727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6594
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:05 pm

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?
I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1549
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:11 pm

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.
 
ckfred
Posts: 4694
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:24 pm

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.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:27 pm

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!
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6594
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:33 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):



Read my last sentence again.
I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
 
D L X
Posts: 11628
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:42 pm

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

Looks like you got them.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:48 pm

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 :-)
 
stlgph
Posts: 8927
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:10 pm

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
 
C767P
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:11 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:26 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:14 pm

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 :)
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:37 pm

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!
 
n471wn
Posts: 1319
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:23 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:48 pm

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.
 
stlgph
Posts: 8927
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:05 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:10 pm

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 :)
 
citationjet
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:57 pm

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.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:13 pm

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!
 
n471wn
Posts: 1319
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:23 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:15 pm

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.....
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:26 pm

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 avatar
litz
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:38 pm

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.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:47 pm

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.  
 
catiii
Posts: 2387
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:40 pm

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...
 
7673mech
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:10 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:27 pm

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.
 
vanguard737
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 7:02 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:13 am

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
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12359
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:26 am

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.
 
ABQopsHP
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 10:47 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:04 am

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.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:01 am

Quoting vanguard737 (Reply 22):
(1) 1989...no internet

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 started my freshman year of college and got my first email account. Then I was told how I could email friends at other universities by changing the @nmsu.edu part to their particular university domain names   The World Wide Web came into existence during the next few years, though...   Alas, we digress...
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
cf6ppe
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:16 am

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 know if you will bother to read the two reply's that I posted in the referenced thread, but there was a lot of film shot of the DC10 in flight and what the aftermath looked like. Some of it was really up close and showed details that today cameras don't get near enough to see due to the secure fences, etc.

Several of the other commentors in the referenced thread were also dissatisfied with the filming and what was shown after the editing.

I imagine that a lot of other crashes/accidents have less film made of them.
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:45 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 25):
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 started my freshman year of college and got my first email account. Then I was told how I could email friends at other universities by changing the @nmsu.edu part to their particular university domain names The World Wide Web came into existence during the next few years, though... Alas, we digress...

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 correctly observed, camcorders (to say nothing of widely-accessible cameras on phones, etc.) weren't widespread at the time of the crash, nor was any sort of technology that would allow an aviation nerd (let alone anyone else) know that something potentially significant was about to happen at SUX. The answer to the OP's question is very simple--events unfolded quickly and the resources to document the event (resources that we very much take for granted today) simply weren't able to be dispatched quickly enough or weren't available at all. This isn't remotely comparable to catching the events on 9/11/01 or even the ET crash in '96 (the documentation of which is remarkable enough). Frankly, the footage that we DO have is striking/horrifying/informative enough. We know what happened that day--move along...
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:29 pm

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

Because it was Sioux City Iowa!   
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:18 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 28):
Because it was Sioux City Iowa!

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 beach where lots of people were vacationing. People usually have their cameras with them when they're on vacation, so lots of people with cameras were already right there and one of them managed to capture the event. United 232, on the other hand, crashed in Iowa...
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5543
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:08 am

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
But there is no COMPLETE footage that I'm aware about.

Correct - none was ever taken. As noted above - the technology available at that time made personal camcorders very rare. The television equipment at that time was in the $80-100K range. Most TV stations had only one man-portable camera which weighed 30 pounds or more, with a 45-60 pound 3/4 inch video tape recorder as a separate unit. For about $150-250K they could have a Sony BetaCam CamCorder - which still weighed over 50 pounds with the necessary external batteries.

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
The widely seen video of the plane cartwheeling. But this clip is outside the fence,

It was taken by a local TV news crew setup to cover the landing on 31 and staged in a "safe" area away from the runways should the aircraft depart the runway. All the ambulances were also staged at that location. See the airport diagram from the link below. They were setup near the airport terminal.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 2):
If I remember correctly, the tower anticipated the plane landing on Runway 13-31,
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 14):
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".

These two are key - the ambulances, fire trucks and news crew were setup for a landing on Rwy 31. Most of the fire eguipment - It was Air National Guard trucks and crews - was setup on Rwy 4/22 to be close to where the aircraft stopped. They had to move out of the way.

This is the current airport diagram for KSUX - http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1109/00395AD.PDF - you can see that Rwy 4/22 is no longer on the airport. It was where the Hazardous Cargo area and Taxiway F - extending to the northeast. You can see where the runway was located in Google Earth.

