Bird strike, eject. Is onboard video usual?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bird strike, eject. Is onboard video usual?
http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=5...oPA&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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... 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 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.
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go to:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm#Videos
it's under hawk strike.
Save target as......
I-C
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm#Videos
it's under hawk strike.
Save target as......
I-C
