7 ms·
Here’s the thing that gets me. A 767 costs hundreds of millions of dollars and yet I’ve filmed better videos with a potato. Why is the pilot filming with his sm
by shortcake27 4y ago
Here’s the thing that gets me. A 767 costs hundreds of millions of dollars and yet I’ve filmed better videos with a potato. Why is the pilot filming with his smartphone? Why does the plane not have a sophisticated high-quality purpose-built camera system that can record phenomena like this?
- yunohn 4y agoHuh? Are you seriously asking why commercial airliners don’t have 4K GoPros to record UAP/UFOs?
- gizmodo59 4y agoMany commercial airlines at least international (like emirates) have cameras all over. You can even watch it from your seat.
- yunohn 4y agoThey’re not 4K and they’re not meant to be aimed at UAPs. IME they don’t have long term storage either.
- edgyquant 4y agoYes. Why is that unreasonable?
- nradov 4y agoIt's unreasonable because installing and maintaining aviation qualified cameras is expensive. You can't just strap a consumer action camera to the wing and expect the FAA to approve. Airlines have no incentive to pay for extra cameras.
- actually_a_dog 4y agoYep. It’s the same reason why a lot of planes still have a “no smoking” light even though smoking hasn’t been allowed on planes for years. If they took them out, they’d have to recertify the electronics. It’s much easier and cheaper to have a useless light that always stays on than to go through that process to remove it.
- bluepizza 4y agoThere are plenty incentives to including imaging as part of black boxes. Nothing unreasonable about it. It would help elucidate several non-UFO normal life kind of incidents.
- CosmicShadow 4y agoIf there were, they'd do it, but it doesn't help their business, so they don't.
- bluepizza 4y agoImaging and storage used to be much more expensive, so if this decision was to be reviewed today, I am pretty sure regulators would start requiring it. Just because things are as they are, doesn't mean that they couldn't be better.
- nradov 4y agoNah. External cameras wouldn't do anything significant to improve safety or help with crash investigations so there's no reason for the FAA to impose such a requirement. It's just a silly idea. But regulators do revisit existing rules all the time. If you really want this then feel free to file a formal petition for rulemaking. If you do that then they'll have to at least look at it. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/petition https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/petition
- carlosjobim 4y agoThey must be some kind of gods really. Anything they do is because it make perfect sense. If there's something they're not doing it's because of course it's not worth doing!
- CosmicShadow 4y agoYeah, who'd think a business would try and not spend money on something they don't need in a cut-throat industry.
- rossjudson 4y agoNot to mention creating another source of liability for themselves. "And then the pilot did WHAT?"
- fragmede 4y agoExcept that's already logged extensively on the black box (which is rm actually red) flight recorder, so that doesn't seem like a good excuse.
- fragmede 4y agoI think a pilot could easily suction cup a GoPro on a mount to the back of the cockpit door, facing the whole cockpit.
- nradov 4y agoThat would be a policy violation at any major US airline. They don't want random objects in the cockpit which could come loose in severe turbulence or a crash, causing a safety hazard. It would be pointless for this use case anyway. The field of view through the cockpit windows is very narrow and any UAP would only show up as a few blurry pixels.
- willis936 4y agoI'm wondering why a multi-million dollar aircraft doesn't have a $10k imaging system when I put a $300 imaging system on my $30k car. If I'm willing to spend 1% to understand equipment damage then why would this logic not follow for a billion dollar fleet of aircraft? Like-minded drivers have caught amazing videos of meteors. Planes could do the same for supposedly legitimate UAP sightings.
- namaria 4y agoWell would you increase the budget of your production grade deliverables for maybe proving to internet forum visitors that your product sometimes is in the presence of weird phenomena?
- shortcake27 4y agoAre you suggesting NARCAP is an internet forum?
- namaria 4y agoThey don't seem to think the camera resolution is a problem in taking these sightings seriously, as opposed to random person here I'm responding to. Seems to indicate something doesn't it?
- rowanG077 4y agoOh I dunno. Maybe because that's what people do? We put billions into explaining stuff we don't understand.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- namaria 4y agoBuilding a particle accelerator is not the same as adding 1% to the cost of an already costly machine for the off chance of proving some marginal phenomena visually.
- mkl 4y agoMore "why don't they have general-purpose dashcam-equivalents", for capturing anything of interest, e.g. the near-miss that was on HN yesterday.
- shortcake27 4y agoNo, that’s not what I’m asking, because a GoPro costs about $400. I’m asking why they don’t have something 10x better than a GoPro.
- DennisP 4y agoTwo Boeing 737 Max aircraft crashed because they didn't have a backup angle-of-attack sensor. According to a former NTSB director, "this is a fairly simple external device that can get damaged on a regular basis." https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/boeing-sensor-737-max-faa/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/boeing-sensor-737-ma... I'm guessing the reason they didn't put a lifesaving backup sensor on the plane might be sorta similar to the reason they don't add high-definition cameras in case of UFOs.
- shortcake27 4y agoThat is truly mental.
- jcims 4y agoThe SLS costs $4B per launch and apparently has very little onboard imaging capability.