Off topic - Cameras on planes

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2008: Off topic - Cameras on planes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Vince M on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 10:12 am:

Sorry to post a completely non-t topic, but i know we have some aeronautical experts here on the forum. It has been driving me crazy. Every time we have a plane crash, we are all left to wonder what really happened. Did the engine fall off? Birds? Rocket? Wing damage? Panic on board? Pilots sleeping on the job? The pilot "thinks" the landing gear may not be fully extended....??

I have a camera on the end gate of my truck, on most cell phones, every 7-11 in existance.. Why no cameras on the exterior and interior of airplanes?

The signal could be sent via sattelite directly to the tower and temporarily stored for wiewing should it become necessary. I just dont get it. The black box as the only source of data seems a bit behind the times to me. Any thoughts?

Vince


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By wilf bradbury on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 11:01 am:

As a retired pilot, good point. I believe the new "Scarebus" I mean Airbus A380 does now have a camera mounted on the tail fin looking forward.
I still don't feel comfortable with these new Aircraft being totally flown by computers!
Wilf


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 11:01 am:

Any time you hang something on the outside of an airplane, the aerodynamics considerations are huge. There are some onboard external camera systems available, but mandating them on every airliner would not make economic sense.

Next, consider there are thousands of airliners airborne right now, and they'll all land safely. Multiple cameras and their signals would mostly just pollute the "ether."

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By wilf bradbury on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 11:15 am:

Vince , in fairness to the aircraft manufacturer, the black box and cockpit voice recorder gives all the information that u comment on in your opening thread.
In the case of the Hudson River incident, Canada Geese I think are the culprits. More pressure is required against the tree huggers to reduce their population which has gone completely out of control. They are a pain in the butt world wide.
Wilf


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jeff Humble on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 11:41 am:

Better idea on paper than in reality. Being able to direct cameras to all critical areas is not easy. Cameras will have to be mounted to something and will have to work in the same harsh environment, at night in the dark, covered in ice, hail, heavy rain, etc. I agree with the earlier comment regarding the thousands of flights that take place daily without incident vs the one flight that ditched in the river, just does not justify the expense and trouble to integrate and maintain cameras on commercial airliners. And had cameras been on the plane that ditched, well, the pilot knew they had multiple bird strikes, knew they lost power, knew they had to put it down, verifying the bird stirke with video provides no helpful information to the pilot, passengers, rescuers, or investigators. And if the cameras became a requiremnt, it would be the ticket buyers that will be picking up the tab.

I have had bird strikes , I was lucky enough to only suffer a cracked windscreen or a dented wing. Flying is inherently dangerous, but nothing compared to driving a car, climbing a ladder, taking a bath, being near a pool, or seeing a doctor, non of which have camera requirements.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Vince M on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 12:56 pm:

good points, but i have one on the end gate of a pick-up truck and it takes a lot from the elements.

That being said, why not inside the plane at least?

Regarding aerodynamics, the one on my truck is slender and protrudes less than a half inch from the surface.

Cost - i dont know but say 100k gets it done. thats not huge on a 50 mil aircraft. given the information that you can gain it seems doable.

I agree air flight is very safe, but when something catastrophic happens the plane is usually destroyed, and we are left with no visual evidence of what took place, unless some yahoo happens to be filming a family video and catches the action from the ground. Even then its after the event occurs.

Regarding the bird strikes..yes the pilot knew, but what if he didnt know for sure? we would all be thinking terrorism right now.

cameras to see every inch of the plane...no, but why not a few?

vince


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 02:25 pm:

"Regarding aerodynamics, the one on my truck is slender and protrudes less than a half inch from the surface."

The drag penalty on anything sticking out in the airsteam is huge. The company I work for is looking at all external repairs and the sealant application on lap joints to ensure they are faired in by 10:1. A doubler that sticks up into the airstream by .100 is not good. It actually makes sense for us to correct this (at $65 an hour labor) rather than to leave it alone.

I have pulled down many an engine that has had bird strikes (F-14 vs seagulls) and can tell you the guy examining it can tell you what happened to it. We would usually get them 1-2 days after (with the thing parked in the sun) and I promise I knew what hit the fan section. Even in the case of the "gull hitting the fan" it smelled and tore things up like "__it hitting the fan".


