an idea for new planes.

irishgeo

i was watching an aircrash investigation where the plane crashed on the m1 after the pilots shut down the wrong engine. we know its impossible to see the engines from the cockpit.

surely it would be a good idea to install video camera so the pilots could see any issues with the engines, similar to the reversing cameras in new cars.

i would also install them so the pilots could see the flaps , the rudder and the landing gear. No need to be asking the control tower to see if the landing gear is down.

i know its going to cost money but the prices have surely come down if they are fitted in cars now.

well what does everyone think?

D0NNELLY

I was in a flight and had the option to switch to outside cameras on the in-flight entertainment.

One was undercarriage.

martinsvi

if we use Kegworth disaster as a reference, if you can mistake one dial for another, you might as well mistake footage from one engine for another. It doesn't solve anything, particularly if most jet engine failures are contained within engine - visual look at will reveal nothing. I also can't see any benefit using it for flaps or any other primary/secondary flight controls, I mean if there's an issue it will show itself instantly, you don't need a visual confirmation if you suddenly have asymmetric flaps or whatever - plane's behavior will tell you whats wrong (also most modern transport aircraft would employ some form of annunciators anyway)

Landing gear camera however would make a lot of sense.. I would also add one for high wing turbo props to allow visually check for icing on upper surface of the wing

phonypony

I think raw accurate parameter data is going to be far more useful than a direct visual observation, certainly where engines are concerned. The issue isn't acquiring and presenting the information, it's the human brain misinterpreting information and making a poor decision that continues to be the problem.

weisses

phonypony wrote: »

I think raw accurate parameter data is going to be far more useful than a direct visual observation, certainly where engines are concerned. The issue isn't acquiring and presenting the information, it's the human brain misinterpreting information and making a poor decision that continues to be the problem.

Still there are still little arrows in the cabin indicating where the wing is ... So flight crew knows exactly where to look at the wings (engines)

eatmyshorts

weisses wrote: »

Still there are still little arrows in the cabin indicating where the wing is ... So flight crew knows exactly where to look at the wings (engines)

The little black arrows on the cabin sidewall?
They're for engineering to know where the air ducts are behind, as far as I can remember.

marno21

Flight crew can just as easily go into the cabin and have a look out the window? Would be much clearer and would remove the problem of the pilot mistaking one camera from the other. Would also be much clearer especially at night.

cml387

marno21 wrote: »

Flight crew can just as easily go into the cabin and have a look out the window? Would be much clearer and would remove the problem of the pilot mistaking one camera from the other. Would also be much clearer especially at night.

Or empower the cabin crew to speak up, as in the case of Kegworth they must have known which engine was failing.

Tenger

cml387 wrote: »

Or empower the cabin crew to speak up, as in the case of Kegworth they must have known which engine was failing.

Wasnt the issue there that the cabin crew did give the info but there was a misunderstanding about lefthand engine vs righthand engine.

As in "aircraft lefthand" vs "my left as I look rearward"



OP: I think the video feed for undercarriage is a good idea. However one issue is the lack of abity to visually confirm 'fully extended and locked' versus 'fully extended'.

Irish Steve

The Kegworth issue was down to confusion on the flight deck due to a recent transition from an earlier version of the 737 that had a different systems configuration, so when they got fumes on the flight deck, it preconditioned their thinking as to which engine was faulty, the new aircraft was using the other engine for flight deck air. There were a whole raft of cockpit coordination and crew resource management issues that were highlighted by that crash, which resulted in massive training syllabus changes, and the introduction of mandatory Multi Crew Cooperation training requirements for airline crews, I remember it well, as it meant I built a specialised non type specific simulation device for Aer Lingus to allow them to train a group of cadets who had completed their CPL/IR training, but needed to now do the new MCC course before they could start line flying.

