Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
alwaysontherun
Topic Author
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 pm

Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:54 pm

Hi ya all,

this is a question I´ve been meaning to ask for some time now.
In fact, every time I hear / read about an aviation accident / incident in the proximity of an airport, I wonder:

Why are there no more extensive CCTV systems in place at runways and runway approaches?

Seeing that we have CCTV systems in so many places like malls, streets and even inside smaller shops etc, why don´t airports bother with this?
Obviously I´m not referring to the normal security systems found in terminals, parking lots and aprons.
I´m specifically talking about aircraft monitoring…….during taxiing, take off and landing.

What I´m getting at is, "we" have had a few accidents that happened to have footage of the accident, and it turned out to be a major help in the investigation or analysis of the aircraft / pilot´s behavior in these critical seconds. Some that spring to mind:
Air France 296 (the 1st A320 crash in France), AA´s DC-10 accident at Chicago O´Hare, Concorde over Paris, Ethiopian 961 Comoros Islands 767 emergency landing and Sully´s famous landing in the Hudson are good examples. Obviously they were not necessarily recorded by airport cameras…………but still, the point stands.

Perhaps a few accidents that would have been easier to get to the bottom to if "we" would have had footage, include:
Afriqiya´s A330 at Tripoli, Air India´s B738 at Mangalore, Turkish B738 at AMS, AA B738 on Jamaica, Air France flight 358 Airbus A340 (although it was rather foggy), AA flight1420, Iberia´s A340 at UIO, British Airtours 28, BA´s famous 777 crash at LHR, British Midland 92 and SQ´s 747-400 crash at Taipei (for monitoring the impact) etc etc.
I guess you get my drift……….and I´m sure that many of you know better examples.

Grave accidents are luckily far and between, but I believe many of the bigger airports have several incidents a year that are worth investigating perhaps, like runway incursions, go arounds, misunderstanding with regards to runway / taxiway use, near misses etc etc etc.

I know the obvious answer to this would be "who´s paying for it???", but going a bit deeper into the subject please--> wouldn´t it be a good idea, disregarding the (relatively) low cost of it?

For argument´s sake, 8 camera´s per runway and its approaches--> reaching perhaps 5 or 10 km away from the runway in both directions.
Even if you catch one incident a year that perhaps would teach pilots, ATC or even aircraft designers something about an emergency, wouldn´t that be worth its while?
You could use infrared cameras in bad weather areas perhaps.

Any constructive info would be appreciated.

Regards,

###I´m always on the Run###
"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
 
YYZRWY23
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:33 am

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:43 pm

Quoting alwaysontherun (Thread starter):
Why are there no more extensive CCTV systems in place at runways and runway approaches?

I think it is because in most cases, the black boxes provide enough information. While footage could be seen as beneficial in an investigation, I don't think it warrants arming every commercial airport with tons of cameras. I mean, the cost of such a system would not be astronomical thanks to relatively cheap wireless technology, but it might be hard to justify when they will be used so infrequently.

Quoting alwaysontherun (Thread starter):
Perhaps a few accidents that would have been easier to get to the bottom to if "we" would have had footage

Camera systems may have made the investigation a bit easier, but again, as you stated, fortuantely these type of incidents do not happen very often at all. Thus, it is hard to justify. Why do you think every airport in the US isn't armed with EMAS yet, even though it is an amazing safety tool that would increase the safety of overruns infinitely. The cost relative to how often it woulod be used. If YYZ's runway 06L/24R had frequent overruns (1 point for whoever correctly guesses why I chose this runway), then the cost of EMAS would make economic sense over the loss of aircraft/emergency response, and of course, human lives. But they don't happen often, so the cost can't be justified.

Quoting alwaysontherun (Thread starter):
For argument´s sake, 8 camera´s per runway and its approaches--> reaching perhaps 5 or 10 km away from the runway in both directions.

I won't comment on if there are cameras capable of this as I am not an expert nor someone in the know of cameras, but i will comment on the feasibility of this. that would be A LOT of cameras to have.

To put it in perspective:

YYZ-5 Runways= 40 cameras
ORD-7 Runways= 52 cameras
JFK-7 Runways= 52 cameras
LAX-4 Runways= 32 cameras
ATL-5 Runways= 40 cameras
BOS-6 Runways= 48 cameras

You get the idea. Cameras with that kind of quality (seeing 5-10kms away and crisp enough picture) are quite expensive I think (correct if wrong). Those costs become very high when you look at implemeting them at every major airport.

Quoting alwaysontherun (Thread starter):
Even if you catch one incident a year that perhaps would teach pilots, ATC or even aircraft designers something about an emergency, wouldn´t that be worth its while?