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By tdump on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 03:01 pm:

In other words there aint much goose left once it goes in a jet engine?
How high up do most of these airliners fly and is it comparable to a goose?
Most of the goose's or Geese,that I see flying are alot lower to the ground than the jet airliners.
My only theory is the Goose is flying low and the impacts take place during landing or taking off.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce Peterson on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 03:16 pm:

Birds like airports because there is typically a restaurant in every airport that gives off an attractive smell, and a dumpster that may have food scraps around it, and some drainage ditches with water, and places to nest. So it does not matter how high a plane flies. Most bird strikes happen on takeoff or landing at less than 3000 ft AGL, and within 5 miles of an airport.

Bird strikes have been reported as high as 30,000 feet. Most smaller airliners cruise at 35,000 feet. Long range airliners cruise higher, a Boeing 747 will go to 41,000 feet for best cruise fuel consumption. Corporate jets tend to cruise between 43,000 and 47,000 feet.

We installed a 5 camera system on several of our company's corporate jets. They are strictly for entertainment of the passengers, who each can select the camera of their choice on their personal screens. Systems like this run from $50,000 up, ours was about $150,000. This is a cost that airlines don't want to pay, and as mentioned above it is unnecessary.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 03:32 pm:

Geese are not only hazards to airplanes, they will become an public health issue within the next 10 years. Already, any city park with a pond is nasty with goose crap and it will only get worse. There is a reason we have sewage treatment and plumbing for humans and that is we would all become ill if it weren't for that.

One day when bird flue or some other desease is carried in by such "nice birds" we won't be able to shoot them fast enough.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Warren Mortensen on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 03:33 pm:

Canada Geese AKA Sky Carp.

I think part of the problem these days is the fact that these birds don't all migrate. My understanding (and I could be totally wrong) is that back in the '70s when the Canada Goose was on the endangered species list, the Michigan & Minnesota Depts. of Natural Resources started programs to take eggs from native nests and hatch them out for breeding stock. This generation and subsequent ones hatched from these birds were never taught to migrate so they hang around all winter while some fools feed them.

Around here, we've found that it pays not to mow large areas of open field. They don't like tall grass (something might jump out and grab 'em) and the number of them in the neighborhood has dropped considerably since I quit haying off my property.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 04:19 pm:

"Sky Carp" - that's good.

On the Rock River in N. Ill, they put oil on the eggs to keep them from hatching.

Migratory fowl that don't go south for the winter should be eradicated. Geese in NY in January are screwing up the balance of nature. NY needs more coyotes.

If they were a nuisance here, I would get a shotgun or trap, and buy less meat.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim Moore on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 10:30 pm:

Ricks,

They do that instead of breaking the eggs so the geese don't lay more. My old boss used to shake eggs in nests then put them back, we have terrible geese problems on campus on the farms and scare them off fields with pistols that shoot "bombs" or bottle rockets but that is a little futile since they just go from one field to the next.

There is a compound available to spray but it is expensive. It is processed grape skins left over from wine production. It is applied to lawns and when the geese eat the grass it makes them sick. Somehow geese can see in a different light spectrum and they see where this material is on the grass and keep off it.

I dug a pond at my old place-the first year a pair of geese came in and I thought it was great. The next year there were geese everywhere. I had enough when one day I dropped my gum and thought I found it about 100 times--YUCK!

Tim Moore


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By jdimit on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 11:28 pm:

"I had enough when one day I dropped my gum and thought I found it about 100 times--YUCK!"

I think I'd have got a new piece after the first one didn't taste right!



(GRIN)

Sorry I couldn't resist, Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Garnet on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 09:03 am:

I remember seeing a documentary a number of years ago about this fancy new passenger jet engine. They ran hundreds if not thousands of gallons of water into it whilst running trying to stall it - it didn't stall. Then they blew some explosives that had been placed onto the fan blades - the engine kept running safely. I suppose a duck would stall the damn thing! Why isn't this engine on all the new planes? I would bet it's costly, but cost has to come second to safety.

