feather. It occured at 150' above the ground inside a burning canyon and I had quite a bit going on at the time with not lot of time before reaching the ground (which I did, shortly thereafter)...you can't possibly imagine how uninterested I'd have been in an external camera at that moment, in determining if the propeller had feathered. I could see that much for myself. And feel it. And the airplane responded accordingly.

So no...I haven't forgotten that some people fly behind a propeller.

I have to say I find the rejection of the concept of cameras by the pro pilots on here slightly surprising.....I mean all of the planes I fly allow a good view of all the control surfaces (except for the rudder on some) which I really appreciate. Things like the flaps and deice boots are checked on the ground visually through the windows before take off....I even have a neat little mirror on the inside of the left engine to tell me if the gear has come down before landing (OK not the same as a camera but it does the same job). You say you have cockpit indicators but surely these can fail?


Yes, we have cockpit indicators, and yes, they can fail. I've not seen it happen, but anything on the airplane can fail. You describe what sounds like a light piston twin, with the mirror attached to the inside of the nacelle with adhesive. I'm operating something a little more sophisticated, with a little more in the way of control redundancy and instrumentation...with some fifteen different ways to detect a failure in a system for everything on the aircraft. The control surface has two actuators, both hydraulic. A control position indicator. The control surface is tied into other surfaces which will also indicate the malfunction, because if one doesn't move, the other doesn't move. Hydraulic system temperature gauges, pressure gauges, quantity gauges all tell us about the health of the system. We have annunciators, lights, buzzers, and bells to annunciate the system. We have control feedback. In the case of elevators we have a moveable elevator as well as four separately controlled elevators moved by four different hydraulic systems...with more than one system to an elevator for redundancy. We don't even use the outboard ailerons in flight, but instead two very small ones inboard, and for larger control deflections, we have spoilers to augment aileron control.

More than just a look-at-the-control type of thing, as you might guess, and more than just one cable going to each surface to pull up, and to pull down. All of the procedures to handle everything from a stuck elevator to an aileron that won't unlock, or a rudder which failed to change from a high speed ratio to a low one, is handled with checklists in the cockpit, with aircraft limitations provided accordingly...and at no point in any of those procedures...which cover every kind of failure you can imagine, is there ever a point in which a camera would be useful...or there's even a need to look out the window. Looking out the window, if we could see the controls (which we can't) wouldn't provide us with a single bit of useful information that we don't already have in the cockpit.

Aside from the indications, we can manually fly the airplane and feel problem...without having to look.

We don't have boots; we use bleed air. We have procedures to handle every kind of failure you can imagine...even one that's no longer used which in a worst-case scenario such as volcanic glazing of the windscreen, can apply excess voltage to the window heat and break off the outside layer to restore vision...all done without the benefit of a camera.

Granted the likelihood of engineering cross controlling the ailerons or something silly is fairly low but its something I check prior to departure and a camera would enable this to be done on a large jet....to give one example.


If you're talking about ailerons rigged backward...I've seen this happen one time, and that was in a Cessna 152 that just came out of a shop following major work after it had been crashed. I picked it up, and found the ailerons rigged backward, during the preflight. Again...that's a preflight item, and certainly not one that the cameras would have any help in discovering in flight.

For one thing, again, the outboard ailerons in larger airplanes aren't used much for most of the flight, and even when they are, the movement is minimal. Can you imagine at a time when control inputs aren't working properly and control of the airplane is in jeopardy, everyone stopping what they're doing, looking at a camera, and watching it long enough to try to detect which way the controls are moving in the hopes that they can solve the problem visually? The camera would be great entertainment in the cabin...but in the cockpit would far more likely prove a safety of flight distraction...and would contribute nothing to a single procedure in any of our normal, abnormal, or emergency procedures.

The Air Transat Airbus which ran out of fuel and landed in the Azores; for a while a computer problem was suspected and while a night vision camera might not have spotted the escaping fuel it would have stood a better chance than shining torches out of the window which is what they tried and didn't see anything with.


This is a case where procedure would have been more important than a camera, as well as stopping transferring fuel in that direction. Unfortunately, their problem involved a critical balance issue and no way to stop the fuel loss...a camera wouldn't have solved either of those problems. The fuel loss was through the engine. A higher fuel flow and higher fuel consumption by one engine is the ticket there. In our case, a fuel imbalance increase of 1,000 lbs or more in 30 minutes should be considered an engine fuel leak, and the engine should be shut down.

If the leak isn't controllable and fuel continues to require transfer for balance, then there's nothing a camera would do to solve that or help. If the problem is controllable by shutting down an engine, then there's nothing that a camera would do to solve that or help. Generally speaking a fuel loss from an engine in flight is undetectable visually, and a fuel loss in general isn't typically visible in the air.

The one time it's happened to me that it was visible, we had a cracked wing, and it occured in a C-130. I was able to go aft and look through the troop door and see a stream of white mist coming from the crack in the wing. A camera wouldn't have made any difference there, incidentally, nor would it have changed the way the aircraft was operated, or the decisions made. The flight engineer had ample instrumentation in order to manage fuel and make decisions from the cockpit.

The one time I had an failure which did involve a complete fluid loss was a hydraulic systems loss through a tank door actuator. In that case, we did better than have a camera. We got an exterior visual inspection by another airplane which was piloted by a very experienced individual who had flow for our operation, in that specific airplane, for a number of years. Even he failed to note that our Number 3 tank door was hanging open...a camera wouldn't have seen it either...and that the actuator had blown out, causing the fluid loss. That airplane, incidentally, did operate for a season with a camera on board, looking aft at same location the failure occured...we were filming for the discovery channel and had an external camera mounted. However, it wouldn't have helped, even if we did have some way of accessing what it saw. How did I find the problem? I found it through cockpit instrumentation and gauges, as well as a visual inspection of the hydraulic quantity in the resorvoir on the flight deck. (That was one of those pesky propeller driven airplanes that none of us have ever flown, by the way...those of us that simply assume everyone flies jets...).

