本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出
Back to Squawk list
  • 45

External wing cameras on large planes?

提交時間:
 
External cameras should be installed on large airliners to help pilots prevent ground collisions, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended today, citing three recent accidents, including one in May at O’Hare International Airport. (www.chicagotribune.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jrpassell
John Passell 10
From a passenger who likes to just look out the window during a flight point of view, a camera to provide every passenger (on aircraft with seat back video monitors)a pilots eye view during the flight would be fantastic. Just one dedicated camera and much better than a little window over the wing. Airlines could add the channel to their video fee. It would be great to watch take offs and landings (and maybe pretend you're flying the plane).
ExCalbr
It would also help in avoiding motion sickness. Motion sickness is greatly reduced if you have a visual confirmation on your path.
Number1Mom
De Crockett 1
Front view? No way! It would be like someone sitting in the passengers seat pushing the floor as if they had the pedals!

Side view? No way! Don't you know that that is the ultimate way to get motion sickness!
Whendogsfly
Whendogsfly 1
The DC-10's used to offer this back in the 1970's. It was really cool... You could watch the take-offs & landings on a large screen that was pulled down. I don't know if this had anything to do with it; Probably not, since someone said you can do that on the 380's. But when that DC-10 went down after take-off in Chicago in 1979, I know many who horrified by the idea that those poor people were watching it all on the screen in front of them as it happened.
jkudlick
The A380 already has this. It's mounted on the vertical stabilizer facing forward.
preacher1
preacher1 0
For pax video feed or monitor in the cockpit?
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Pax Wayne..give 'em a little game joystick too then the can play chicken with each other..the winner gets to fly the 'plane for real...well aomost.
preacher1
preacher1 1
lol...outa here for Church
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I hear ya.. Hope you doing well.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
I stopped going after I found out I was Jewish on the internet. Kinda odd when you are 58 yrs old
preacher1
preacher1 1
I ain't goona touch that.lol
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
For Real... LOL, I have seen some of those people behind the wheel of a car... Watch the new SouthWest Airlines Show (forget the name)... And you would let some of them fly a PLANE... Man.. you are crazy.... :)
Derg
Roland Dent 1
From what I have seen the hardest part of landing the A-380 is deciding how long the runway is but automation has been with us a long time. The only part that I would NOT let a PAX do happens after the landing: guiding the machine to the ramp. Anyone can fly a plane. Bettya Wayne has had the odd snooze now and then.
RdKetchup
RdKetchup 1
For both. The camera is part of the ETACS (Enhance Taxi Aid Camera System), and the passenger have the choice of 2 camera if I remember correctly, the "fin" camera located at the top of the vertical stabilizer, and a nose wheel camera.

