Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
General Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Materials Engineering
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
General Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Materials Engineering
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Surveillance Cameras for Pilots
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Flyboy, post: 6858270, member: 43624"] An [I]excellent[/I] example. All a camera could do is confirm the extent of the damage from the engine coming apart. You'd be able to get most of the same indications from the flight engineer's station on the DC-10, but it wouldn't help the crew figure out a way to save the aircraft any better. To be honest, there [I]wasn't[/I] anything that visual confirmation could have done to improve the odds of survival. They did everything possible to save lives, and it [I]worked[/I]. There were survivors from a scenario where, realistically, no one expected anyone to survive. And that single accident helped reshape the way that aircrew can respond under those kinds of conditions. Hell, it inspired more than a few research programs into alternate means of control by adaptive networking and flight computers accommodating and accounting for damage. That's where the investment should be getting made: resilience to damage, helping crew maintain control of the aircraft in an emergency, and giving the crews better training on how to react under emergency scenarios, not to diagnosing what's wrong visually by adding cameras. Along with better training of crews to understand how the plane works, systems-wise, to help their ability to adapt to a crisis. The aforementioned fuel loss incident upthread? The crew [I]could have[/I] noticed that the crossfeed wasn't resulting in the fuel levels on the other side going up, and shut off the crossfeed pumps and contained the issue. UA232 [I]did[/I] notice their issue, and rapidly switched to triage and finding an alternate means of controlling the plane. The Miracle on the Hudson? Same thing. They wasted no time trying to figure out what went wrong, or how bad the damage was. They immediately jumped into maintaining control of the plane and assessing their options. No time spent faffing about with MFD and EICAS menus to get more info, just dealing with the crisis at hand. On the other hand, if you look at the fatal accidents in air transport over the last 40 years or more, many of them can be laid at the feet of air crew not responding to the situation correctly, either due to incorrect procedures, or simple inexperience with the kind of scenario they found themselves in. Air France 447? The crew lost cohesion and communication under the crisis, they didn't realize the change in how the plane's flight computer was interpreting inputs from the controls, and lacked adequate training to recognize the situation they were in and how to correctly respond to the stall. The list of incidents that could have been fatal but weren't? Most of them had the crew responding to the situation correctly, due to a combination of accurate information provided by the aircraft systems and manuals, and crew experience. It really boils down to the non-physics topic of "human factors", which is a can of worm I don't want to crack open here. 😆 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Surveillance Cameras for Pilots
Back
Top