The EMB 120 which crashed near Atlanta in 1995; they knew the prop hadn't feathered but didn't know why....if they could have seen the remains of the engine hanging off the wing they would have realised immediately what they were up against.


Now there have been several losses of Brasillias during propeller problems and engine separations. If you're referring to Atlantic Southeast Flight 2311, the NTSB determined the crew could have done nothing to prevent the mishap. Nothing. A camera wouldn't have helped. If you're referring to ASA Flight 7529, one propeller blade failed, creating an imbalance, with did twist the nacelle and wing structure. A camera wouldn't have changed that, or given the crew more to work with, or addressed any procedure or practice that would have altered their behavior. Failed to feather? No, not exactly...and that wasn't the problem, anyway. Passenger statements and flight crew statements after the face all confirmed the engine misalignment...something about which the crew could do nothing...they knew about it, but seeing a picture on a camera wouldn't have helped.

The engine, and the state of the propeller, is easily seen on the Brasillia, incidentally. One doesn't need a camera.

The Air Florida 737 that took off without the engine anti ice on and with snow all over the wings....OK a camera wouldn't have told them about the EPR gauges not working but it would have been better than the airline pilot down the back who decided because of "professional courtesy" not to point out how contaminated the wings were.


Professional courtesy is irrelevant. The Air Florida 737 flight had the instrumentation on board to make the determination during the takeoff that takeoff thrust wasn't being produced. The crew set power by the EPR gauges, and disregarded the N1. In fact, the first officer pointed out the N1 discrepancy, and the captain elected to ignore it. A camera wouldn't have given any indication whatsoever that the engine was functioning properly, just not being operated at high enough power setting. Wing contamination issues aside, the airplane would have flown off had the crew set power by N1 and recognized the EPR problem. A camera would not have revealed the EPR problem. It's for this reason that one always crosschecks EPR with N1 as a reasonablness check; EPR can and does lie...I've experienced it twice in the last month. In each case, when the failed EPR indication was noted and recognized, we continued the flight with the N1 gauge and reported our observation to maintenance when we landed. Not a big deal.

A camera wouldn't have helped in those cases, either.

So far as icing, the operator will provide the crew with a holdover chart which is used to determine holdover times for a particular type of deicing procedure, fluid, and operating condition (ice pellets, freezing rain, snow, etc). The crew then uses the holdover time as a general guide, and uses "representative surfaces" on the aircraft to determine the status of both the flying surfaces and the fluid. In our case, we use the leading edge of the left wing and the left wing upper surface. If we're within our holdover time we don't need a visual inspection of that surface. If we're outside the holdover time, which can be exceeded by 50%, we require a visual inspection, and a camera will not replace it. We're required to open the lower left forward L1 door and look at the wing and surface, within five minutes of departure time, to ascertain whether there is any ice formation in the fluid. We also use the representative surface of unheated areas of the aircraft nose/radome, and windscreen (windshield wipers). A camera isn't required for, and isn't useable for, and provides no useful information for any of those areas. Again...Air Florida didn't go down based on excess icing, but on failure to apply enough takeoff power soon enough in the takeoff.

Cameras wouldn't have helped.

Even if cameras don't actually help the pilot in accidents which involved the loss of large pieces of the aeroplane....like the AA A300 for example footage would be very useful to accident investigators.


Yes, this is something which I stated before. However, even where direct photographic evidence of a mishap is available, it's of ancillary service only...just like eyewitness statements. The real investigative work, and the meat of the investigation, uses each bit of evidence, rather than simply a photograph or video. In the case of AA Flight 587, investigators knew the vertical stab fell off. They didn't know why. Instrumentation and physical examination provided the answer...one many pilots still don't accept...that airplanes can be broken by the pilot well below maneuvering speed. A camera wouldn't have helped the crew, and wouldn't have provided a more concise or exact answer to the puzzle than what the investigators found when they examined the wreckage. They knew exactly what happened, without any benefit of a camera. Just as importantly, the use of a camera would have done nothing at all to help the crew on board when it occured.

You can introduce examples all day if you like and we can discuss them. Clearly you threw a few together here without knowing anything regarding the circumstances of the mishap. If you're going to introduce more examples, I suggest you do a little more research first...because none of what you introduced here applies at all.

Yes, cameras may have useful applications, but in the operation of the airplane from the cockpit, very few...and in nearly every case will prove more of a distraction than an aid. Even from those of us who couldn't possibly comprehend what it's like to operate an airplane with a propeller that doesn't feather...

[Contacttower]

Wow SNS3Guppy! What a response!

Who has made any such assumptions?

My original comment about jets was sort of directed at Rainboe who said that a shutdown engine looks like a running one....which surely only applies to jets (presuming that one is talking about a feathered prop).

For the record I do have knowledge of feathering propellers....although I admit I have never had the misfortune to have one that refuses to feather.

But seriously though thanks for writing such a long and well written response....I never mind being told I'm wrong on this forum....as long as I have the reasoning explained to me :ok:.

[Contacttower]

We're not reading posts properly and taking it in, are we?

OK....I'm sorry I ever doubted you Rainboe :O.

Anyway it seems that a lot of planes have them anyway....http://www.pprune.org/questions/340056-external-cameras-aeroplanes.html

I'm sure you could parallel park a A340-600 blindfolded though :p.

[SNS3Guppy]

My original comment about jets was sort of directed at Rainboe who said that a shutdown engine looks like a running one....which surely only applies to jets (presuming that one is talking about a feathered prop).



