zlacker

> Having cameras pointed at the engines/wings like rearview mirrors would be helpful.

Helpful in what way? What are the pilots going to do with the information?

>>krisof+(OP)
They won't have to rely on cabin crew description of what they see over the wings or have to send one of the pilots to take a look (see UA1175).

>>Exotic+A
its super weird to me this isn't a thing, and there's resistence to the idea. I mean, if they are already masters at glacing at 100000 differnent indicators and warning messages etc. and processing them at super speeds (they really do!) then i'd say a monitor with a bunch of buttons below it to switch feeds (maybe a little more elaborate, but not tooo...) would be helpful.

the problem might be getting trained and experienced pilots to adjust to it since they are already in a certain flow of habits and skills to apply in their job, but new pilots surely could learn it as they aren't so set on their ways yet and have the opportunity to build this new data into their skillset / habits.

>>Exotic+A
Okay. So you mean in general it would help in some cases. Not that in this case it would have helped.

> see UA1175

I'm familiar with the case you are mentioning. I'm also aware that they sent a jump seater to look at the engine. But did seeing the engine provide them with any actionable information? Did they fly the airplane differently than if they would have just seen the indications available in the cockpit?

>>Exotic+A
Sure, but in this situation there is zero time for any of that.

>>sim7c0+d6
Pilots are already overloaded so we can probably overload them a little more?

>>sim7c0+d6
Look, information overload is a real problem. Medical devices are an analogous industry in that in an emergency nurses and doctors are getting completely bombarded with alarm tones, flashing lights, noise, and also whatever is going on with the patient. There are standards in that industry governing how you alarm, what your alarm tones sound like, what colors you're supposed to use, how fast you're supposed to flash, and so on. And people still miss alarms because there are still a ton of them all going off at once.

People have an upper limit on their capacity to take in information, and that limit goes down when they are moving quickly to solve problems. Throwing more information at them in those moments increases the risk that they will take in the wrong information, disregard more important information, and make really bad decisions.

So no, it's not cut and dried like you're thinking.

>>sim7c0+d6
The entire event was over in less than a minute, and during that time there’s only one thing pilots are working on: maintaining what little control they have, and gaining as much altitude as possible without loss of control.

This is consuming all mental processing, there are no spare cycles.

This wasn’t a salvageable situation by having more information after the engine separated. If a sensor could have provided a warning of engine failure well before V1, that would be helpful.

I expect the questions will focus on what information existed that should have resulted in aborting the takeoff. Not what information was needed to continue.

>>lazide+Ef
There are countless situations where it can be helpful. You don’t have to focus on a particular one where this would not be of any use.

>>krisof+Z8
Yes, the cameras would not have helped here, but it dorsn’t mean they are useless in general.

Stupid car analogy: airbags help in most cases, but not all. Are they useless?

Regarding UA1175, they had someone extra, but not all flights happen to have someone extra in the cockpit.

>>Exotic+6D
Sure, but we’re literally in the thread discussing the exact situation it wouldn’t be helpful in haha

>>Exotic+VD
> airbags help in most cases, but not all.

Excellent. So in what cases does seeing the engine visually do help? So far we discussed UPS2976 and UA1175 where the presence or absence of the camera didn't change the outcome.

> Regarding UA1175, they had someone extra, but not all flights happen to have someone extra in the cockpit.

You are dancing around my question. What does the pilot do differently based on what they see? If you can't articulate a clear "pilot sees X they do Y, pilot sees Z they do Q" flow then what is the video good for?

in a sibling thread you say "There are countless situations where it can be helpful." But you haven't named even one of those countless situations yet.

>>krisof+vP
Let's say there is a case like UA1175: - they can see how damaged the engine is - they can see if the wing is damaged in any way (over and under) - is there any other damage to the aircraft (like there was a piece of shrapnel that hit the plane)

In other situations: - are the wheels out when the sensors say they are not - have a way to visually inspect critical parts of the plane while in flight (so you don't have to do a flyover and the tower to look with binoculars at the airplane)

This is what comes to mind now.

Happy? Or am I still dancing?

>>Exotic+VD
> Yes, the cameras would not have helped here, but it dorsn’t mean they are useless in general.

I think that statement needs the support of actual evidence. Air incident investigation agencies make detailed reports of the causes of crashes, with specific, targeted recommendations to help ensure that similar incidents don't recur.

If we haven't seen recommendations for cameras like that, then I think it's reasonable to assume that the actual experts here have determined that cameras would not be helpful.

>>krisof+vP
> So far we discussed UPS2976 and UA1175 where the presence or absence of the camera didn't change the outcome

To be fair, the presence of a camera might have changed the outcome of UPS2976. Depending on when the fire developed fully, rejecting the takeoff based on the sheer size of the fireball on the wing might have led to fewer casualties on the ground. This is of course under the assumption of a world where a camera feed is a normal part of the flight deck instruments and there is a standard for the pilot monitoring to make judgments based on it.

>>kelnos+MF1
FAA/EASA can dictate what equipment new airplans should/must have. And that is done in cooperation with the manufacturers. And manufacturers have zero incentives to add new equipment, airlines zero desire to do additional certifications for pilots.

It is not reasonable to assume anything.

Air crash investigators are not the experts on airplanes design.