The pilots have access to up to 5 cameras, fin, nose gear, belly, left right, right engine.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Then I guess twice at least when they clipped the RJ's they weren't looking at them, which is my point on the whole thing. The RJ's weren't in the clear but should have been and the 380's were cleared. Piliot has enought to worry about; put some responsibility on the tower or ramp, which is where it needs to be.
onceastudentpilot
oh yeah sure blame the poor people in tower that is to short to see that side of the ramp due to the new terminal expansion...lol
preacher1
preacher1 3
I'm not putting blame, Tim. I'm putting RESPONSIBILITY. In the case of those RJ's not being clear of the taxiway, those RJ pilots either need to hold the taxiway until they can go all the way in to the gate or somebody needs to bring them clear. Never have been to that side of ORD, and I don't remember looking on the video so I don't know if there is a side edge marking on the taxiway or not. If not, there should be when you have an active taxiway coming thru a terminal area like that.IMHO
Derg
Roland Dent 1
The real issue is the WIDTH of the taxi ways. So basic anecessity that you would assume that someone had the brain to see what was going to happen. The port authority were slow to realise this at KJFK.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Like I said before, all 3, with the 380 at JFK and Boston, and the Eva Air 47 at ORD, were caused by the inbound RJ, not being clear of the taxiway. The Heavies should have been clear. That said, how many times a day to RJ's and heavies cross paths, and we only hear of this happening. Somebody said hear that this happened some at first with the 747 but just naot as much press. Now it's national news and a serious happening. How many fender benders in an metropolitan aras in a days time. I personally think it is much ado about nothing. And just for what it's worth, the 380's can't land just anywhere. The Airport has to qualify with the FAA and unless I am mistaken, part of that is a 200' wide runway/taxiway.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Well one thing is for sure they cannot keep us ignorant since we had sites like this.
RdKetchup
RdKetchup 1
Pictures of the cockpit display of the A380 ETACS in action:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Airlines-(Airbus/Airbus-A380-841/1018696/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Airbus-A380-861/1823064/L/
preacher1
preacher1 2
The Singapore link came up with "PAGE NOT FOUND". I saw the AF page. Whatever that is looking down on, it just barely shows the inboard enginges, let alone the wing tps. Do the pilots have the capability of expanding that view? If they don't it's useless for what we are talking about here. It might give the pax a thrill but wouldn't be worth a flip on clearance help.
RdKetchup
RdKetchup 1
If you copy paste the full link of the Singapore one it works.

And no, the pilots can't expand it, and none of the camera as they are configured now show the wingtips (excepts maybe the belly cam, but it is pointing backward).
xmacfly
Remember curb feelers on the 60's cars?
Whendogsfly
Whendogsfly 2
Why just the wingtip? There have been several plane crashes involving an engine, citing "If only" the pilot had known the engine had failed, fallen off, etc., he/she could have taken the correct action. Would it make any sense to have tiny cameras allowing the cockpit to see the whole wing in flight?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I guess you could put them anywhere but with an engine problem of any kind, I doubt there'd be much difference in the cockpit as to how they would handle it. Whether it simply quits or falls off, or explodes, all the bells and cockpit whistles are going to be the same. As in Sioux City, he knew he had lost an engine and hydraulics. He didn't know exactly why, just that he did, but the handling would have probably have been the same.
Whendogsfly
Whendogsfly 1
I'll have to do more research. I think there were a couple instances where I remember reading that it could have made a difference. One may have been the 1979 flight that lost the engine during take-off (???)
preacher1
preacher1 2
See what you could come up with. I'd be interested in knowing myself.I guess it could make a bad handling difference, but by the same token, I doubt there's anything on a checklist for that.lol. Again, it's kinda like the United at Sioux City; that took just some good old seat of the pants flying and kinda feeling what your bird was doing. They told later that 4 senior pilots ran that same scenario in a SIM and all totally wiped out.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Reason I say that is that I'm a thinkin' in the last year or so there was an AA mad dog completyley lost one on takeoff out West somewhere and just went with engine out procedure and came back around and landed OK. I personally just think it will all depend on the individual situation and crew experience and/or plane type.

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 2
You know, that is bothersome. The A380 can't land everywhere. The aiports are "supposed" to qualify and be FAA approved. One of the things in that is the taxiway and runway width; not just for clearance but I think there is something width wise there too on account of the outboard engine positioning as well. Seems like it's further out that the 47 and requires it. The 380 has a wingspan of 261 ft, about 67 or 68 ft longer than the 747. That's a bunch. On what I've read as far as accidents the 380 has been involved in, you have had the factor of the 380 pilot thinking he should be clear and an RJ not pulling into the clear headed into a ramp. Blame enough to go around
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Preacher, you missed the one where the 380 right wing took out a hanger with the nose wheel smack on the centerline. Can you say dispatch/company error. If it don't fit it don't fit. And that is why they can't land anywhere and they are still sorting that out. The outboard engine is not the deal. It's called wingspan.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Yeah, I did miss that one. Where'd it happen at. That 65' is a hell of a bunch and best I remember, even a 707 was at about 130'. That outboard engine is not the deal on clearance but I do remember reading in that FAA airport qualification deal about it though and I guess it would go back to the wingspan. I'm thinking they have to have 200'width or else those outboards are out over the grass/dirt sucking in FOD and stirring up one hell of a cloud.
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Don't recall, not industrious enough to look it up, won't be the last.
Whendogsfly
Whendogsfly 2
The Air France at JFK 4/2011 that hit the Comair & spun it around: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PU3Crd2v8NM.
(7/2011 plane clipped tail of smaller jet in front of it or the 5/30 this year at O'Hare where the 747 clipped the rudder of the American Eagle in front; couple times where planes were pushed back into another (LAX 4/20 & this past 8/30 @ DFW with a 767 Miami Dolphins)
preacher1
preacher1 1
there is a Pm Email function under DISCUSSIONS. Get in there and click on the mail thing and it brings up the format. Problem is, I tried to send to you awhile ago and it tells me that you are not a recognized user. Check your profile and the mail page setup. Hell, I didn't even know about it and I had a message in there from January.
t1sby
Tim Bray 1
preacher1, what mail thing under the discussions tab?
BTW you are one of my best regarded posters, and I do think a little automation in future (retrofitted) wingtip cameras would be a good thing. If an Acura can apply the brakes for a shopping cart, wouldn't that also be a good thing for a 100 mil aircraft?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I appreciate the kind words. Question will be on the cameras, is it enough of a problem that the Airlines will shell out the money for it. It would be like anything else, a tool for the pilots, unless they could make enough money to put it on a PAX video feed as well. A far as the Email, ENTER ON DISCUSSIONS on the left; when the page comes up, look up in the upper left hand corner and there is a link there that tells you how many mails you have. Click on that and it opens up the Email page. Now I don't know what the problem is yet but to long term members on here that post regular are showing as non existing users. I didn't even know the thing was there until Friday nite; got to looking and had a message from January.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
CIA anti terrorism measures Wayne...cannot have private convos on a site like this.
mpradel
Paris Air Show in 2010 or 2011..
preacher1
preacher1 1
I believe it was last year. Seems I remember hearing something about that. Tks
davysims
David Sims 1
That Airbus in question was being towed/taxied from a maintenance area not usually used for aircraft that large. As for this being an A380 issue, all of the recent incidents, other than the A380/hangar one, involved aircraft 747 or smaller. As I said earlier, it was not an issue of taxiway width, but of one aircraft not being completely out of the taxilane and another aircraft attempting to pass by.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Generally though David the airport operators did not fully understand the practical consquences of keep big birds with littler ones. In my view it was/is criminal neglect to run a commercial from a standard grid apron.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Honestly Wayne can you really believe that...I cannot seriously accept that the industry mistook that 67 for centimeters or inches. On the other hand after the Gimli incident with fuel loads I guess anything is possible. All my schooling was in metric..but I can easily see how they may have got their panties in a bunch over this.
preacher1
preacher1 1
an you enlighten on this a little? I never said anything about centimeters or a mistake??????????? The dang thing is just BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Honestly... I can.. I am with Preacher on that one... the 380 Wingspan has already caused a lot of problems they did not have the foresight to figure out. To me, the 380 is a plane that was thrown out there without thinking a lot of things out. they have proved that with the Wing Spar cracks and other items as well. Look at the Pitot probes on other A/C... What a problem to have... even though I feel that Air France was more pilot error, there was still a problem with the plane, and it tracks all they way back to design.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
You put that in a nutshell sparkie..well said.. Wayne: you would be surprised at some of the errors that get to the last guy on the line. Because it comes from a higher authority a lot don't question. Intimidation does not help by Neanderthal minded managers.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I am not going to defend it by any means. I just think it's too big. The 747 had a fair amount of teething problems, as did the DC10 and L1011, BUT, that was all in the days before Internet and instantaneous commnication and there was still a thing called AMERICAN PRIDE, as in the days before Airbus, and those teething problems were just accepted as part of the process. Airbus is competition to that Amarican Pride as we try to regain it and that may have something to do with all the hell that gets raised everytime something happens. Maybe, maybe not, but it's a point to be considered.
preacher1
preacher1 1
And you guys respond however you want to and I'll read it in the morning. I am outa here. Old men need their beauty sleep.lol
preacher1
preacher1 1
lkrupp
Louis Krupp 1
1979 it was. If I recall correctly: 5/2/79, AA DC-10 O'Hare, the left (?) engine detached on takeoff and flew back over the wing, pylon damaged the leading edge of the wing, cutting all three hydraulic lines; the left flaps retracted, and the left wing stalled. I've read (possibly informed) speculation that the pilots might have been able to level out and recover from the stall, but they had no idea what had happened to the flaps. They went with the standard engine-out procedure and tried to maintain the climb; the plane rolled to the left and went down.