Actually, your comment quoted me. That's okay, though. A shutdown engine does look like a running one...and that doesn't just apply to jets.

This is particularly the case with turboprop engines....especially free turbine engines...in which shutting down the engine isn't the same as feathering the propeller...two separate subjects. In many cases, feathering should happen...but an engine can run in feather and not be shut down, or the enigne may shut down and not feather. I've seen both.

Even a piston engine when shut down and not feathered...looks very much like a running engine.

For an engine that can be feathered...did it feather properly, will it come out of feather? If you haven't had an opportunity to feather propellers in flight, some stop, some don't. Some continue to windmill to some degree and I've seen that happen plenty of times, too. In the case of the hydromatic ham standard props previously mentioned, if one didn't get the feather button popped out at the right time, it would go right through feather and drive back into a running state again, windmilling and creating an enormous amount of drag. With one prop out of four windmilling, it didn't take a camera to know that full rudder was required for an outboard engine...with over 70 lbs of force to hold the rudder...it was fairly obvious.

Some years ago when I was going for my PIC card in a piston prop tanker, I had to take a checkride with a government official riding along. As I approached my drop point, my "copilot," a very experienced captain, said "low oil pressure on number 3." I glanced at the gauge, and it showed oil pressure in the green (just fine). I said "I don't see a problem." Again, he said "Low oil pressure on number 3." In my mind I was quickly reviewing the reasons he might say this. Perhaps he was seeing a massive oil leak from a cracked propeller governor stephead base...not uncommon...but then he'd have told me. Perhaps he was seeing something else...why was he saying this. Again, I said "It looks fine," and concentrated on my run to the drop point.

Suddenly it dawned on me (I'm a little slow)...this is a checkride, and this is a test. Okay, proceed past the point, jettison the load, shutdown the engine and feather it, and exit the area. Go home. We jettisoned the load, and went home.

Did I ever get a tongue lashing. Both from the experienced captain and the government observer. Why, they wanted to know, did I not jettison the load when I was told I had a serious engine problem? Why did I not abandon the approach to the drop and exit down canyon and jettison? Was that the time to be trouble shooting? Didn't I know the procedure? What was I thinking?

The upshot was strong counsel to not wear two hats in the airplane. We had procedures given us. I didn't need to be a mechanic while I was flying that drop. Just a pilot. I didn't need to explore all the reasons I might have low oil pressure, or even try to fix the problem. Low oil pressure was serious because that oil came from the same resorvoir that supplied the feather pump..and without oil I wouldn't have been able to feather the engine...and that airplane with a load and one prop windmilling wouldn't hold altitude...even with power on the other three engines. It's serious. I had good information from a reliable source...the experienced captain, and I had a procedure to follow...I didn't follow it.

Compare that to the use of the camera. We have procedures in the airplane...we have a job to do and a way to do it. A very good way, developed by millions of dollars of research and development, overseen by hundreds of thousands of hours of flying experience, with input from aeronautical engineers, captains, first officers, and flight engineers, through decades of flying...these procedures cover what needs to be done, have had the benifit of hundreds of thousands of hours of real world experience and the real emergency...and they work. None of them require a camera...I could have used a dozen well placed cameras to look for the oil leak...but that would have been just as bad as what I did...it would have been the same thing. I had a procedure to follow and should have followed it. Trying to look at a picture to somehow add my own twist to it or modify the procedure would be trying to second guess and improve on far more experience, training, and education than I'll ever have in this lifetime or the next...it would be me, trying to reinvent the wheel.

The wheel works well, as do the procedures...without need for a camera. From a camera, one doesn't always see what one wants to see...one sees an image...but from the cockpit we see a detailed picture spread out over multiple systems from multiple angles. If I were to look at a picture and see a feathered propeller, I could say ah-ha! The engine has failed...but that may not be true. Perhaps I have an oil leak, and I have an engine fire. The picture may tell me to reach for the engine failure in flight checklist...which is not an emergency procedure. Instead, I may have an engine fire problem...which certainly can be an emergency and is part of the emergency checklist. It also has memory items that the engine failure checklist doesn't (depending on the airplane, of course).

You can see, then, that what one sees on a camera might be entirely different than what's really going on. An excellent example would be an engine fire during the engine start...torching, with flames blowing out the tailpipe. Seen by people on the ground, it's a scary, quite possibly very loud, very hot, dire emergency. Long flames trailin out the tailpipe, with burning liquid fuel dripping on to the ground beneath, pooling, and burning. Black smoke. The ground crew goes running away. People point and yell. The camera would say we're on fire, shut it down.

In truth, we have a different procedure. Yes, we're on fire, but if we shut down that engine, then we may create an uncontrollable fire. We have tools to deal with it and a procedure that's very simple. We simply shut off the fuel and keep cranking. If we pull the fire handle and shut everything down to fight a fire, we can't do that. The pylon bleed air valve has shut off...effectively preventing us from putting bleed air to the starter motor to keep turning that engine. Now we can't do anything about it from the cockpit. Instead, we follow procedure. We don't respond to it the way people seeing it from the outside (the camera view) would do. We shut off the fuel manually with the start lever. We apply ground start ignition, which supplies air to the starter motor, and we turn to our EGT gauges to wait until we see 180 degrees, before we stop motoring. Now, if we have a fire indication and the engine is indeed on fire...now we can T-handle it, shutting off the hydraulics, bleed air, fuel, and electrical...and arming the fire bottles. Now we can go to the next phase...but in the case of both events, even if they're combined to be the same event, acting based on the visual image from outside the engine could very easily lead us to do the wrong thing.

