Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?  
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6561 posts, RR: 20
Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17505 times:

Think about this, someone on a beach was able to quickly grab a camera and tape the Ethiopian 767 crashing into the water. Someone was able to snap a pics of AA 191 in its final moments. Yet in the case of UA 232, there wad ample warning of a possible disaster. But there is no COMPLETE footage that I'm aware about.

I've only seen 2 pieces of footage:

1. The widely seen video of the plane cartwheeling. But this clip is outside the fence, and the aircraft comes from behind a building. By this time, its already impacted the ground and is on fire.

2. The other clip shows the last few seconds of the approach. At the end, the right wing can be seen dipping with the first flash of fire, but it is mostly obstructed by trees.

I guess my point is........why didn't the airport have better documentation of this awful event? In the very least, for NTSB investigation purposes. Or possibly they did and not released to public?

Thoughts?


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17481 times:

I've often wondered about this myself. The officials certainly had a bit of time to organize and I am sure a good video would have assisted in the investigation. Perhaps the airport was (legitimately) concerned that they didn't know exactly where the plane would actually land and end up and didn't want to risk putting folks out on the field.

User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5296 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17391 times:

If I remember correctly, the tower anticipated the plane landing on Runway 13-31, because it was the longer runway, at about 9000 feet. With the hydraulic problems, the crew couldn't get the plane lined up and decided to land on Runway 17-35, even though that runway was less than 7000 feet long.

In a documentary on the crash, the captain who had been deadheading to ORD and was working the throttles assumed that they were going to run off the end of the runway, because of the high landing speed and short runway.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3649 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17387 times:

First of all, UA232 was in 1989. The Ethiopian crash was in 1996. Speaking as someone who actually sold camcorders around that time, I can tell you a lot more people had them in 1996 than 1989.

Second, you're really asking why there isn't *better* footage of UA232, not why there isn't *more*. I've only ever really seen one video of the Ethiopian crash too, it's just that it was filmed from a beach with an unobstructed view of the water so it captured the full event. UA232 crashed at an airport that happened to have an obstructed view from the couple of vantage points where people happened to have cameras. That's all.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6561 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17312 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):



Read my last sentence again.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11496 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17232 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 4):
Read my last sentence again.

Looks like you got them.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17181 times:

The crash happened at SUX (Sioux City, Iowa). Small town. Pre-internet days. How many people with cameras do you think had enough advance warning to even think "Hey, let's go out to the airport and get this on film!" A pilot or two probably heard what was going on on the scanner...

I personally find it amazing that the two known films were made on professional quality equipment and not a VHS-C camcorder with the person holding the camera bouncing the camera all over the place with the lens at maximum zoom    Someone with some inside knowledge must have alerted the local TV station.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9499 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17024 times:

Sioux City does have 3 tv stations I believe, then again, being years ago, it's hard telling who was available 'news-wise' and the stations were probably told it was nothing more than an emergency landing, happened to be in the area, and swung by for the shot. They were set up where they were because media/press generally have a 'staging area' at such places like arenas, airports, etc., and were most likely anticipating a nice clear shot of a plane coming to a stop - but hoping for the slides coming out and people jumping off the slides and coming over for a nice interview about their experience for the 6 o'clock news.


if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineC767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 888 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16949 times:

I believe the reason the cameras were there was because there was advanced notice of what was inbound. This was part of why the results were as good as they were, the hospital had enough notice to keep extra staff on.

It makes sense the media was there because of this advanced media. By the one video there is of the accident it is clear the media was told they would be landing on 31/13.

It is probably a good thing we don't have any better footage, what there is of it is bad enough.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16772 times:

I really don't get this thread. There just weren't many people around with cameras....

1. You need to know that the DC-10 was coming into the airport, how long did that give you, 20 minutes? Who would tell you, the ATC were probably the only ones to know and they can't leave their tower to grab a camera.
2. You'd have to be very close to the airport after receiving this information
3. You'd probably have to have a camcorder on you or extremely nearby... who carries camcorders around now, or even 1989
4. You'd have to know where the airplane is coming from. Hard for a guy outside the fence with no ATC contact to know
5. You would have to care enough to take the video. How many emergency landings per year land with no problems? Probably 99% of them.

Honestly I'm surprised it was caught at all.

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
I guess my point is........why didn't the airport have better documentation of this awful event? In the very least, for NTSB investigation purposes. Or possibly they did and not released to public?

Probably didn't have all the cameras around like we do today. It was over 20 years ago don't forget. Do you expect ATC to stop doing their jobs and whip out a camera every time there is an emergency landing? They aren't spotters, they have a job to do. Maybe I'm not catching the jist of this thread...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3649 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16649 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 4):
Read my last sentence again.

I've read it several times now. What nugget of information are you expecting us all to have gleaned from it? I answered your question, as did several others.

A "thanks for the answers" would have sufficed.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1583 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The point the thread starter is trying to make here folks is that he (and I) find it odd that the footage is behind sheds and a fence---there is nothing sinister in asking this question----it is odd that with that much time (fewer cameras around then not withstanding) that we do not have better footage........no plot or conspiracy proposed but just curiosity.

User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9499 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16489 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 11):

as someone who's worked in local news - i can assure you that no one from the ATC called down to tell the camera crews that they might want to run for as many angles as possible as this thing may go down in a ball of flames and do a couple of cartwheels across the prairie.

having 'covered' emergency landings before - it's typically nothing more than planes come in - land - maybe a blown tire - maybe an engine caught on fire - maybe someone's given birth. it's typically a 20 second filler - not a National Geographic special.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16463 times:

Quoting stlgph (Reply 12):
as someone who's worked in local news - i can assure you that no one from the ATC called down to tell the camera crews that they might want to run for as many angles as possible as this thing may go down in a ball of flames and do a couple of cartwheels across the prairie.

  
Hindsight is 20/20. No one that day would have thought we'd remember UA 232 for years and years to come. Plus, if I'm trying to land a plane carrying over 200 passengers, the last thing I'd do is call 1-800-IOWA-NEWS or Ol Ralph back home...

Like I said, I think it's amazing there was footage at all. We don't catch it for many crash landings even today



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2458 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16300 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 2):
If I remember correctly, the tower anticipated the plane landing on Runway 13-31, because it was the longer runway, at about 9000 feet. With the hydraulic problems, the crew couldn't get the plane lined up and decided to land on Runway 17-35, even though that runway was less than 7000 feet long.

The tower intended the plane to land on Runway 31, at 9,000 ft. The crew couldn't get lined up, and ended up landing on Runway 22, which is 6,600 ft long, and was closed at the time of the crash. According to the NTSB report, the tower told them one minute and 47 seconds before landing (time of 1558:29), that the runway they were lined up on was runway 22, which was closed, "we're getting the equipment off the runway". The impact occurred at 1600:16.

Runways 31 and 22 are 90 degress to each other, or perpendicular to each other. This could explain why the photographers were not in the optimal location for filming the approach.

.

[Edited 2011-09-08 11:01:11]


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3649 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16206 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 11):
The point the thread starter is trying to make here folks is that he (and I) find it odd that the footage is behind sheds and a fence--

And several of us have told you why - because not everybody had a camera in those days like they do now, or like more people did even in 1996. I guess this needs to be repeated over and over until people get it.

1989 was a long time ago. Camcorders did exist but they were not the small little pocketable things we have now and they were not cheap. If you were lucky, you could find one for $1,500 and that was in 1989 dollars - and at that price, it'd be a bulky full-size VHS thing that you had to balance on your shoulder. To get one that used VHS-C or Video8, you'd need to spend more - these were new technologies at the time. And even then, "compact" camcorders were not generally what we'd call "small" today, though they may have seemed like it at the time. But they still required two hands to use and weighed a few pounds. They weren't something you just carried around all the time even if you did have one.

So most people did not have one at all. That includes airports or anybody else. Video documentation was not something that was routinely done. I'm not sure that airports have dedicated video cameras for this purpose even today - whenever you see video of plane crashes at airports, it's almost always from a surveillance cam, or multiple surveillance cams edited together. Though with enough warning, there would be plenty of people filming today just with their own personal HD cameras on their phones or other device that they always have with them. That was not true in 1989.

We are lucky to have *any* footage of this accident. There were several accidents in the mid to late 80's for which there was plenty of warning, and we have no footage at all of those. There have been similar accidents since then for which we have no footage either, despite increased ownership of video cameras.

The TV news angle has been answered as well.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1583 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 15):
We are lucky to have *any* footage of this accident. There were several accidents in the mid to late 80's for which there was plenty of warning, and we have no footage at all of those. There have been similar accidents since then for which we have no footage either, despite increased ownership of video cameras.

The TV news angle has been answered as well.

Ok thanks for the insight.....


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7027 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 15936 times:

Another factor to consider is that it was unknown where the plane would land, and even if it would even land on the airport. Nobody that I know of was interested in having a DC-10 land on their head just to get a good picture. That was a distinct possibility. I'm quite sure that the authorities were quite diligent in keeping ALL spectators at a distance, even the ones with cameras.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinelitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15704 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Remember, at one point, the tower offered the crew the highway ... the crew declined and decided to try for an actual runway at the airport. They made it too ... when the plane impacted, it was right on the runway. Then it went right through the runway, due to the extreme descent rate.