To go back to the original thought, cameras to view things like landing gear would be a help in some circumstances, but to pick up on another post, my personal preference for high wing turbo prop aircraft is that the whole basis on which they are certified for flight into known icing should be reviewed, as there are very clear issues with ice accretion on certain types that have resulted in a number of accidents, or very close shaves, and the research carried out after an ATR crash in the US has revealed that there are specific issues with the ATR family that were previously unknown, but as far as I am aware (a friend used to be chief pilot for an ATR operator), while awareness training was significantly revised, the certification requirements have not changed.

Skatedude

I don't know how many "air crash investigation" shows would have turned out different if the pilots could have seen what was wrong,

I guess it's a cost analysis thing?

faoiarvok

A380 has cameras on the empennage and bottom of the fuselage, but they're designed for taxiing such a huge aircraft on taxiways that are just about big enough for it.

As Irish Steve says, the bigger problem is high stress/poor coordination in the cockpit that causes pilots to miss or misunderstand vital information displayed on the panel in front of them. Cameras pointed at engines would contribute almost no diagnostic value in all but the most catastrophic failure scenarios. I agree this could be more useful for checking gear issues, but as stated above, a visual check won't necessarily confirm that the gear are locked in position as well as extended.

Victor

How about something to scrape ice from pitot tubes?

Tenger wrote: »

Wasnt the issue there that the cabin crew did give the info but there was a misunderstanding about lefthand engine vs righthand engine.

As in "aircraft lefthand" vs "my left as I look rearward"

Port and starboard!

gctest50

Victor wrote: »

How about something to scrape ice from pitot tubes? .....

Heated


except when it fails :





but then they fix it all up again

Boeing, upon receiving the AAIU's draft recommendations in advance of the final report, began studying ways to improve the reliability of the pitot heat-monitoring system. “It found that by reversing the connection polarity of the probe heat wiring, a partially shorted probe continues to provide adequate heat until the short burns through the wire element thus causing an open circuit (and associated indication),” states the AAIU. “This has been verified via analysis and testing of a shorted probe.”

roundymac

Were the Kegworth crew hung out to dry? I know they ****ed up but were they poorly trained; ie, the conversion fron 200's to 400's.

ED E

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The little black arrows on the cabin sidewall?
They're for engineering to know where the air ducts are behind, as far as I can remember.

They mark the leading and trailing edge of the wing, or moreover the window that gives the best view of said.

Hotblack Desiato

irishgeo wrote: »

surely it would be a good idea to install video camera so the pilots could see any issues with the engines, similar to the reversing cameras in new cars.

i would also install them so the pilots could see the flaps , the rudder and the landing gear. No need to be asking the control tower to see if the landing gear is down.

It's already been done, a good fifty years ago -

http://www.vc10.net/Technical/oddities.html#Periscopes

Stovepipe

for taking a star sighting, not pretending to be a submariner...

Foggy43

I do remember the B747-100/200's and they had provisions for a Navigator. Luckily I'm not old enough to have been there when a Navigator was fitted to a B747-100/200. Flight Engineer yes, Navigator no!

Hotblack Desiato

Stovepipe wrote: »

for taking a star sighting, not pretending to be a submariner...

You didn't read the link, did you?

Obviously when mentioning periscopes many people will think of submarines. They are however not the only vehicle using them. While it seems a bit strange the VC10 was designed to have a periscope included in its equipment. And not just one, but two!

The reason behind this is fairly straightforward: as a pilot you sometimes want to see what's happening with your aircraft. And with that great big tail at the back, well, there's just no window through which you'll be able to get a look at what's happening up there. Normally this will not be a problem, but when you encounter icing conditions you might want to know how this is affecting your aircraft. The wings can be seen through the cabin windows, but not the tail and for this there is the periscope.

There was a port in the cockpit roof which could be used with a sextant, but apparently only the RAF did this. They still got very lost at least once - lucky to get away with that one.

Stovepipe

The 707 had provision for a periscope for astral and sun sights, as did the RAF heavies like the VC 10 and Valiants. Normally, the observing person did a quick focus on the tail fin, to check the focusing function of the sextant and then made the astral or sun shot. This was routinely done in the RAF until the older aircraft were phased out, certainly well into the 90s.