Instead, we have instrumentation inside that engine; very detailed, very sophisticated instrumentation to give us a lot more information than what might be offered by a camera on the outside. We've got some fifteen instruments feeding us information during that start, as has been previously discussed, to give us critical need-to-know parameters...and this is what we use to make our decisions. Very often, what's going on outside isn't at all like what's going on inside...and we're very concerned with what's going on inside the various parts of the airplane.

Cameras have their place...but for most of our practices and procedures, very little application in the cockpit.

[BladePilot]

SNS3Guppy
Brilliant:ok:what a read.

A true gentleman of the skies.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I was involved in an exec jet that had a major problem with the UC. The camera was the only way we could actually determine, the exact reason for the problem.

I love my airframe cameras, and would hope that my manufacture puts one on each wing tip, for tight parking.

So lots of words, and great ideas, put a picturew is worth a thousand words, and much better than 20/20 hindsight.

glf

[al446]

Hi all, have a look at the thread on the Spanair crash, many on there suggested CC giving visual confirmation of flaps/slats setting. Cams would be better, alowing F/D to check themselves. In the general scheme of things the cost would not be severe, how much does a 737 or 340 cost?
Rainboe may have a few hundred sensors, indicators & warning lights and announcements but, if I am sat anywhere near the wing, which I try to do, I will scream the cabin down if flaps are not extended as we approach departure.
Cameras could have saved the Spanair flight as it appears the indicators may not have been working. Pilot error may be one thing but both of them ignoring a camera? Don't think so.

[al446]

I have not read your post fully but, from what I have digested, I think the discussion is appropriate use of cameras.

[SNS3Guppy]

The Spanair thread isn't an accident investigation. It's a lot of speculation and guesswork. Until the investigation is complete, I have little to say on the incident. Guesswork is unprofessional and foolish. Even counterproductive.

We don't guess how much fuel we have on board. We don't guess as to whether a checklist item was covered. We don't guess on weather or maintenance or pilot currency. We know. Guessing is idiotic. Threads like the spanair thread are monumental pilliars of guesswork. We've seen other threads on other incidents of late speculating on everything from flying saucers to military conspiracies. All equally idiotic.

Would cameras have saved the flight? We don't know. We can guess, but we don't know.

You can scream in the cabin if you like. Chances are that if you insist on doing that, the flight will be turned around, will go back to the gate, and you'll be escorted off the airplane. Suppose you don't like the flap setting we have chosen? Are you going to tell us how to fly the airplane, too?

When the spanair report is in, then we can discuss how that mishap applies to the discussion in question. It's an active investigation, and as such really has no place here.

To put the flaps in place for takeoff, I have a checklist which verifies it several times. I have a flight engineer with his own instrumentation verifying it. It's a dual call by the captain and first officer, with a tertiary response by the flight engineer. Twice. The fligth engineer has sixteen sensors identifying the leading edge flap status on his panel, I have two. I have four trailing edge position sensors tied into assymetry protection, two gauges, four needles, and a takeoff warning horn. Allof them must match not only in position but in timing and sequence. Additionally the flaps are supported by four hydraulic pumps, two of which are air driven, two of which are engine driven, and separate electric motors to back up the hydraulic flap motor. Supporting that we have four generators, each with their own automatic transmission, and four engines producing bleed air...which powers eight sets of leading edge devices...which come with their own electrical backup, as well. Position sensors are tied into the takeoff warning horn, as well as the instrumentation, as well as microswitches in the thrust lever quadrant itself.

Or we could just look at a picture.

There's a reason we use considerably more information and insight than simply looking at a picture, and no...as demonstrated in previous discussion on this topic, a picture isn't necessarily worth a thousand words. Pictures can, and do lie to you as well.

Do you know when you sit in the cabin over looking the wing, what flap setting we have selected? Do you know at what flap setting various devices will extend, or stay retracted, or how far they should appear to extend at any given setting? Or do you guess at that, too?

If you feel the flight is unsafe, certainly you should say something. If you start screaming about it, rest assured there's a high probability you'll be removed from the flight, and with good reason.

If a crew completely misses a checklist item such as a flap configuration, with the indicators, annunciators, horns, dials, lights, warnings, alerts, needles, etc...then what makes you think adding a camera will make an iota of difference? If the crew is under the assumption that the airplane is configured, then they've mentally shut out further investigation into the subject and are as likely to see what they expect to see when they look at the camera image...if they bother to look at it at all.

I'm sure we'll all benefit to no end from the insight gained from a discussion on the internet about the spanair crash...one can only suppose that the accident investigators have tapped into this valueable resource in order to speed along their progress and get it over and done. Do you think? No, the truth is that all the discussion in the world about this crash or another is largely mental masturbation...going through the motions of intellectual analysis, but in the end simply a bunch of people with keyboards sitting around guessing without all the facts.

A camera isn't going to change that, either.

[Tmbstory]

See my post no: 5 in this thread. that crew would have known that they had lost an engine (separated from the airframe) together with damage to the leading edge devices.

It may have saved a lot of lives.


Tmb

[SNS3Guppy]

No, it really wouldn't, for reasons already given. Re-read.

[Tmbstory]

SNS3Guppy:

That may be your opinion, however it is not mine


Tmb

[Pontius Navigator]

I haven't read all the posts but I believe that the Tristar had a camera to scan the undersurfaces.

The Vulcan had a periscope to allow upper and lower surfaces to be scanned.

External observation of bits you can't see is not new.

On C141 and C130 the FE would tour the aircraft all the time peering out lookng for leaks etc.

[SNS3Guppy]

Tmbstry,

Why don't you cite a specific case then so that we can discuss it? You talk about airplanes losing engines and the crew having an opportunity to ignore the plethora of instrumentation providing this information, take the time to look at a two dimensional picture and say observe that indeed the engine had separated from the airplane...before taking action.