DC-10/MD-11's being what they are, it promptly did what any -10/-11 does with a high impact force like that - snapped a wing at the root and rolled.

The impact, wingroot failure, and roll is ultimately what saved the lives of so many people ... the destruction of the airframe absorbed a lot of the crash forces, allowing the survivors to ... well ... survive.


User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15528 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):

I guess my point is........why didn't the airport have better documentation of this awful event? In the very least, for NTSB investigation purposes. Or possibly they did and not released to public?

Thoughts?

You are looking waaaay too much into this. The camera crew just didn't happen to be at the right spot. Period.

And no there certainly aren't any "secret unreleased videos" of the indicent.  


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15280 times:

Quoting litz (Reply 18):
Remember, at one point, the tower offered the crew the highway ... the crew declined and decided to try for an actual runway at the airport. They made it too ... when the plane impacted, it was right on the runway. Then it went right through the runway, due to the extreme descent rate.

DC-10/MD-11's being what they are, it promptly did what any -10/-11 does with a high impact force like that - snapped a wing at the root and rolled.

The impact, wingroot failure, and roll is ultimately what saved the lives of so many people ... the destruction of the airframe absorbed a lot of the crash forces, allowing the survivors to ... well ... survive.

Not sure what this has to do with the OP. And also not sure what you mean by "DC-10/MD-11's being what they are, it promptly did what any -10/-11 does with a high impact force like that - snapped a wing at the root and rolled." Show me any airplane that in the exact same circumstances would not have done the same thing. It wasn't some DC/MD design flaw that led to breakup on impact...


User currently offline7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):
First of all, UA232 was in 1989. The Ethiopian crash was in 1996. Speaking as someone who actually sold camcorders around that time, I can tell you a lot more people had them in 1996 than 1989.

Excellent point.

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
why didn't the airport have better documentation of this awful event?

Why should they?

The aircraft was equipped with CVR and FDR equipment. Is that not enough?
The NTSB was able to find out what happened.

Running out to tape it is just marveling in someone's misery.


User currently offlinevanguard737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 684 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 13086 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 10):
I've read it several times now. What nugget of information are you expecting us all to have gleaned from it? I answered your question, as did several others.

A "thanks for the answers" would have sufficed.

  

Sometimes, it's as if an OP has already decided the answer they want to hear before posting their question, and until someone delivers that exact answer, all other responses will be flamed by OP.

Again: (1) 1989...no internet and not many people with camcorders in the corn fields of Iowa. (2) Spur of the moment event (3) Obstructed views of airport (4) We KNOW what happened....

I could see if this were some great unsolved mystery. But come on. Sound like you just want something exciting to watch on youtube.



320 717 722 732 733 735 737 738 744 752 753 763 772 DC9 DC10 MD80 B1900 S340 E120 ERJ CRJ CR7
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12900 times:

Don't forget you didn't have the massive numbers of CCTV cameras due to costs and a far less demanding security needs of the time, especially at an airport in such a location or even at JFK or other major gateway airports.

User currently offlineABQopsHP From United States of America, joined May 2006, 859 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12409 times:

If Im not mistaking, the TV News cameras were on the airfield that day, to cover the Greater Sioux areas Emergency services. They were on the airfield conducting a practice emergency, when a real one happened upon them in the middle of it. Hence the reason for the good quality video that we did have. The camera was in the right location for the initial runway to be used. But when 232 advised they were just going to put it down where they could, there ended up being a building in between the a/c and them.

JD CRPXE



A line is evidence that other people exist.
25 Post contains images KELPkid : The internet was alive and well, the general public just didn't know about it or how to use it I didn't know about it until the Fall of 1990, when I
26 Post contains links cf6ppe : Here is a thread I participated in 2009 re: the subject. United DC-10 Crash In Sioux City Iowa (by SlimShady Jan 16 2009 in Civil Aviation) I don't kn
27 Gunsontheroof : That's all well and good, but you hit the nail on the head in your first sentence...not that it particularly matters. As others have already correctl
28 Post contains images PC12Fan : Because it was Sioux City Iowa!
29 Yflyer : I know you meant that as a joke, but it's actually a good point. The reason we have footage of the Ethiopian crash was because it crashed right off a
30 Post contains links rfields5421 : Correct - none was ever taken. As noted above - the technology available at that time made personal camcorders very rare. The television equipment at
31 TrijetsRMissed : Everyone can make excuses of Sioux City being a small town and camcorders not being common with the average Joe in 1989, but the bottom line is ATC an
32 FX1816 : Are you really serious? I can tell you for a fact that when we (ATC) deal with an emergency we don't plan where and how something can be filmed. That
33 XT6Wagon : I'm sorry but this is has gone past Q/A or open debate into clear willful trolling. if you wish to support the idea that there must be a complete vide
34 Post contains images PC12Fan : Trouble with that thinking is, they had no idea that particular moment was about to happen.
35 D L X : For whom? For the enjoyment of sick minds? Filming a wreckage is not even a low priority for the airport and ATC during an emergency. It is simply NO
36 Post contains links Aloha717200 : I have a suggestion for the OP: How about you watch this documentary on the incident. What you lack in actual video footage you can make up for in com
37 TrijetsRMissed : Of course I am serious. Do you really think the entire ATC staff was needed to handle the emergency? Do you think that everyone else was neck deep wi
38 Post contains images 727LOVER : Hmmmm....... I said this: Because THIS: did not answer THIS: _________________________________________________________________________________________
39 TrijetsRMissed : That's not true, they had a good 20-25 min warning. Again we can make excuses because it was Sioux City and in 1989, but the bottom line is the airpo
40 CitationJet : One difference is in GSO the plane made an initial approach; a touch and go landing, circled back and made and a second approach and landing, accordi
41 aloha73g : Ummm...it was a plane crash, not a high school graduation or first dance at a wedding. While video evidence might be helpful in an investigation I re
42 Post contains links 1stfl94 : Although the airport was predicting an emergency landing, they probably didn't expect the kind of crash that occurred and the number of fatalities wh
43 Post contains images 727LOVER : The last part in parenthesis says it perfectly.......THANK YOU
44 NASCARAirforce : Well now everybody has them on their phones so yeah there would be hundreds of videos of it today. Twenty min isn't probably enough time to get anyon
45 FX1816 : It is NOT the responsibility of the facility that will be handling the plane to notify the press, they do have to notify DC. If DC chooses to call th
46 D L X : No sir, you are wrong. The purpose of ATC is to control air traffic. Not film disasters. What is unbelievable is that this is a surprise to some. In
47 DeltaMD90 : I kinda resent that. I can't really personally learn from a FDR read out, it really makes more sense to me seeing/hearing. The DL191 audio has had a
48 D L X : Then I think you misunderstand my tone I think. I'm simply disturbed by the suggestion that air traffic control, instead or in addition to the alread
49 Post contains links and images PC12Fan : I absolutely guarantee you that if the media knew 232 would cartwheel into a fireball that they would have had cameras in places you didn't know they
50 rfields5421 : The entire ATC staff was just three people - this is a small sleepy airport with relatively few air operations. Even today - their average is a total
51 catiii : It is? You know that for a fact? Since you made such an absolute statement, show me a citation for that.
52 catiii : Inadvertent double post. Mods please delete.[Edited 2011-09-11 19:38:01]
53 DeltaMD90 : Gotcha. It was just left over debating from the AF447 CVR thread... now that was a heated debate! But I more than agree, ATC had a job to do that day
54 C767P : If you have not seen it, go buy "A Thousand Heroes", it was a made for TV movie about UA232. The communications between ATC and the plane are very cl
55 SZDC10 : Ok, Miranda Priestley.
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...
Crash Of United 232 On NBC Dateline Tonight posted Mon May 31 2004 03:23:58 by Ken4556
Why No Re-start Of Eastern? posted Wed Apr 14 2004 05:18:15 by EAL757
Why No Commercial Version Of A300-600ST? posted Wed Feb 20 2002 20:14:44 by Lehpron
Why No Further Development Of The A330? posted Wed Aug 15 2001 14:48:47 by Rabenschlag
Why No First Suite On United International 767's? posted Wed Jan 10 2001 19:34:15 by Surf
Why No Footage Of The AA 757 Hitting The Pentagon? posted Fri Nov 16 2001 15:38:01 by Cedarjet
Why No US-Japan Flights (outside Of NRT, KIX, NGO) posted Wed Mar 24 2010 16:47:52 by ipodguy7
Why No PTV's In United Airlines B747 Y Cabin? posted Sun Feb 14 2010 10:47:13 by UALORD
Why No Photo Of Atlas First 747? posted Tue Oct 28 2008 09:38:47 by NA
Why No Back Of Clock Ops For Air Asia? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 16:44:35 by 6thfreedom