I don't think so, as it seems that the current recording devices in place on the aircraft are doing enough for investigators. Like I stated above, if a particular runway or airport had these issues frequently, than I could see the viability and use of installing such a system.

Good idea: absolutely. Viable: Not so much.

YYZRWY23
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3794
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:26 pm

A: Such a system of cameras would be expensive.
B: The aircraft operator would have to pickup the tab thru increased fees.
C: Cameras would most likely not benefit the aircraft operator when a liability case goes to trial.
D: Thus there is no economic reason to pursue such a system.

The only way it would work is if it were regulated such that the video could only be used for safety/accident prevention and not for criminal or civil litigation.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:14 pm

Quoting alwaysontherun (Thread starter):
Why are there no more extensive CCTV systems in place at runways and runway approaches?

Another recent one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZvbPyt8n20&feature=player_embedded


If the FDR can be recovered though, these flights can be recreated in simulators to give the best idea of what happened when, where, and why. The training that is then available to pilots is to sit in the sim and be given the same engine failure/wind gust/runway condition/etc and see how they handle it, then teach them, if required, how to handle it better.

That is far more useful than having CCTV footage to show. CCTV footage will 'help' mainly with media reporting of the event. And I say 'help' because likely CCTV will then cause an increase in speculation, which is never really helpful afterall.

[Edited 2010-06-07 16:16:08]
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:39 am

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 1):

YYZ-5 Runways= 40 cameras
ORD-7 Runways= 52 cameras
JFK-7 Runways= 52 cameras
LAX-4 Runways= 32 cameras
ATL-5 Runways= 40 cameras
BOS-6 Runways= 48 cameras

You get the idea. Cameras with that kind of quality (seeing 5-10kms away and crisp enough picture) are quite expensive I think (correct if wrong). Those costs become very high when you look at implemeting them at every major airport.

You can get a 16 unit system all-weather, high-res camera setup all tied into a DVR including 1600 feet of cabling (obviously you'd need to get some extra) for less than $3000.

http://www.surveillance-video.com/16camdigcolv.html

I doubt cost is an issue.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3794
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:03 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You can get a 16 unit system all-weather, high-res camera setup all tied into a DVR including 1600 feet of cabling (obviously you'd need to get some extra) for less than $3000.

That doesn't even include a monitor. Your also going to need installation (probably in ground), airfield ready & FAA approved cameras (frangible or damage resistant), and considerably more cable than 1600 feet.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20176
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:37 am

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 5):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You can get a 16 unit system all-weather, high-res camera setup all tied into a DVR including 1600 feet of cabling (obviously you'd need to get some extra) for less than $3000.

That doesn't even include a monitor. Your also going to need installation (probably in ground), airfield ready & FAA approved cameras (frangible or damage resistant), and considerably more cable than 1600 feet.

Also, it doesn't include maintenance. It doesn't include rent on the space for the monitor. It doesn't include the running of the cables. I doubt you'd get under ten times that cost.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
MrFord
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 9:03 am

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:53 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Also, it doesn't include maintenance. It doesn't include rent on the space for the monitor. It doesn't include the running of the cables. I doubt you'd get under ten times that cost.

Yet they have hundreds of them in the terminal.
The cost isn't that great overall, compared to many other systems.
People are assuming that you need to position the camera along the runway. Yes it could be useful for certain applications, but they can be mounted on the tower/terminal/hangars too, and at least provide some coverage of the airport itself.

And even if you could have a camera that can provide 20mi visibility, there's a good chance that if the crash occurs outside of the airport perimeter, it would mostly probably be under the horizon for the camera.

My guess is that there's probably lots of airports already equipped with CCTV circuits, but they just never had to/weren't authorized to release any kind of footage from it.
"For radar identification throw your jumpseat rider out the window."
 
413X3
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:59 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:01 pm

how about just one high powered video camera mounted on top of the tower, that can move around and track anything in the air?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20176
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:05 am

Quoting MrFord (Reply 7):

Yet they have hundreds of them in the terminal.
The cost isn't that great overall, compared to many other systems.

Yes but unlike those terminal cameras the benefit is so marginal it simply isn't worth it.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
alwaysontherun
Topic Author
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:16 pm

Well, let´s hope there´s decent footage of the MD-11 crash landing in Saudi.
A big question is, was the plane on fire while landing or not??
That could be hard to find out-->some footage would be an excellent help!!

###"I´m always on the run"###
"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:02 pm

It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more logical for an airport to simply create an Airport Watch program, in which citizens are welcomed to monitor the day-to-day activity at the airport.

MSP has created their own program. The idea is, instead of treating photographers and enthusiasts as criminals, the airport issues ID cards, shows people where the designated viewing areas are, and empowers people to serve as the eyes and ears of the airport.