Quoting stlgph (Reply 7):
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,

There was a book and a TV movie on the crash which explained why only one TV station was on site. A second station was committed to a live remote at the time and chose not to break off and move the crew for a 'routine' emergency landing. The third station crew was enroute but did not arrive until after the crash.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:34 am

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 and the local news outlets should have been better prepared to capture the moment. There was plenty of time to plan for multiple camera angles, waiting at or around the airport, focussed on the runways. Perhaps the communication was not there, but in documenting the event, the end result was a failure by ATC and the local news outlets.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
FX1816
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:55 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 31):
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 and the local news outlets should have been better prepared to capture the moment. There was plenty of time to plan for multiple camera angles, waiting at or around the airport, focussed on the runways. Perhaps the communication was not there, but in documenting the event, the end result was a failure by ATC and the local news outlets.

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 is something that should never cross an ATC's mind. Dealing with the emergency is number one.

FX1816
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:26 am

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 video record of it, and/or that the failure to produce one to the public is a conspiracy.... The burdon of proof isn't on us to prove its not the case, but on you to support your theory.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:01 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 31):
but the bottom line is ATC and the local news outlets should have been better prepared to capture the moment.

Trouble with that thinking is, they had no idea that particular moment was about to happen.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 32):
Dealing with the emergency is number one.

  
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
D L X
Posts: 11628
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:06 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 31):
the bottom line is ATC and the local news outlets should have been better prepared to capture the moment.

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 NOT a priority at all.

This thread is becoming grotesque.
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3737
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:28 pm

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 computer animation of the chain of events:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddpvP2UPHcY
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:27 pm

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 32):

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 is something that should never cross an ATC's mind. Dealing with the emergency is number one.

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 with traffic and vectoring out of Sioux City until the final moments??? You must be kidding, we are talking about Sioux City here. Seriously, are you telling me that not one person in the office (controller or not) had the bandwidth to document an event which was anticipated for 25 minutes??? If nothing else, an Admin at the airport should have been given this responsibility.

Yes, handling an emergency is priority number one but documenting it for investigators is priority number two. I can tell you right now, the NTSB was none to pleased the day after... believe it or not.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6594
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:33 pm

Hmmmm.......   

I said this:

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

Because THIS:

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.

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

did not answer THIS:

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?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 9):
I really don't get this thread

This sums it up perfectly.

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---there is nothing sinister in asking this question

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Quoting D L X (Reply 35):
For whom? For the enjoyment of sick minds?

Answer.

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
In the very least, for NTSB investigation purposes

_________________________________________________________________________________________



On Aug 1, 1989, same year, same year, so YEAR is not a factor.
A Piedmont 737-400 took off from DCA to CLT. The plane had a problem because the left landing gear light was showing as stuck. Because PI had a maintenence base at GSO, the plane diverted there. We have the same scenario, a plane making an emergency landing with ample warning. The plane bounced on the runway several times to try and jar the left wheel loose, to no effect. The plane lifted back off the runway, circled and then landed again, this time with the left gear remaining up. The left engine and left wing scraping the runway with some sparks until the aircraft stopped. How do I know this? I saw it on CNN. Why? Because there was complete unobstructed footage.

I was just asking why this wasn't the case at SUX? Simple question, no morbid ulterior motive.

I now have the answers and am greatly appreciative.




Except for THIS:

Quoting vanguard737 (Reply 22):
Sound like you just want something exciting to watch on youtube.

Totally uncalled for and NOT appreciated at all.   
I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:55 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 34):

Trouble with that thinking is, they had no idea that particular moment was about to happen.



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 airport & media failed to capture documentation of the accident. As soon as the decision was made to come to Sioux City, everyone knew with a disassembled hydraulic system, it could end in only one way. It should have been no surprise for anyone covering the event that it was going to be more than a 20 sec blurb on the 9:00 news.

Quoting D L X (Reply 35):
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 NOT a priority at all.

This thread is becoming grotesque.



The fact that you would even suggest this thought process, is in its self sick....Unbelievable. It IS a priority for ATC to inform the proper outlets which can document the accident for investigation purposes.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:13 pm

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 38):
The plane bounced on the runway several times to try and jar the left wheel loose, to no effect. The plane lifted back off the runway, circled and then landed again,
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 38):
Because there was complete unobstructed footage.

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, according to your description. Two controlled approaches to a known, predictable runway.

In the SUX crash the pilots made only one approach with an airplane they could not control. The pilots were cleared to land on runway 31, but couldn't control the aircraft and ended up landing on runway 22, which was closed at the time. Runway 22 is perpendicular (a 90 degree angle) to the anticipated runway 31. Maybe if they could have landed on runway 31 as planned, you would have had your "compete unobstructed footage".

How do I know this? Not because of CNN, but because I have read the complete NTSB accident investigation report on the SUX accident.

[Edited 2011-09-10 15:26:28]
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 avatar
aloha73g
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:30 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:49 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 31):
capture the moment

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 really don't think it is the responsibility of ATC or the airport to videotape crashes. First prioroty is--and always should be--as many people as possible.

If the media or a bystander can get great video of an accident, I'm sure it would be helpful for the NTSB and FAA. If they can't or don't, who cares. I doesn't change what happened & most likely won't hurt the investigation that much.

In this case, there is a very good reason there is a good, but not great video record. Can we accept it and move on?

-Aloha!
Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:36 am

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?

Although the airport was predicting an emergency landing, they probably didn't expect the kind of crash that occurred and the number of fatalities which made the accident a major event.

Also in thee 1980s, video cameras were not as widely available and people didn't always send their footage to the news stations (obviously no internet to upload video onto). For example, this is home footage of the Challenger explosion that didn't make it to television until nearly 25 years later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jq_5ltkno

Even today airports don't always get footage of all their incidents, I don't think there's any footage of the BA38 impact at Heathrow. The only footage of the Hudson impact was from a security camera.

The fact is, most major accidents are not predicted and small changes like the runway change at Sioux City can turn a major incident into a disaster with little or no notice (obviously there were other factors but the runway change is the main reason for the level of footage of that crash)
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6594
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:56 am

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 42):

The last part in parenthesis says it perfectly.......THANK YOU  
I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
 
NASCARAirforce
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:59 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 9):
3. You'd probably have to have a camcorder on you or extremely nearby... who carries camcorders around now, or even 1989

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 anyone down there. In 1989 a lot less people outside the tower and ARFF would have known what was happening in advance. It wasn't a busy airport so there weren't a bunch of spotters listening on their scanners. The FAA was too busy handling this flight (remember this is a small airport so there was probably a 4 man tower crew at the most). Airport Ops was too busy preparing for an Alert III to be going around calling their local NBC affiliate.

I am assuming the people that did get video footage were people listening to tower scanners.

Remember camcorders in 1989 weren't the type you could fit in pockets, they were huge.
 
FX1816
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:48 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 39):
It IS a priority for ATC to inform the proper outlets which can document the accident for investigation purposes.

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 the proper outlets then so be it but it is NOT the responsibility nor is it suggested that the facility handling the problem call anyone from the media.

FX1816
 
D L X
Posts: 11628
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:17 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 39):
Quoting D L X (Reply 35):
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 NOT a priority at all.

This thread is becoming grotesque.



The fact that you would even suggest this thought process, is in its self sick....Unbelievable.

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 addition, the flight data recorders would provide WAY more information than a video would. That's why we have them. As a result, there is little to no need to have a video of most disasters, other than to satisfy some people's sick needs.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:36 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 46):
to satisfy some people's sick needs.

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 profound impact on me, and as an aspiring pilot, listening to the CVR really, really drilled in the importance of my (future) job. I can see how some think it's "sick," but I know what and how I'm thinking, and it isn't that. Just a difference of opinions. But I completely agree with your ATC comments, sure it takes 1 or 2 people to talk the plane down, but that doesn't just give free reign to everyone else! Come on!
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
D L X
Posts: 11628
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:30 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
Quoting D L X (Reply 46):
to satisfy some people's sick needs.

I kinda resent that.

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 already demanding primary duty of clearing out the airspace and guiding a crippled airliner to as safe a landing as is possible, has a _duty_ in the minds of some to ensure that the event is videotaped. (See Reply 31 and Reply 37, where the poster says the video should be priority #2.) Placing priorities like that, in my mind at least, can only be justified by depravity, because the marginal investigative value of a video does not belong in the same sentence with guiding the plane home. I'm open to being convinced, but reading that poster's post, that's how I feel in response.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Why No Complete Footage Of United 232?

Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:15 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 39):
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 airport & media failed to capture documentation of the accident.

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 could put them.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 39):
As soon as the decision was made to come to Sioux City, everyone knew with a disassembled hydraulic system, it could end in only one way.

It can end in more than one way. Guess you forgot about this little incident in Iraq.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.co...01-100/025_DHLBaghdad/story025.htm

Quoting D L X (Reply 46):
The purpose of ATC is to control air traffic. Not film disasters.

   Exactly. If that were the case then every FAA tower would have a camera installed and filming.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!

Who is online