5 ms·
If there were, they'd do it, but it doesn't help their business, so they don't.
by CosmicShadow 4y ago
If 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.