Similar to Neighborhood Watch programs, participants watch for unusual or suspicious activity and report it to the authorities. Thus, surveillance is increased while the law enforcement workload is decreased.

Amazing how nicely logic can work. Now if only the DHS and TSA would try using it...
Intentionally Left Blank
 
alwaysontherun
Topic Author
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:36 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):

Amazing how nicely logic can work. Now if only the DHS and TSA would try using it...

Interesting………good idea!

However, in this particular case (an accident in the airport area) you´d have eye witnesses only.
Not the most reliable source when it comes to Air Crash Investigations…………

I still think a camera network don´t have to be that expensive and if you could investigate 1 serious incident & accident a year, it´s worth it--> runway incursions, crosswind landings, ATC confusion, local weather observations, animal movements etc etc.

Not even mentioning the improved security. (anti-terrorism etc).

###"I´m always on the Run"###
"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
 
alwaysontherun
Topic Author
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:01 pm

Amazing footage posted by OlegShv from the TU154 crash in Moscow:

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 78):
In case it hasn't been posted here yet: security camera videos of the Tu-154 crash-landing at UUDD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwywf...K-mXY

It reminded me of this thread again………I still think it´s money well spent.
Even to learn from minor incidents!


###"I´m always on the Run"###
"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20176
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:42 pm

I don't see what could be gleaned from that footage that couldn't be figured out from the black boxes plus the wreckage.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
zanl188
Posts: 3794
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:50 pm

Quoting alwaysontherun (Reply 13):
It reminded me of this thread again………I still think it´s money well spent.
Even to learn from minor incidents!

Looks like he had a lot of excess lift/energy and couldn't kill it. Just floated on down the runway...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
n6238p
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:35 am

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:02 am

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here but there is probably tons of video from CCTV that captures incidents that may never be released to the public because of its nature, privacy or usefulness. Unless one of us actually witnesses an accident, what can we do to aid the investigation and why should we be given all evidence?
To actively root against anybody is just low, and I hope karma comes back at you with a vengeance
 
alwaysontherun
Topic Author
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:04 pm

Quoting N6238P (Reply 16):
there is probably tons of video from CCTV that captures incidents that may never be released to the public because of its nature, privacy or usefulness.

Fair enough………seems like a reasonable assumption.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
I don't see what could be gleaned from that footage that couldn't be figured out from the black boxes plus the wreckage.

You MIGHT be correct in this particular case………but that is assuming:

1) The black boxes were functioning properly (not always the case, unfortunately).

2) The remnants of the "suspicious" parts of the aircraft are in good enough condition to be examined.

Having the footage does not harm the investigation in any way, I think in many many incidents and accidents the investigators would love to have some additional info.

And wouldn´t it be good to have footage of runway incursions and critical weather landings etc etc?

###"I´m always on the Run"###
"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20176
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:41 pm

Quoting alwaysontherun (Reply 17):
Having the footage does not harm the investigation in any way, I think in many many incidents and accidents the investigators would love to have some additional info.

Of course. But it is not worth the money. Assuming the money to install and run such systems were available, you could improve safety much more by investing it in something else.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
notaxonrotax
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:06 am

I wondered about this one too…………

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):

Of course. But it is not worth the money. Assuming the money to install and run such systems were available, you could improve safety much more by investing it in something else.

Investments in safety are sensible, but still: incidents will happen, no matter what!!
Not necessarily ground breaking front page crashes, but I think it´s worth having the footage of major runways.
If nothing happens, heck……….you delete them within 24hours (automatically).
But that bird strike, runway incursion, rough landing, or wind shear would be handy to have on tape for future reference, training purposes; or in the worst case scenario: accident investigation.

Just a few H.D cams each runway, in the big scheme of things……….how expensive would it really be?

No Tax On Rotax
For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
 
citationjet
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:40 am

London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773,788.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20176
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:23 am

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 19):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):

Of course. But it is not worth the money. Assuming the money to install and run such systems were available, you could improve safety much more by investing it in something else.

Investments in safety are sensible, but still: incidents will happen, no matter what!!
Not necessarily ground breaking front page crashes, but I think it´s worth having the footage of major runways.
If nothing happens, heck……….you delete them within 24hours (automatically).
But that bird strike, runway incursion, rough landing, or wind shear would be handy to have on tape for future reference, training purposes; or in the worst case scenario: accident investigation.

Yes but if you had that money to spend, it should be spent on other things. Things that will make aviation much safer than adding cameras to watch runways.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Chamonix
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:31 pm

RE: Crashes And Near Misses: Why No Footage Available?

Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:40 pm

Close-up airborne collision:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tljdPcn8ahU

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: N47, Starlionblue and 24 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos