Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Cameras On Major Runways?  
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1117 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Given the huge numbers of surveillance cameras everywhere nowadays, I find it odd that major airports do not have cameras pointed at runways 24/7. Or maybe they do and we just don't get to see the footage after the concorde crash or the Kalitta plane in Brussels ? Does anybody know of airports which are under camera surveillance?

I'm sure a camera tracking each take-off would not be that difficult to create. It would be a minor cost in the overall runway budget and safety features.

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJokestar From Australia, joined Apr 2008, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

At my local airport where I am finishing my PPL, currently, which is Bankstown, in Sydney (YSBK), there are camera boxes aligned with the holding points feeding live images to the tower to ensure that no runway incursions go unnoted and also so that they can immediately alert any aircraft that does happen to roll past the holding point without a clearance. These are also equipped with infra-red, so they work at night. Not sure if this is what you were referring to, but I thought it was an interesting point, as I only found out about 2 weeks ago, after flying there for 2.5 years, haha.

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4055 times:



Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
Given the huge numbers of surveillance cameras everywhere nowadays, I find it odd that major airports do not have cameras pointed at runways 24/7.

That would be indeed very strange if that would not be the case. Strange though that not a single video caught an accident (or, more likely, such video was never released for unknown reason). The suveillance cameras that caught "on-airport" accidents were always videos from cameras fixed somewhere else at a distance which just caught accidents "by accident", and only sequences of it. (i.e. Tradewinds 742F in 2006 or TAM A320 last year).

If the 742F accident yesterday is not on video its a serious oversight. But if its on video, it should be out already where the freighter broke up. Odd.


User currently offlineCaribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1639 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

I've asked myself the same question. Even if the cameras were placed at pavement level it would be a visual aid for fog and other weather related situations that might make viewing the runway difficult from the tower. If it could be accessed by landing aircraft the pilots would also have an insight into what they were heading into.

[Edited 2008-05-26 04:57:24]

User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3958 times:

Depending upon capabilities, a surveillance camera can cost up to $80,000 per year to maintain, monitor and operate.

Runways are an extremely low priority compared to the perimeter. While a video is very useful, the FDR and CVR instruments on aircraft today can give investigators as clear, or even better, picture of what happened in an accident than a camera.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3879 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 4):
Depending upon capabilities, a surveillance camera can cost up to $80,000 per year to maintain, monitor and operate.

Runways are an extremely low priority compared to the perimeter. While a video is very useful, the FDR and CVR instruments on aircraft today can give investigators as clear, or even better, picture of what happened in an accident than a camera.

Well, given that the City of London for example finds it important that cameras are everywhere and an average Londoner is captured on video a few hundred times a day I find it very odd that this should not be the case at major airports.

FDR and CVR can of cause determine more in detail what happened in the end, but as they say, a picture says more than a thousand words. Evaluating the recorders is also a often a painstakingly slow process.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Seatmap On NW? posted Sun Dec 2 2007 06:07:39 by Windowplease
Why No Windows On This KLM 744? posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:08:00 by 22right
Why No Codeshare On ATL-AMS For DL/KL posted Fri Mar 16 2007 02:04:46 by Ushermittwoch
Why No Winglets On British Registered B757's? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 12:06:25 by KA501
Why No Geveva On Thomsonfly & Astraeus Website? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:15:43 by 8herveg
Why No Winglets On 787! posted Sat Oct 7 2006 20:27:37 by Bringiton
Why No F Class On AA 767-300s posted Thu Sep 14 2006 03:20:59 by Albird87
Why No Ankara On Ba.com posted Sun Mar 12 2006 02:16:58 by Firiko
Why No -J Rego's On KL? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 12:58:13 by EHHO
Why No Winglet On This NW A333? posted Tue Dec 6 2005 04:55:51 by KDTWFlyer