12 ms·
I was wondering last night why there isn't video of airplane landings being taken as a routine course of action? If nothing eventful happens they can delete the
by alexmarcy 13y ago
I was wondering last night why there isn't video of airplane landings being taken as a routine course of action? If nothing eventful happens they can delete the footage but in an instance like this they would have video of exactly what happened.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- melling 13y agoHow often is there a crash landing at an airport? Video would probably be more useful in automobiles. There are lots of accidents every day. At some point video at airports or on planes be be useful for collision warnings. Camera on the plane could warn the tower and pilot.
- joering2 13y agoWhats the difference does it make "how often"? When it happens its usually fatal and this looks like a miracle only 2 dead (RIP). How often per year you have terrorist attack (1 this year?) and yet you have billions of dollars spent and US Constitution shredded with the possibility of some sweating pot-belly stranger grouping your three-years daughter between her crotch, checking if you hadn't packed some explosives there (just like every american parent would sacrifice their child for their terrorist threat [just being extremely sarcastic here obviously]). Its actually weird that each airport does not have close-circuit cameras recording each runway. I dont see a problem just make it what 24hours closed recording and its enough in case there is situation like this one. Side note: from the initial pictures how the roof looked like, my assumption was that there were two bombs in overhead compartments. I would never guess that a belly diving would cause such a sever damage to the roof of the airplane where it looks like it was extensively burned.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoThe fire caused that roof damage.
- jeffbarr 13y agoEvery photo that I have seems shows the open roof. I can't tell if the fire burned it through or if the roof was ripped open by the fire fighters and the rescue teams. If the former, I wonder if the plane's vertical profile was designed in such a way as to keep the fire above the passengers (if such a thing is even possible).
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoMy experience with fire in an enclosed space is that you never want to introduce air. I am confident that the airport fire crews did not rip the fuselage open at the top. The photos I have seen look like burned aluminum. http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/news/660/371/Asana%20Flight%20214.jpg?ve=1 http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/i...
- lsaferite 13y agoDavid Eun's post right after evacuating the aircraft shows the roof still intact. https://path.com/p/1lwrZb https://path.com/p/1lwrZb
- lsaferite 13y agoThe initial crash had some smaller fires that died out. They evacuated the people and then the plane started burning. The damage to the roof was from the secondary fires.
- melling 13y agoBecause if it only happens once every 10 years or so and it doesn't provide any real value beyond what the flight and data recorders provide then it hardly seems worth it. Technology changes quickly. It sounds like it was human error. I'd rather have something to help prevent it rather than seeing the footage of the crash. Let's get the crashes down to one every 20 years.
- waster 13y agoCars in Russia routinely have dash-mounted cams to record driving; helps for insurance claims. It's one reason why there were so many videos of the meteorite that hit Chelyabinsk, taken while driving.
- theorique 13y agoRussia seems to be the richest vein of "weird road videos" for precisely this reason - when you're recording "everything" then you get a lot more strange incidents on camera. The habit seems to be spreading by Russian immigrants too - I had a Russian driver the other week, and that was the first US taxi I had been in that had a dash cam.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoThe cost of minimal useful equipment to accomplish that task at every international airport in the US (~150) would be less than the cost of a single 777 empty ($300MM). The value of that footage? I don't know, but it sounds like a bargain to me.
- coin 13y agoThey have something like this already, it's called a Flight Data Recorder
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoI can't wait to see the video footage from it!
- ekianjo 13y agoDo they record videos too ? I don't think so.
- nawitus 13y agoModern planes have multiple video cameras attached to them, I'm not sure if they are recorded, though. They help with taxing.
- aylons 13y agoFatal crashes like this are rare enough to make the headlines, but near-accidents, non-fatal accidents and other minor events could be better documented and help improve the overall safety and efficiency. Given the current low price of high-quality video equipment, and the cost of both safety equipment and investigation, even in minor cases, this sounds actually like a good idea. Footage could be deleted quickly if nothing eventful happens, reducing the costs even further. It would be much more helpful and less privacy-invasive than the rest of the airport camera circuit, and probably cheaper.
- joonix 13y agoBureaucracy. Some entrepreneurial employee of the airport can't just head out and install cameras, no matter how cheap they are. You or I could get a gopro and a tiny PC and have high quality footage recorded all day and then deleted automatically if nothing eventful happens. But... we're talking about an industry that still uses token-ring networks. A "markets" person might think, if it's so cheap and the footage of a crash so valuable, why don't individuals across the bay setup their own cameras to record the runway, then sell the footage if it becomes valuable?