I'd met one of the passengers at a conference about a month earlier. He sat next to my left at the corporate banquet (I never found out what happened to the guy who sat to my right).
preacher1
preacher1 1
You are correct on what happend; whether the camera would have made any difference is still a point of speculation. According to other AA DC10 captains that were together later, they had speed, but they actually brought on the stall themselves by going to that standard EO checklist and throttling back, per that procedure. I don't remember the exact numbers but I think it is in the report. Camera might have helped as they could have seen it wasn't a standard EO, but then it may have scared hell out of them too.
lkrupp
Louis Krupp 1
Something else just came back to me: I remember reading that the missing engine caused electrical problems, so the pilots didn't get a stall warning. (You're probably right; they didn't need to know just how bad things were.) The Wikipedia page has more information; I don't know enough to judge its accuracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I think it could help. From a Maintenance Control point of view, when the crews cannot see the wings or other surfaces from the cockpit, they can see vital parts of the plane to see if they are working, iced, or other issues.
preacher1
preacher1 2
The idea is good but I doubt it would be good in practical application. I say again that the main guide any big iron driver has is that centerline, and if he is cleared to taxi from point A to B, then he should be clear if he is on the centerline. The accidents that have been brought to light as of late have mostly been caused by, in these cases, an RJ, not clearing the taxiway. Maybe they need a backwards looking camera to see that they are clear. At that point, they are either under control of tower ground or the ramp control. With an aircraft the size of a 747 or 380, don't know if they could stop anyway. Maybe a clearance stripe to the side, based on the biggest AC the aiport could handle, would be a better and much cheaper option. That way a pilot approaching could see if an inbound was not clear the taxiway and stop well ahead of time, regardless of what AC he was in.
ljlintner
Many pilots are clueless about what markings already exist and what they actually mean. The intermediate hold position marking (intersection of two taxiways where aircraft commonly hold) and non-movement hold bar (ramp area or taxilane short of a taxiway), for example, both are set to provide clearance for the largest design group using that taxiway. If an aircraft is hanging over one of those lines as another passes, someone should be asking a question or applying brakes.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Agreed, but in the cases that have been reported, whether a 747 or 380, the guilty party has been the one that didn't clear the taxiway and while there have been a few, how many pass safely buy each day. Every now and then stuff is going to happen and no amount of cameras or clearance lines is going to stop it.
mhlansdell00
We agree, no buts. If a Dash 8 or an RJ is hangin' over the line as it were. He/she needs to be advised and his company made aware. It may be as simple as the PIC second guessed the movement of ramp traffic. Fact is he should have held on the taxiway and not made the turn on to the ramp. It doesn't have to be a big deal, just a fine tuning of decision making
mhlansdell00
That should be the responsibility of the the livery and it's ongoing training. It's as important as simulator time. I see similar problems on the highways where people can't tell the difference between a yield and a stop sign. Ongoing training should include incursion avoidance. The routing and control around the airport should be the tower guys and the ramp guys. The pilots and FOs have plenty to do.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
You give the planners too much credit...none of them see it the way you do. A lot of people are in jobs way above their capability. They would be better off arranging the floor plan of a McDonald burger bar.
707pylot
707pylot 2
In more than 90% of these instances, the crew knew they were close even commenting about it. What this will do whether it is a camera or otherwise us give the pilots a way to verify whether or not they will hit something. Don't believe that just because you are on the centerline that you are not going to hit something. Like people have mentioned, pilots can't see the wingtips and it is difficult to judge separation.
RobSJC
Would it really help ? It seems the crew already has enough equipment to worry about, than to be watching a video display of three cameras.
preacher1
preacher1 11
Personally, if you are on the centerline, then it is the responsibilty of the airport for you to be clear in your movement, or else they are not capable of handling your aircraft. That said, that puts the responsibility of getting clear on the one waiting for a gate. At some point and time a wingwalker comes in there, BUT if one is on the centerline, either in a C150 or a 747, the last thing in the world a pilot should have to worry about is the tip of his wing. IMHO
davysims
David Sims 7
I disagree. Almost all of the recent collisions involved a taxiing aircraft striking an aircraft that either was on a crossing taxiway, or had just turned off of a taxiway and was waiting to pull into the gate. We can design taxiways 500 feet wide all day long, but at some point the pilots must take responsibility for either completely clearing the taxiway, or ensuring they had sufficient room to pass another aircraft. There has to be at least some pilot responsibility other than simply minding the centerline.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, you aren't really disagreeing. Even you made the point, as I did, that there was a pilot responsibility for clearing the taxiway. Other than being watched closer, it's the same as clearing the active. A pilot taxiing has no real guide other than that centerline because in most of today's big iron, you can't see your wingtips anyway. If the airport diagram shows you to have a 200' taxiway and you know your wingspan is, say 160', you ought to have 20' on each side if you are on the centerline. Ther have been a couple that turned into a ramp also and did not clear the taxiway when the ramp held them short. At that point and time it ought to be ramp controller checking if he is clear or not.
mhlansdell00
I was wondering when someone would bring in the responsibility issue. The PIC and FO have plenty enough to do. This takes responsibility from the tower and ramp and puts it in the cockpit; away from the federal, state or municipal government employee and the entity and puts it on the aircraft operator who isn't always familiar with the airport. Pilots don't need nor deserve more liability risk. Maybe we should put a third guy back in the cockpit to monitor the closed circuit systems and don't forget the feed to the recorders.

Didn't we recently have an instance in Colorado where the local traffic controller never knew of an aircraft deplaning on an active runway? Why are we going to transfer even more responsibility to the aircraft commander? Maybe they should investigate the placement of the stop and hold lines on the pavement.
gopurduego
Robert Lewis 11
Agreed. I can see the headline the day after the first ones are installed... "Nine large aircraft rear-ended other aircraft today at O'Hare as pilots were busy watching their wing cameras and forgot to look forward".
onceastudentpilot
the camera would most likely plug into the PFD..the only one who would have have to monitor it would be the non-flying pilot....this technology already exist in the trucking industry in the place of a hood mounted spot mirror
KevInCalifornia
Seems like a good idea to me.

[This comment was deleted.]

howej011
i agree it will make ground collisions less common but it will also add to the pilots jobs before take off, they could get another pilot or assistant in the cockpit but they would have to sit in the cabin with the passenger on the flight because there is no more room in the cockpit anyway and where would they put the monitors for the cameras. it would be a good view for the passengers because you could see take off and landings from 2 different views
preed66617
Pat Reed 1
Not being an expert or even commercial pilot, I do notice that the common theme from all is that the crew has to much to do. If the cockpit is that complex and busy may be its time to expand the crew. And it just so happens you have 2 people right behind the pilot doing nothing except planning the next leg or shopping trip. Put one of them to work assisting. The more eyes the fewer risks, inspite of few egos. It appears what you do'nt see is going to bite you, even if its someone else's error. It takes ths whole crew to make a safe flight
preacher1
preacher1 1
You the Pat Reed that runs FedeX Freight in Harrison AR?
preed66617
Pat Reed 1
No, flew helecopter for a police dept.
transponder1
Here is an ADS-B (NextGen) alternative to cameras. It provides a moving map of the airport surface in the cockpit showing own ship and other aircraft traffic in the terminal along with vehicles. It provides visual alerts on the primary flight display along with aural alerts. This system does require aircraft to be ADS-B equipped. http://vimeo.com/44596496 http://www.acss.com/
Mavrik
Mark Cuban had a camera mounted in the tail of his plane that he could see the whole plane looking forward.
JimSpensley
With respect to the NTSB, this is not a very good solution to a very real problem.

Ground collisions are caused by 1. aircraft squeezing into small spaces, like the A-330 that turned too soon and clipped wingtips (fuel tanks) with another A-330 at MSP; 2. aircraft being out-of-control due to brake or steering failure, like the May 2005 crash at MSP; 3. lack of attention to things like signs, signals, ground crew, or communications in the cockpit (with a TV screen as another thing); 4. too many aircraft and vehicles with schedules to keep.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There is a lot of stuff out there that can make things safer but how much do it cost and who will pay for it.. We hear about something like this every 2-3 months, but how many planes pass daily. Like I told somebody else earlier, stuff happens
Whendogsfly
Whendogsfly 1
I've been thinking that, too. There are a lot of economic factors that will unfortunately prevent some of this technology from happening. There are so many airports that could use a makeover, too. Improving overall safety. But isomeone decides what's cost efficient & what's not.
christopheauthom
Beautiful initiative to facilitate the physical schema of the plane...
OhanaUnited
OhanaUnited 1
While I support this idea, my only concern is the pilot may be too focused on the cameras and neglected to look what's in front of him.
joepcpa
Joe Parker 1
My late father years ago said that during take off and landing, if planes had exterior cameras, the flight attendants could be another set of eyes for the crew in the cockpit. He said that there just like passengers on take offs and landings. Recently, at DC Reagan Airport, there was a mixup in the Control Tower that two planes came very close to colliding. This would have prevented it from happening.
onceastudentpilot
just what they need....back seat pilots.
tmkwdi
This is about safety. Flight crews already have too many things keeping their heads down in the cockpit, especially on the ground, instead of having their heads up and on a swivel. This would be one more workload item of questionable value. It'd also be one more electrical circuit to go bad. I don't believe it's a good idea.
WyomingCowboy
J C Hancock 1
Keep your damn nose wheel on the yellow line, use a little common sense and NO, we don't need no stinkin' cameras!
preacher1
preacher1 0
Number1Mom
De Crockett 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

FAA Says Anti-collision-aids-needed-for-large-planes

Are they on the ball on this one, finally doing their job, or about to mandate something that is not helpful? You decide.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/05/anti-collision-aids-needed-for-large-planes/
Whendogsfly
Whendogsfly 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Cameras outside large aircraft being considered

Sooo glad to hear that this is being looked into. Only problem is that it will allow pilots on large aircraft to see the wingtips to prevent collisions on the runway. I have thought for years how great it would be if pilots had a way to see the whole wing... the times I've heard after some plane crashes "If Only the pilot had known that the engine was the problem... "

http://www.upi.com/
Whendogsfly
Whendogsfly 0
Remembering 9-11 (Part 12 - Miracles Within the Chaos) PRWeb

Http://ggbaba.hubpages.com/hub/Miracles-Within-the-Chaos
ethanbenjaminsa3
I think it is a smart idea espeacially for crowded airport (ie.JFK,LAX)for the new aircraft such as the A380 747-8I it is great

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!