While you're doing it, you might be able to address the application and purpose of the Engine Fire/Severe Damage/Separation checklist which doesn't particularly care that the engine is on fire, has severe damage, or has left the airplane...because the procedure is the same for dealing with the problem...how does that fit into your different opinion?

Further, as you've had considerable experience losing engines, why not tell us about that, too? Or this simply a hunch you have, that a camera might make a difference during the physical separation of an engine from the airframe?

What specific cases have occured where an engine separation took place, in which a camera would have made the difference between life and death, and how can we come to the same conclusion? Why don't you lead us there, and show how it applies?

On C141 and C130 the FE would tour the aircraft all the time peering out lookng for leaks etc.


As a former C-130 pilot and flight engineer, myself, I've made those rounds. However, it's hard to see anything meaningful outside the airplane, even peering through the crew enterance or troop doors, and what you can see is distorted somewhat, anyway. In the event of an emergency situation, one isn't going to go running about the airplane looking out the windows to see what's wrong. One is going to go to the instrumentation and procedures to handle the problem.

[Pontius Navigator]

In the event of an emergency situation, one isn't going to go running about the airplane looking out the windows to see what's wrong. One is going to go to the instrumentation and procedures to handle the problem.

Very true Sir, but that was not the point of the walk-arounds was it? The point, if I am correct, was to see if there was anything wrong, or better every thing was OK before the emergency.

Engines problems of course are well instrumented and an external camera would probably add little to the information available in the cockpit. Undercarriage or gear problems are something else.

I am sure there have been plenty of gear issues where a well sited camera would have shown gear hydraulic leak, doors open or not, wheels down but not locked etc. I have seen many tower fly-bys for gear checks but these rarely reveal anything either through lack of expertise on the ground or the speed/distance of the incident aircraft from the observers.

However where I would support the argument against cameras is the lack of anyone on board to monitor them too. Gone are the days of a flight engineer that could do a gear down scan before touchdown etc etc, so why add a distraction?

[Tmbstory]

SNS3Guppy:

I thought you may have been old enough to have remembered the crash of the DC10, Flight 191, May 25th 1979 that killed 272 people. A lot of the Check and Training knowledge in those days had the most emphasis on flying an airspeed and not an airspeed and body angle as was done later. With the leading edge devices not extended, the left wing then stalled and the aircraft crashed and all lives lost.

A camera display may have made a difference.

Your 3rd Paragraph does not deserve an answer.


Tmb

[Final 3 Greens]

Tmbstory

You are lucky - you have not had the sarcastic invite to share your knowledge with their training department yet.

If you disagree with this poster, you just get longer and longer posts battering you.

I would save you efforts, if I were you.

[jonathan3141]

Ok, this is SLF so I'm allowed to display some ignorance. The consensus of the professionals is pretty clear that cameras are a waste of time/distraction, and I respect that.

But what is the purpose of the pre-flight walk around which I believe is normal? If the pre-flight walk around is useful, then that suggests there is merit to being able to see things visually rather than just relying on the instrumentation. Which would suggest that cameras could have a place.

I hear the clear message that cameras would not be a useful addition. I accept that they wouldn't form part of standard procedures (ie you're not going to "look out of the window" to check the flaps are set.) I just find the strong rejection of them surprising. Even if it didn't change some of the checklist actions, it might give a flightcrew more idea of the problem, and therefore risks, especially if there was physical damage to the plane.

[SNS3Guppy]

Engines problems of course are well instrumented and an external camera would probably add little to the information available in the cockpit. Undercarriage or gear problems are something else.

I am sure there have been plenty of gear issues where a well sited camera would have shown gear hydraulic leak, doors open or not, wheels down but not locked etc. I have seen many tower fly-bys for gear checks but these rarely reveal anything either through lack of expertise on the ground or the speed/distance of the incident aircraft from the observers.


In the case of the aforementioned C-130, and indeed with most aircraft, seeing a hydraulic leak is hard enough if one were actually able to reach the gear, which one isn't...even if one were able to examine it up close. Regardless, knowing that there is a leak somewhere associated with the gear doesn't help. It doesn't tell us anything. Either the gear is working, or it's not. If it's not working, then there's an emergency extention procedure. There's no special procedure or thing that can be done if we know there's a hydraulic leak out there.

We know the position of the gear doors based on the position of the gear. We know what has to be done based on the procedures already in place that don't require the use of the camera. In a worse-case scenario with the C-130, the gear is cranked out with a ratchet, or when released, it can descend rapidly. One procedure requires the Flight engineer and loadmaster to go in back and cross-tie chains together across the cargo bay, from one gear to another...but in no case would the use of a camera provide much if any useful information.

We look for things during a preflight that relate to the safety of flight. Once we are in the air, the presence or condition of these things is academic...because we can't do anything about it. On a walkaround on the 747, for example aside from looking at gear condition, were looking at things such as strut pressures and crossmatching them to other landing gear assemblies. We're looking at brake assembly wear indicator pins...seeing that in flight would be pointless. We need to know if it's within limits and safe to fly, otherwise we won't takeoff. Once we takeoff, we have no need to go out there with a camera and look. Further, to see what we see during the preflight, you'd need a camera which can travel all around the gear and see from many different angles...and once we've seen it with the camera, it wouldn't provide an iota of useful information for handling a problem, abnormal condition, or emergency that we don't already have with the existing instrumentation.

I thought you may have been old enough to have remembered the crash of the DC10, Flight 191, May 25th 1979 that killed 272 people. A lot of the Check and Training knowledge in those days had the most emphasis on flying an airspeed and not an airspeed and body angle as was done later. With the leading edge devices not extended, the left wing then stalled and the aircraft crashed and all lives lost.

A camera display may have made a difference.


The air traffic controllers who witnessed the engine fall away and were in contact with the flight didn't notify the crew.

A camera would have made no difference. In particular, when the aircrat is rolling over at low level, one isn't going to be looking for a camera to evaluate the situation...that's the very last time one is going to go hunting for a picture to see what might be going on. Yes, I do remember the situation.

I asked you to discuss it; you refused. Show us how a camera might have made a difference, how it might have modified the procedure, or the pilot actions. Can you do that?

Where in the cockpit procedure do you find a reasonable place for the captain to say "John, old chap, do turn around and look at the camera to see if the engines are still attached to the airplane, will you?" When the airplane is in a knife edge bank, descending, and no longer in control, at what point should the first officer or flight engineer appropriately respond "I do say, you're quite right. It does appear that we may be missing one. Lucky guess that, don't you think?"

This is the reason we have and use the Engine Fire/Severe Damage/Separation Checklist...and the reason that our training department has reduced the memory item to a simple statement: "Maintaining control of the aircraft is of the utmost importance and takes priority over all other items."

The problem with the flight didn't stem from crew failure...the situation was duplicated 70 times by expert crews in the simulator...and not once were they able to prevent it from occuring. It started long before the departure, and was faulty maintenance and damage done during maintenance.

Further, there was nothing in the procedure for the airplane, had the crew been looking at a television monitor instead of flying the airpalne, which would have prompted them to alter their actions; they did exactly as they were trained, as they were supposed to do...and wouldn't have varied their actions based on a picture...even if they had the time to look at it as the airplane was rolling over and crashing.

Now, whereas 70 attempts by highly trained and skilled crews couldn't save the aircraft, not one...and whereas you seem to know more than everyone else, why don't you explain what you could do that nobody else could, will you?

I'll look for your answer when I get to Hong Kong.

[Tmbstory]

Thanks for the information, I find that the number of paragraphs to any reply is a put off..To be concise should be the order of the day.

Kind regards

Tmb

[TightSlot]

Actually, accuracy is the order of the day...

Complicated issues often require complicated solutions

[SNS3Guppy]

Thanks for the information, I find that the number of paragraphs to any reply is a put off..To be concise should be the order of the day.



Does this mean you won't be explaining in a "concise" manner exactly how a camera would have saved the DC-10?

Had the crew been given that exact information, they would have responded as they did...as as did every other crew in the 70 attempts to replicate and salvage...and would have failed just as every other attempt did. The crew did exactly what they were supposed to do, and had they been given a camera image as they fell from the sky, it wouldn't have helped them in the least.

Too bad we won't be hearing how YOU would have saved the day, camera in hand. That would be an interesting read.

[Gibon2]

Gosh - some ill-informed harsh words for what is actually a reasonable proposition from Tmbstory re the DC-10 accident in 1979. Maybe SNS3Guppy and Rainboe should read the NTSB report (here (http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR79-17.pdf)) and get their facts straight before jumping down a less-knowledgeable poster's throat.

Rainboe said:
To try and use that accident as justification for fitting cameras defies belief! Shows up a practice I've noticed increasing here- quoting examples of accidents that don't apply as justification for an argument.

This is plain ignorant, as well as rude. The accident is quite relevant to the camera question, as reading the NTSB report will make clear. You should read it, and then apologise to Tmbstory.

Guppy said:

The problem with the flight didn't stem from crew failure...the situation was duplicated 70 times by expert crews in the simulator...and not once were they able to prevent it from occuring.


This is totally incorrect. The situation was indeed duplicated 70 times in the simulator, by crews who had been briefed on what went wrong with 191. In most cases, the aircraft was recovered and landed safely. All that was required was lowering the nose and increasing airspeed. As the NTSB report says (page 54):

The simulator tests showed that the aircraft could have been flown successfully at speeds above 159 KIAS, or if the roll onset was recognized as a stall, the nose could have been lowered, and the aircraft accelerated out of the stall regime ... Had the pilot maintained excess airspeed, or even v2+10, the accident may not have occurred.

There was no blame on the crew, however, because they had no way of knowing about the slat disagreement or the stalled left wing (and so followed the standard engine-out procedures and reduced excess airspeed). This is the key - and leads to the question: would a camera that enabled the crew to see the wing at a glance have helped them understand the situation in the few seconds available?

The NTSB report does not consider cameras (and in 1979 the technology was presumably not adequate in any case). But it does consider the factor of the flight crew being unable to see the wing, the missing engine and the retracted slats (page 53):

Since the wing and engine cannot be seen from the cockpit and the slat position indicating system was inoperative, there would have been no indication to the flightcrew of the slat retraction and its subsequent performance penalty.

As Guppy will no doubt be quick to point out, the main problem was that the slat position indicating system was inoperative. As he told us earlier in the thread, the instruments are there for a reason, and tell you what you need to know more reliably than a visual observation can. But aviation safety is built around redundancy. If the instruments fail, or are misinterpreted, what other cues and input are available? Cameras aside, the NTSB report suggests that if the crew had had a clear view of the wing (let us imagine for a moment that DC-10s were constructed with the cockpit in a bubble canopy just behind the wing), then they may have been able to save the aircraft even without the slat indicators and the stall warning system.

But this doesn't automatically mean that cameras would have made a difference in this case, or that they would be a help in general. For 191, the first consideration must be that a camera is an instrument like any other, and needs power - if the slat indicator and stall warning system were inoperative (because of the electrical failure resulting from the engine separation), it is quite likely that the camera would have been inoperative also.

There is then the question of whether looking at the screen would help, or would be an unhelpful distraction, or add confusing and contradictory input to an already stressed and overloaded crew. It's speculation, of course, but I wonder if a glance at a screen that clearly showed an engine missing would provide enough of a cue to think "wing damage - slats - stall" and instinctively lower the nose.

In the general case, while I am largely persuaded by Guppy's arguments about reliance on procedures and instruments, I wonder if nevertheless cameras could provide in some circumstances a useful additional cue or context: something that confirms a surprising instrument reading, or causes a pilot to hesitate just long enough to catch the potentially serious error he's just made. Yes, if pilots follow the right procedures, and read their instruments correctly, and the instruments are working properly, then a camera adds nothing. But sometimes pilots don't follow the right procedures (for various reasons), sometimes instruments are misread and misinterpreted, and sometimes they malfunction in dastardly and insidious ways. Could cameras sometimes provide the extra layer of swiss cheese that covers the last hole?

More mundanely, would cameras not be useful in assessing landing gear problems? I find it difficult to see why a well-designed camera would not give better information on the actual state of the gear than flying past the tower so someone can have a look with binoculars.

If cameras were expensive, heavy or added significantly to the complexity of the aircraft, they clearly wouldn't be justified. But now they are tiny, cheap and easily integrated into computer systems, the disadvantages are minimal - however much we might argue about the lack of advantages.

[Rainboe]

A camera would have been of absolutely no assistance to the AA ORD pilots. They were trying to cope with severe swing and wing drop. Nobody would have had time to start flicking through multiple camera images to see what was going on- they were trying to control an uncontrollable aeroplane. Didn't they see the engine go past anyway? They would have had no time to switch to a camera behind the wing to inspect the leading edges. For a start, you would not be able to see the leading edges hanging down. So maybe you switch to a camera below the fuselage to check? How many channels are you supposed to surf through to find what you want? Each one needs orientation before you can assess any possible damage. And these cameras are going to be outside in the 500mph wind and rain and temperatures down to -60 degrees C? What sort of image do you realistically expect? One that will assess flap position and cowling damage? And they are supposed to be able to show leaks? Purrlease, let's be real! I don't think so!

On the VC10 we had a periscope that went up through the roof in the rear fuselage in front of the toilets to inspect the tail and top of the engine cowlings, and through the floor in the electronics compartment and below the aircraft to inspect the landing gear. Not a very useful image at all. A deflated aeroplane tyre looks exactly the same as a fully inflated one anyway. You can't even tell standing over it looking hard! All sorts of promises are being made how good these things will be. the professionals here know how crap they will actually turn out to be, with nobody any time to use them anyway! Particularly at critical times.

[Contacttower]

And these cameras are going to be outside in the 500mph wind and rain and temperatures down to -60 degrees C?Well the 777-300, A340-500/600 and A380 have cameras and they somehow survive the -60 temperatures :cool:. Since when has the temperature or speed affected the image quality?.....the human eye seems to work fine from the inside of a moving plane; and just because a camera looks outside doesn't mean it is outside.

And they are supposed to be able to show leaks? Purrlease, let's be real! I don't think so!You and Guppy have pretty much convinced me as far as a camera's lack of usefulness is concerned but on the specific point of leaks going back to the Air Transat case....they were losing an awful lot of fuel but because it was dark they couldn't see it; they looked with torches through the cabin windows but missed it. However the fuel was there and during the day would have been very visible indeed....a good night vision camera would have spotted it easily (and in this case they did have plenty of time to flick through channels/zoom in/orientate the image or whatever).

Now as Guppy has already said the instruments were already in theory telling them what they needed to know...ie fuel consumption very high. However if they had spotted the fuel escaping instead of wondering about computer issues while the fuel from the opposite tank happily cross fed into the leaking engine they probably would have been prompted to shut the fuel cross feed valve instead of leaving it open until the engine ran down leaving a lot less in the other wing tank.

[Tmbstory]

SNS3Guppy and Rainboe

If you read my post number 37 on this subject, you will note that my statement was that it "may have made a difference" A visit to the Oxford Dictionary may assist in this matter.

Tmb

[Gibon2]

Rainboe, a camera may have been of "absolutely no assistance", but you can't dismiss the possibility out of hand, especially on the basis of erroneous information about the accident.

Didn't they see the engine go past anyway?

No. The engine flipped up and over the leading edge, flew back over the wing, and fell behind the aircraft. It was not visible from the cockpit at any stage.

they were trying to control an uncontrollable aeroplane

No. They were trying to control an aeroplane that could almost certainly have been controlled if they only knew what was wrong with it. If they had been able to clearly see the left wing, then they would have known what was wrong with the aircraft, and why it was rolling left. The question, therefore, is "could a camera system have allowed them to see the left wing clearly, in time to realize what was happening?"

The answer to this (entirely hypothetical) question may indeed be "no", but it needs more careful consideration than you are prepared to give it. Certainly, the crew would not have had the time or inclination to switch through multiple views to peer carefully at various bits in search of the problem. But if, say, there was a video display that was constantly on, and that automatically showed whatever bit of the plane that happened to trigger a warning (in this case the left engine), the physical separation of the engine may well have caught the pilot's eye. That clue may have been enough to make the pilots realise the left wing was stalling.

And these cameras are going to be outside in the 500mph wind and rain and temperatures down to -60 degrees C? What sort of image do you realistically expect?

Why do cockpits have windscreens, when in some conditions you can't see anything useful out of them? The question is not "would cameras be useful in all circumstances?" The question is "would cameras be useful in some circumstances, and would this benefit outweigh the costs and any disadvantages?"

I doubt this question can be answered through debate on the internet - does anyone know of any actual trials of such cameras?

[SNS3Guppy]

No. They were trying to control an aeroplane that could almost certainly have been controlled if they only knew what was wrong with it. If they had been able to clearly see the left wing, then they would have known what was wrong with the aircraft, and why it was rolling left. The question, therefore, is "could a camera system have allowed them to see the left wing clearly, in time to realize what was happening?"


