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]

Outside cameras on aircraft

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

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

[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 .

[Contacttower]

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

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

Anyway it seems that a lot of planes have them anyway....http://www.pprune.org/questions/3400...eroplanes.html

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

[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.