Regards,
Garnet


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Thomas J. Miller "Tom" on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 09:44 am:

I figured this all out last night as I was playing with my American Flyer train set. It ensures the safety of the passengers and any endangered species. Don't anyone try to beat me to the patent office with this.

Totally New Concept


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jeff Humble on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 10:21 am:

Garnet,
I disagree with your comment "cost has to come second to safety". Although safety is a high priority, it is not the only priority. But as in any endeavor, there is an amount of risk, just like when you get in your car, climb a ladder, take a bath, or see a doctor. Would you rather pay $3,000 for an airline ticket with a 99% probability of safety, or pay $350 for a flight with a 95% probability of safety? We could apply the same standard to our Model T's and state that safety is the primary goal, and considering the inadequate brakes, slow speed traffic hazard, wheel shimmy, 90 year old dry wood spoke wheels, no seat belts, no roll over protection, no turn signals or brake lights, no airbags, etc., that we should no longer drive them, but we do. And even though we accept the risk of injury or death while working on and driving a Model T, we expect the airlines to guarantee safety in what is already the safest mode of transportation.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 10:35 am:

Consider the millions of hours flown in this country per bird strike and it is basically a non-event. Then consider the probability that the engine would fail after ingesting a bird (again very low). The probability that the second engine would fail after the first failed from bird strike is almost in the impossible realm. Those folks were just unlucky to have the situation happen and at the same time extremely lucky to land next to a sand bar with boats right there.

The FAA does not show restraint in mandating anything as their charter by law is to promote and regulate aviation. If it would improve safety by any measureable margine it would have already happened. The expense isn't theirs to bear but the end user so they don't show much restraint.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Garnet on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 12:16 pm:

Nice lookin' cowcatcher Thomas!

Garnet


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Memmelaar Jr on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 12:34 pm:

Japan Airlines and China Air have nose gear cameras and a camera that looks down on the run-way for take off and landing, they are both pretty cool stuff


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 01:44 pm:

Migratory bird population has exploded in the last 30-40 years. There should be open season on migratory birds that winter in the north instead of flying south. It will help the species.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 03:15 pm:

Tom,
Um, sorry, but your invention is only good against COWs, and I haven't heard of any flying cow incidences--atlhough my dad often alluded to "when cows fly" when I was a kid.
Hmmmm.
T'
David D.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Grady Puryear on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 07:16 pm:

Anybody on this Forum that has flown as a pilot can testify as to the damage that a bird can do to an airplane, even a small bird. They can really do a number on the smaller two place types if they have a windscreen strike. In my Service days we had a buzzard strike in a B-25, that sucker somehow got through the prop and hit the leading edge between the engine and wing root, and it looked like it had been hit by antiaircraft fire. I remember seeing the TV show Mr. Garnet's post refers to, I want to think that either on that show or one like it they tossed frozen chickens and etc. into the engines. A crew member on board an aircraft carrier was sucked through the engine, true story, he stalled the engine out and lived through it, it is on one of the computer programs if you know how to look, I don't.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Patterson (Aust) on Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 12:08 am:

This is slightly off topic, but I couldnt resist,
A millenia ago, in another life, I had some experience with camera's in aircraft....just not the type you guys are talking about.
My experience is with reconnaisance cameras, strike cameras and gun cameras. I used to load them, install them, uninstall them, unload them, process the film, maintain them, maintain the equipment needed for thier processing and project the results for the pilots. All in the late 70's and early 80's, Carrier Air Group, Fleet Air Arm, Royal Australian Navy.
Bird strikes have been mentioned as to causing huge damage to aircraft.
But you should see the remains of a strike camera fitted to an F111 after the canon has been fired.
The gun fits belly centreline, and the camera is directly forward of it and is sacrificed should the pilot need to use the cannon. I've seen the result of an accidental shoot up.
I also had to photograph bird strike damage to aircraft, and the best example I can think of as to how deadly they are, is the almost total destruction to the incredibly thick (about 2" from memory) layered, small piece of glass, directly ahead in an A4 Skyhawk cockpit. Some of it had completely disappeared and what remained was splintered and shattered.
Rob


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail:

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration