Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Belly Cameras Essential Equipment?  
User currently offlineHawker From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 105 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

This question must have been discussed before but can't find a reference anywhere.

I seem to recall that some airlines have forward facing belly (or nose) cameras which are available on the flight entertainment system.

I have just done a quick google search and quite a range of belly cameras seem to be commercially available.

Also just saw the whale jet assembly video, which included the instillation of a forward facing video camera on top of the fin.

Which leads me to the question are belly video cameras facing forward and aft available as options from the manufacturers and are they/should they be fitted as a matter of course at least to all large jets.

Advantages would include;
Undercarriage checks - although a whale jet doing a low and slow flyby of the tower would be rather cool!
Confirmation of symmetrical flap extension and position.
Engine fires or other damage.
Fuel leaks.
Check on fuel dumping.
Ability to grease the tyres onto the tarmac. I realize there are super accurate altimeters to identify when the tyres are about to touch, but a visual indicator would be a great help.
Check for tyre fires after landing.
And maybe even possible missile attacks.

Just a thought.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

We live in an industry that has resisted DFDR/CVR batteries for crying out loud, cameras won't be installed.

User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

I agree with you. Cameras now a days weigh almost nothing. I don't see any drawback to having them.

User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):
cameras won't be installed

They already are on some models


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2608 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 3):
They already are on some models

Not as a flight safety issue, merely because taxiing the aircraft is difficult without them.


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8470 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Hawker (Thread starter):
I have just done a quick google search and quite a range of belly cameras seem to be commercially available.

Also just saw the whale jet assembly video, which included the installation of a forward facing video camera on top of the fin.

SAA and many other airlines have both on their 346s



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 2):
I agree with you. Cameras now a days weigh almost nothing. I don't see any drawback to having them.

still extra weight though, all adds up over the fleet and over the years!

i cant see many operators doing it for the reasons mentioned unless they were made to!


User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Well, when I was on my CX 777 flight from TPE to HKG, the pax really appreciated the camera because it was fun to watch (those of us who watched anyway). I think it's a good feature, but it's too bad the pilots don't always turn it on.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 6):
still extra weight though, all adds up over the fleet and over the years!

Are you serious? The requisite cameras weigh just ounces these days.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMilan320 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 872 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2338 times:

I flew CPH-FRA with SAS 2 weeks ago on an A321. Despite SAS's dismal service for a full-fare ticket, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the best entertainment on that flight was the nose camera. It was turned on from the moment we started taxiing, onwards into the de-icing bay and then all the way through take-off. Once we were airborne, it changed to top-down view (kind of like in FS9).
It was turned off shortly after but turned on again for the landing.
Cool stuff!
-Milan320



I accept bribes ... :-)
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1734 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):
The requisite cameras weigh just ounces these days.

The structural mods, wiring and other heardware weigh may times the weight of the camera.

The bottom line is a money thing. For many operators the question to be answered is, what can we do with a camera that we cannot do without and how much is that worth to us?

Tod

[Edited 2005-12-04 19:11:52]

User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):
Are you serious? The requisite cameras weigh just ounces these days.

yep deadly serious......may only be a few ounces, times this my a fleet of thirty.....multiplied by say 16 hrs a day flying, multiplied by say 40-45 weeks a year........how much do ya reckon that adds up to? probably tens of thousands!

never mind all the extra's as Tod has pointed out!


User currently offlineGBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 11):
multiplied by say 16 hrs a day flying

One ounce flying 16 hours is 16 ounces???


User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

No....you Know that's not what I mean! Stop being pedantic!

i'll make it nice an simple.....lets say one ounces costs a penny to carry per hour, thats 30p per fleet per hour times by 16 hours a day = £4.80 per day times that by 7 = £33.60 per week multiplied by say 40 weeks gives us £1344 per year.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Quoting Tod (Reply 10):
The structural mods, wiring and other heardware weigh may times the weight of the camera.

The bottom line is a money thing. For many operators the question to be answered is, what can we do with a camera that we cannot do without and how much is that worth to us?

And don't forget someone has to service this system, someone had to design it, someone had to write a service bulletin to install it and I could go on and on. If its designed into the aircraft that's one thing but retrofitting it would be very costly.


User currently offlineTGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

According to this thread:
Airlines With Cameras

the following airlines have cameras on some of their planes (the newest, obviously):

Aerolineas Argentinas
Air France
Austrian Airlines
British Middlands
Cathay Pacific
China Airlines
Condor
Emirates
EVA Air
Finnair
Gulf Air
Iberia
Japan Airlines
Lan Chile
MyTravel
Philippine Airlines
Qantas
SAS
South African
Sri Lankan
Swiss
Thai
Varig

A quite extensive list !



Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

An aircraft that requires cameras to safely operate is inherently unsafe.
An aircraft should always be operational using only the eyes of the crew and the lowest possible equipment level (basically the backup instruments).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineCaptinTuT From United States of America, joined May 2005, 346 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Hawker (Thread starter):
Also just saw the whale jet assembly video, which included the instillation of a forward facing video camera on top of the fin.

I flew MS last jun on the route JFK - CAI - JFK on their 772 and they have both cams, and it was really awesome specially during takeoff and landing, was much fun.

TuTl



Aircraft Flown: B747-B777-B737-B767-B757-A300-A318-A319-A320-A321-A330-A340-MD80-MD90-CRJ600-CRJ900-E190
User currently offlineConcentriq From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

Quoting TGV (Reply 15):
According to this thread:
Airlines With Cameras

the following airlines have cameras on some of their planes (the newest, obviously):

Aerolineas Argentinas
Air France
Austrian Airlines
British Middlands
Cathay Pacific
China Airlines
Condor
Emirates
EVA Air
Finnair
Gulf Air
Iberia
Japan Airlines
Lan Chile
MyTravel
Philippine Airlines
Qantas
SAS
South African
Sri Lankan
Swiss
Thai
Varig

A quite extensive list !

....and yet: not a single one is from the US!! bad bad



Mobilis In Mobili
User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1967 times:

Quoting Concentriq (Reply 18):
....and yet: not a single one is from the US!! bad bad

Are we surprised? I'm not.

It's quite sad, but the state of the industry is such that American carriers are now the epitome of poor service. Many people I know loathe flying domestic American in Y because, well, service is nonexistent on any carrier.


User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1734 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 14):
And don't forget someone has to service this system, someone had to design it, someone had to write a service bulletin to install it and I could go on and on.

Certify installation.
Provide instructions for continued airworthiness.
Revise ops manuals.
Revise maintenance manuals.
Stock spare parts.
On and on . . . .

Quoting 474218 (Reply 14):
If its designed into the aircraft that's one thing but retrofitting it would be very costly.

OEM design and installation can easily be just as expensive. Retrofit installation is more difficult, but the aftermarket companies usually have lower overhead costs.

Tod


User currently offlineConcentriq From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1869 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 19):
Many people I know loathe flying domestic American in Y because, well, service is nonexistent on any carrier.

except YX signature. while STILL no belly cams. service and everything else is A++

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 19):
Are we surprised? I'm not.

The state of US airline industry looks horrible indeed. do european carriers suffer just as much? (probably deserves its own thread, but...)



Mobilis In Mobili
User currently offlineConcentriq From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting Tod (Reply 20):
Certify installation.
Provide instructions for continued airworthiness.
Revise ops manuals.
Revise maintenance manuals.
Stock spare parts.
On and on . . . .

Ah! I recognize the voice of fellow engineer.

Common mistake, it seems, that most people dont realize the HUGE amount of work that goes into what appears on the surface as smallest change. Especially if the industry is regulated by some gov't body.



Mobilis In Mobili
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 6):
still extra weight though, all adds up over the fleet and over the years!

Carry 2 less gallons of water, that should equal it out.

Quoting Tod (Reply 20):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 14):
And don't forget someone has to service this system, someone had to design it, someone had to write a service bulletin to install it and I could go on and on.

Certify installation.
Provide instructions for continued airworthiness.
Revise ops manuals.
Revise maintenance manuals.
Stock spare parts.
On and on . . . .

If we had that attitude years ago we would still be flying propjobs with gasoline engines. Remember they said jet engines would never be feasible for commercial airliners.


User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1603 times:

Quoting TGV (Reply 15):
Aerolineas Argentinas
Air France
Austrian Airlines
British Middlands
Cathay Pacific
China Airlines
Condor
Emirates
EVA Air
Finnair
Gulf Air
Iberia
Japan Airlines
Lan Chile
MyTravel
Philippine Airlines
Qantas
SAS
South African
Sri Lankan
Swiss
Thai
Varig

A quite extensive list !

*ahem* Dont forget Virgin Atlantic...



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
25 Airgypsy : The camera issue has been bouncing around the FAA and they are well on their way to putting video in the cockpit with the voice recorder (the Egypt Ai
26 HAWK21M : Its high time We use Technology to help in Investigations that can help avoid such Accidents in future.Only thing that it should not be misused. regd
27 Grbld : I had a brief stint on some leased Condor B753s which do have a nose camera installed, right in front of the first officer's windshield wiper. While i
28 Post contains images HAWK21M : I presume without Audio regds MEL
29 Post contains images Grbld : Full Dolby Digital 5.1
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Belly Cameras Essential Equipment?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Temperature And Reliability Of Equipment posted Mon Oct 30 2006 06:09:19 by Concentriq
A340-500 Belly Load Questions posted Wed Oct 25 2006 15:58:43 by Stylo777
MD-11F Belly Hold Pressurized? posted Mon Aug 7 2006 18:29:44 by Cruisertk421
Inside The Belly Of A 763 Or Other Heavies posted Wed Jun 21 2006 04:54:17 by Evan767
Gravel Deflecting Equipment? posted Thu May 25 2006 14:51:03 by Aero145
L1011 Belly Lights posted Mon Apr 24 2006 22:17:25 by A300 American
The Outside-look Cameras On The Airbus posted Sat Jan 7 2006 01:13:22 by 7E7Fan
Is It True A 747 Can Fly Belly-up For 12 Sec? posted Tue Dec 27 2005 21:59:09 by Tom12
Ground Equipment posted Sun Dec 11 2005 18:29:36 by Shepherd28
BBJ With "wet" Belly Tanks? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 21:47:08 by Boeing nut

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format