- xxpor 13y ago>we're talking about an industry that still uses token-ring networks Wait, seriously? I'm interested...
- aylons 13y agoMy question still stands. I'm not proposing for some random person to go there and install the cameras, I'm wondering why the industry does not adopt this as a standard practice.
- salgernon 13y agoEither they already are, or it was deemed not useful to diagnose and prevent other disasters. Given the depth and the breadth of rules and regulations that make air travel safer than crossing the street [citation needed, I'm sure], I would assume that they're doing something right.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThe cost is trivial in proportion to the benefit (and pretty trivial in absolute terms; for a few thousand you could have a high resolution image shooting at a high frame rate). Most car journeys don't involve an accident either, it's just that there's so many of them.
- hnriot 13y agoA few dozen go pro's are not going to cost much and we have surveillance pretty much everywhere else, so why not here. Every post office in the USA has about 25 high res cameras.
- saraid216 13y agoWe have surveillance elsewhere because there's a relatively high possibility of criminal activity. On a runway, that possibility is ridiculously low. We fear malice more than incompetence.
- tnorthcutt 13y agoWe have surveillance elsewhere because there's a relatively high possibility of criminal activity. Where are you talking about?
- saraid216 13y agoHigh density populations.
- MichaelApproved 13y agoI'm in favor of blanket video at airports but the cameras are probably the cheapest part of the setup. You'll need to wire the cameras with electricity and data connections to a system. You'll also need to make sure that they are secure enough not to blow over and litter the runway or far enough away not to be a danger. That takes testing and planning for every airport. Lots of money to do this. Still worth it but its much more expensive than a few go pros and tripods.
- WalterBright 13y agoYou could just install them inside the tower pointing out the window.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago
- antmldr 13y agoNot sure how you'd warn a pilot about a crash simply using a camera? Either way, there is already a (practically P2P) collision avoidance system that's pretty reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS
- coin 13y agoThe Flight Data Recorder will have recorded everything anyways
- dredmorbius 13y agoThe FDR / CVR will record much data, including controls and communications. They won't record: Other aircraft or objects in the vicinity. Parts of the aircraft which have separated. Look to the telemetry data / communications in the case of the Columbia shuttle disaster as ground control tried to work out what was happening with the off-range readings for tire pressure sensors -- as the wing of the shuttle was being carved out from the inside by 6000°F reentry plasma. Fine-grained movement of the aircraft, its components, the interior, fire and/or smoke, debris, etc, at 16-1000 frames per second 1080p resolution. Runway incursions, airspace incursions, and other near-miss phenomena. Small aircraft without FDR/CVR equipment. The equipment cost is minimal. Equipping the plane itself with video capabilities would be an additional feature, but simply having ground, runway, approach, and departure path video would be useful. As others have noted, not only for the (very rare) emergencies, but for the far more common "incidents". On the negative side: inclement weather, including rain, snow, and fog (the latter being common at SFO) would limit utility somewhat. http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/ http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incurs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/06/runway_incursions_a_threat_to_aviation_safety.html http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/06/runway_incursi... From that last (and presumably applying to Canada, not the US): A Star analysis of Transport Canada data counted 5,677 incursions by aircraft, vehicles and pedestrians since 1999, averaging almost 400 a year.
- teeja 13y agoMaybe all available surveillance cams were in use on your street, catching teens flipping each other off and trading "contraband".
- morsch 13y agoMaybe you presume incorrectly and videos of airplane landings are taken as a routine course of action -- but not released publicly.
- lsaferite 13y agoI was in a hotel that looked across the water (Red Roof Inn) and saw the crash. I talked to several pilots that were watching the aftermath with me and they said the FAA does actually have cameras recording landings and takeoffs.
- jonknee 13y agoYou could even get the private market to finance it--at least for larger airports. I'm sure sites like FlightAware and Airliners.net would love the footage.
- adventured 13y agoThere is video of every take off and landing. It is not released to the public.
- yread 13y agoYou've heard about the black box, right? That has all the information that they need to figure it out. I admit that video is cooler to watch than some squiggly lines of accelarations, roll and pitch, though
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mseebach 13y agoProbably because video isn't terribly useful in determining what happened. Plane came in too low, tail struck the seawall. Assuming that is actually what happened, this was clear as soon as the news helicopters were on site. All video would contribute (assuming that it doesn't exist as just isn't released as is suggested) is entertainment to the public. The interesting question to answer isn't the exact mechanics of the crash, but why the plane came in too low. All the video footage in the world is not going to answer the why - the flight data and cockpit voice recorders might, on the other hand.