I have long been an aviation enthusiast, and have watched all episodes of Mayday. The more Mayday I watch, the more I don't understand why safety measures like the following aren't in place !!!
1 - External cameras to monitor the following: engines, wings (and flaps/slats/spoilers), both stabilizers, landing gear, other critical parts (pitot ports ?), and an overall view of the fuselage to check for damage
There have been countless flights that could have benefited from the above measure. Kegworth (shut down the wrong engine), Eastern 401 (couldn't check if the landing gear was locked), Aeroperu 603 (blocked pitot static port), perhaps even flights during which flaps/spoilers hadn't been deployed (a visual inspection pre-landing/takeoff might have helped), and AirTransat (fuel leak)
2 - Internal cameras to monitor cabin/cargo (esp. for fires): AirCanada 797 (toilet), SwissAir 111, SouthAfrican 295 (cargo), Nigeria 2120 (wheel well area)
In a lot of these crashes, at the first sign of trouble, the flight crew would have been able to gauge the severity of the problem, thus saving precious minutes, esp. in the SwissAir 111 case
3 - Some sort of fast cabin-cockpit communication relay: I don't know how this might be implemented ... perhaps a "panic" button that is accessible to passengers, to alert the flight attendants that it's not just a request for a gin n tonic, but something serious. Of course, that could be abused
What I mean by this is that, if/when a passenger notices something that none of the flight crew have noticed, like the contamination of a wing in icy conditions prior to takeoff, or a strange smell, or sparks coming out of an engine, he/she should be able to convey that rapidly to the cockpit. Normally, the passenger has to alert a flight attendant who then has to run to the phone, bla bla ... seconds can save lives.
Of course, I realize that this could result in a lot of junk information being relayed, which could defeat the purpose, and even make things worse, but in the Kegworth incident, one passenger did notice that the wrong engine had been shut down.
Cameras would have been better, of course, but a passenger-cockpit relay could have worked too, as a last resort.
4 - Cockpit *Video* Recorder - Again, during many crash investigations, investigators were often puzzled as to how/why a certain control input was produced and by whom ... things that cannot be heard, only seen.
Example - Eastern 401, where the captain presumably bumped the control column accidentally, thereby disabling the altitude hold feature of the autopilot.
Not to mention, cases of intentional pilot actions (SilkAir crash and EgyptAir 990 crash) ... quite easy to see a pilot deliberately flying a plane into the Earth, no ? I understand that a pilot with bad intentions could/would disable/block the camera, but ...
----------------------
Yes, there are instruments and sensors that can be monitored, but ain't a picture (or 30 pictures/second) worth a thousand words ? And FAR quicker to inspect ?
1 - External cameras to monitor the following: engines, wings (and flaps/slats/spoilers), both stabilizers, landing gear, other critical parts (pitot ports ?), and an overall view of the fuselage to check for damage
There have been countless flights that could have benefited from the above measure. Kegworth (shut down the wrong engine), Eastern 401 (couldn't check if the landing gear was locked), Aeroperu 603 (blocked pitot static port), perhaps even flights during which flaps/spoilers hadn't been deployed (a visual inspection pre-landing/takeoff might have helped), and AirTransat (fuel leak)
2 - Internal cameras to monitor cabin/cargo (esp. for fires): AirCanada 797 (toilet), SwissAir 111, SouthAfrican 295 (cargo), Nigeria 2120 (wheel well area)
In a lot of these crashes, at the first sign of trouble, the flight crew would have been able to gauge the severity of the problem, thus saving precious minutes, esp. in the SwissAir 111 case
3 - Some sort of fast cabin-cockpit communication relay: I don't know how this might be implemented ... perhaps a "panic" button that is accessible to passengers, to alert the flight attendants that it's not just a request for a gin n tonic, but something serious. Of course, that could be abused
What I mean by this is that, if/when a passenger notices something that none of the flight crew have noticed, like the contamination of a wing in icy conditions prior to takeoff, or a strange smell, or sparks coming out of an engine, he/she should be able to convey that rapidly to the cockpit. Normally, the passenger has to alert a flight attendant who then has to run to the phone, bla bla ... seconds can save lives.
Of course, I realize that this could result in a lot of junk information being relayed, which could defeat the purpose, and even make things worse, but in the Kegworth incident, one passenger did notice that the wrong engine had been shut down.
Cameras would have been better, of course, but a passenger-cockpit relay could have worked too, as a last resort.
4 - Cockpit *Video* Recorder - Again, during many crash investigations, investigators were often puzzled as to how/why a certain control input was produced and by whom ... things that cannot be heard, only seen.
Example - Eastern 401, where the captain presumably bumped the control column accidentally, thereby disabling the altitude hold feature of the autopilot.
Not to mention, cases of intentional pilot actions (SilkAir crash and EgyptAir 990 crash) ... quite easy to see a pilot deliberately flying a plane into the Earth, no ? I understand that a pilot with bad intentions could/would disable/block the camera, but ...
----------------------
Yes, there are instruments and sensors that can be monitored, but ain't a picture (or 30 pictures/second) worth a thousand words ? And FAR quicker to inspect ?
Comment