Visual Monitoring of Control Surfaces in Flight
what a read.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes: cameras have their places
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camera views of airframe
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
It may have saved a lot of lives.
Tmb
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameras on the airframe.
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
A camera display may have made a difference.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight 191 is actually a good example for discussion
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) and get their facts straight before jumping down a less-knowledgeable poster's throat.
Rainboe said:
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:
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):
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):
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.