No, they wouldn't...nor would they have reason to attempt to experiment with the aircraft to see if going outside the procedures taught by the manufacturer and by the company would work or not. They followed the procedures given them. The manufacturer was faulted for design issues, and it was a situation not yet encountered.

One doesn't begin experimenting with the airplane in the few seconds one has to deal with the problem. One doesn't simply say "this is our procedure, but having seen a two dimensional image, we're going to re-invent the wheel and try what hasn't been tried before...and do something else entirely different." Had they seen the retracted leading edge devices they may very well have concluded that increasing speed would cause a further assymetry of lift and lead to further loss of control...every bit as much as one could conclude a reduction in speed might cause the same. They had no way of knowing, certainly had no reason to attempt the unknown and risk making it worse, and elected to fall back to flying the airplane.

That other crews, when given a full procedure to fly, were able to manage the situation is irrelevant. Those crews had the benefit of a designed solution to the problem, as well as a thorough understanding of the problem, and flew a profile...every bit as much as the crew that died flew a profile. The dead crew would have had no reason to attempt that profile as it didn't exist for them...seeing the leading edge devices retracted wouldn't have changed that.

A visit to the Oxford Dictionary may assist in this matter.


Quite the same as a little experience and understanding on your part might clarify the matter for you. It all sounds good on paper. It doesn't translate into practice.

This is totally incorrect. The situation was indeed duplicated 70 times in the simulator, by crews who had been briefed on what went wrong with 191. In most cases, the aircraft was recovered and landed safely. All that was required was lowering the nose and increasing airspeed.


In this quote, you cite my comments regarding the outcome of the simulation trials as in correct. Whereas I stated that of the 70 attempts to fly the profile, not one was successful, you say I am wrong. However, quoting the NTSB report...

During the tests, about 70 takeoffs and 2 simulated landings were
conducted. In all cases where the pilots duplicated the control inputs and pitch attitudes shown on the Flight 191's DFDR, control of the aircraft was lost and Flight 191's flight profile was duplicated. Those pilots who attempted to track the flight director's p!tch Command bars also duplicated Flight 191's DFUR profile.


Indeed, the report goes on to describe additional trials in which pilots attempted a number of different variable inputs, ranging from rotation rate to airspeed, to inclusion and exclusion of stick shaker inputs, flight director inputs, varied timing for the engine and slat loss, etc. It was determined that the airplane could be controlled, given enough foreknowledge and training to prepare for the event. It was also determined there was no way the crew could possibly have salvaged that event, given what they had to work with...and no, at 300' in a steep left descending bank in an assymetrical-thrust Vmc loss of control...glancing at a camera isn't going to save the day. Aside from the fact that flying a large airplane is all about mass management and that one can't simply recover like one can in a light airplane...ample exhaustive studies proved that the crew had no chance. Further, the study cited (NTSB) states that a determination was made that the crew faced a 2 in one billion chance of this happening; they were up against the rarest of circumstances...one can still fly the profiles to perfection and come up short. A camera wouldn't have saved them. Given what they were up against, nothing would have.

It's also worth noting that in discussing the success that crews had flying out of the problem after the fact, the same paragraph states that one thing that wasn't thrown into the mix was loss of thrust. The assymetrical thrust issue is every bit as important, in fact more so, than the loss of the leading edge devices...but where the pilots had no problem controlling the airplane with slats up, they did so without having to contend with assymetrical thrust and thrust loss...a critical and important distinction in addressing the differences between the perfect simulator pre-briefed world, and the reality of an out of control airplane at 300'...where literally the rubber does in fact meet the road.

You might suppose that most of us have never heard of this incident...laying aside the fact that it's discussed and taught and hashed over ad nauseum every six months at recurrent training, and in every ground school. Like many other well known and classic air disasters. Yes, we still fly the Delta 191 windshear profile every time we go through recurrent...and we go over and discuss at length many of these events. So while it may be new to you, it's certainly not new to us.

[BelArgUSA]

My opinion, as an active 747 captain and pilot instructor, is that a camera would be just about worthless in most circumstances with airplane incidents and accidents. Even with the case of AA 191, a camera showing the LH wing and the leading edge retraction, the separation of nº 1 engine during the takeoff would have been no help to the crew. And there was certainly no time for a reaction to be expected from the crew, except their normal emergency procedure for the engine failure, loss (or no loss) of the engine, which their SOP probably called for being accomplished at 800 or 1000 AGL...
xxx
Our instruments indicate quite well the symptoms of problems, such as engine failures, for which we must accomplish immediate actions from memory. Some other procedures are not memorized (in the 747) failures/loss of various hydraulic systems because quite long to complete and difficult to recall with accuracy, so in that case, we just read and follow the steps of a check-list.
xxx
As our friend SNS3Guppy mentions it, we constantly go through the facts of notorious accidents every 6 months or 12 months in the classrooms, or like myself, a dozen times yearly since I am often in classrooms, and there is very little we can add to the discussion of these accidents.
xxx
I still can park 747s with the line exactly half-way between the 2 nosewheel tyres.
And I know where to stop to align L-1 door with the jetway...
No "candid camera" needed for that...
:*
Happy contrails

[TightSlot]

How many patient and informed responses from professional pilots on this subject will it take before there is acceptance from some of you that are not professional pilots that they may be right?

If you are unwilling to accept such people as being something of an authority on the subject from which they make their living, then I have to wonder why you bother posting on PPRuNe at all?

One of the strengths of the Pax/SLF forum is that it is a place where those genuinely interested in commercial aviation can pose questions to professional pilots, and obtain accurate and considered responses - if those responses are then ignored, the incentive for those same pilots to continue posting is diluted: That would be regrettable.