4 ms·

You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs, and they don't require anything else like faster response or a different viewpoint. You'd lose

You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs, and they don't require anything else like faster response or a different viewpoint. You'd lose in terms of putting another hole in the aircraft and maintaining another system, and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work.

ghaff 3y ago
>and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work. And presumably if the camera doesn't work as part of the pre-flight checklist for whatever reason, you're not going anywhere until it's fixed/replaced.
- throwawaymobule 3y ago
  camera would probably just get an INOP sticker put somewhere, a surprising number of things can be nonfunctional on an airplane before it's grounded. part of it is that there's a backup for most everything required.
gambiting 3y ago
....how can they see the area where the front gear is from within the plane?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- alistairSH 3y ago
  The pilots "see" it with sensors. The tower sees it with a set of binoculars. Hopefully.
- nunuvit 3y ago
  The people in the airplane ask the people on the ground to look at it for them. "They" refers collectively to pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers.
nkozyra 3y ago
> You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well. For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy
- nunuvit 3y ago
  Why is the current time and redundancy requirement insufficient? They had plenty of time and opportunities to look at it, and they succeeded with time to spare. What is the scenario where they would run out of time, and why couldn't they land assuming that the landing gear wasn't deployed? You'd need potentially an unrealistic number of cameras. Even if you decide on a case by case basis, you still have to weigh the risk that every component adds, and with a finite amount of money to spend on risk reduction you want to get the most bang for your buck.
  - nkozyra 3y ago
    > Why is the current time and redundancy requirement insufficient? I'm operating under the belief that more time to respond to issues is always a plus. Do you disagree?
    - brianpan 3y ago
      More time to respond is a plus. Adding hardware is a minus. Good enough is good enough.
      - nkozyra 3y ago
        > Adding hardware is a minus. It's a cost, which is why I'm trying to understand what the ROI would be. > Good enough is good enough. In cases like this, yes, but ... planes do crash due to mechanical failure and it's not unusual for there to be confusion from instrumentation where visual confirmation could help.
        nunuvit 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago

>and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work. And presumably if the camera doesn't work as part of the pre-flight checklist for whatever reason, you're not going anywhere until it's fixed/replaced.

throwawaymobule 3y ago
camera would probably just get an INOP sticker put somewhere, a surprising number of things can be nonfunctional on an airplane before it's grounded. part of it is that there's a backup for most everything required.

gambiting 3y ago

....how can they see the area where the front gear is from within the plane?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alistairSH 3y ago
The pilots "see" it with sensors. The tower sees it with a set of binoculars. Hopefully.
nunuvit 3y ago
The people in the airplane ask the people on the ground to look at it for them. "They" refers collectively to pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers.

nkozyra 3y ago

> You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well. For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy

nunuvit 3y ago
Why is the current time and redundancy requirement insufficient? They had plenty of time and opportunities to look at it, and they succeeded with time to spare. What is the scenario where they would run out of time, and why couldn't they land assuming that the landing gear wasn't deployed? You'd need potentially an unrealistic number of cameras. Even if you decide on a case by case basis, you still have to weigh the risk that every component adds, and with a finite amount of money to spend on risk reduction you want to get the most bang for your buck.
- nkozyra 3y ago
  > Why is the current time and redundancy requirement insufficient? I'm operating under the belief that more time to respond to issues is always a plus. Do you disagree?
  - brianpan 3y ago
    More time to respond is a plus. Adding hardware is a minus. Good enough is good enough.
    - nkozyra 3y ago
      > Adding hardware is a minus. It's a cost, which is why I'm trying to understand what the ROI would be. > Good enough is good enough. In cases like this, yes, but ... planes do crash due to mechanical failure and it's not unusual for there to be confusion from instrumentation where visual confirmation could help.
      - nunuvit 3y ago