h a l f b a k e r yExperiencing technical difficulties since 1999
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Occasionally, aeroplanes crash and a big crash
investigation happens. Sometimes the crash
is due to bodged maintenance, like someone not
bolting the wings on properly, or due to
some unreported damage, like from a catering truck
reversing into something important.
This idea is to have
super-high-resolution
cameras mounted either side of runways,
taking pictures of aeroplanes as they take off so
that if they crash there will be
photographic records of any damage they had when they
took off. After the aeroplane has
made another two or three successful landings and
take-offs the photos can be deleted.
Of course this might already be happening,
but the aviation industry might keep
it quiet because a big sign next to the runway
pointing out the "Making crash
investigators' jobs easier cameras" might remind
nervous passengers too much of their own
mortality.
Reasonable Aviation News
http://avherald.com/
[bs0u0155, Jan 19 2021]
[link]
|
| |
It could be like those cameras they have on rollercoasters... including the screaming and the expressions of stark terror on the passenger's faces. |
|
| |
//including the screaming and the expressions of
stark terror on the passenger's faces//
Indeed, although it's probably not a very
profitable airline if it only carries one passenger.
Does the hideous spectacle of the passenger's
multiple faces deter other people from travelling? |
|
| |
Maybe said multifaced passenger is just another
basic model Hindu God, and won't attract that
much attention after all. |
|
| |
That's true - it could be a private jet being used by
a Hindu god |
|
| |
Interesting link, [kdf] - thanks |
|
| |
For the Idea [+]. It's already happening to an extent, but
it's surprising that full coverage isn't further along.
Cameras on aircraft are also a good idea/on the way. For
example, showing the trailing edge of the wing/landing
gear. |
|
| |
One of the best ways to understand that the modern news
media is in no way fit for purpose is to use aviation. The
news covers my area of science in a horrendous fashion,
but it's complex and niche, I'm willing to cut some slack.
But aviation stories are just as bad. Take a headline like:
"Passenger Horror as Jet PLUMMETS 15,000ft!". Alarming,
but what actually happened here really? So an Airbus
A320 develops a pressurization problem, probably just a
warning light, the pilots dial in the routine altitude of
10,000ft, work the checklist and head to the pre planned
alternate destination. There's no plummeting, the real
story is "Checklist followed, everything fine, slight delay".
But the story will have nearly everything wrong, usually
starting with the picture of the plane at the top of the
article. Journalists usually love adorning an article about
an A320 with a photo of a Boeing 747-400, when the
*runway camera* will provide a picture of the aircraft in
question. Actually, they're almost always available
anyway, plane spotters park themselves on runway
observation areas and are usually happy to supply a
recent photo of any aircraft you want to mention. |
|
| |
// modern news media is in no way fit for purpose // |
|
| |
Just don't go there. Even the sequence in "Airplane" where a 707-300 is overdubbed with the sound of a piston-engined prop aircraft is no longer funny ... |
|
| |
// I'm willing to cut some slack. // |
|
| |
No. Show them no mercy, for they deserveth it not. |
|
| |
// "Passenger Horror as Jet PLUMMETS 15,000ft!" // |
|
| |
"Passenger delight as titchy puddle-jumper nearly manages to get close to Vne in 5000' dive ..." |
|
| |
// the story will have nearly everything wrong // |
|
| |
Gr. "the story will have everything wrong" some of which is pure invention. |
|
| |
Journalists. Kill them all. Do it now. Go on, you know you want to. |
|
| |
It could be worth it to install one of those giant stabilized cameras like they use at NASA on each side of the runway. Electric focus changes can let them follow the plane up, down, or focus on airplanes that may be having problems. A lot of accidents happen right after takeoff and otherwise near airports. |
|
| |
Aircraft cost millions of dollars. Flight recorders are not exactly inexpensive ... |
|
| |
Action cams are now quite cheap. You can buy dozens, if not hundreds, for the price of one certificated FDR. |
|
| |
Huge amounts of useful data *might* be obtained in case of an incident just by scattering dozens of cheap, commercial-grade action cameras around both aircraft and airports. |
|
| |
In the event of an accident, most might (will) not survive. The benefit comes from the multitude of possible images that could potentially be harvested. |
|
| |
No flight certification is needed. These are off-the-shelf units. If they survive, that could be a huge bonus to investigators. |
|
| |
Not responsible for injuries caused by flying cameras. |
|
| |
Can we put the "hot stewardess" cam on pay per view? |
|
| |
Of course ... yet another money-making opportunity ... |
|
| |
(+) I misread the title as Runaway Cameras, and then your fist sentence; "
Occasionally, aeroplanes crash and a big crash investigation happens." |
|
| |
Made me think the idea was for a series of drones to be sequentially launched from failing aircraft to film and begin broadcasting a distress beacon for as long as their power held out... and built to float when only enough power remains to run the beacon. |
|
| |
// and then your fist sentence // |
|
| |
Is that what's meant by a "punchy" writing style ? |
|
| |
gr. they deserve: -eth is a third-person singular ending. |
|
| |
Intentional use of the archaic for literary effect; c.f. "Letter from Archbishop Warham to Sir Thomas Boleyn" etc. |
|
| |
The problem is not that it's archaic. The problem is that it's
wrong. |
|
| |
What's the archaic plural suffix? |
|
| |
Depends how archaic you want to go |
|
| |
A fair bit ... earlier than [xenzag]'s world view, so pre-Neanderthal maybe ? Before the knowledge of fire and how to make edged tools from flint, certainly. |
|
| |
In that case I think the suffix you need is "ugg" |
|
| |
xen and hippo, I once sat next to Ganesh on a flight to...oh
wait, that wasn't an actual flight, that was a different kind of
trip altogether. Hahaha |
|
| |
// I once sat next to Ganesh // |
|
| |
Dd he just have carry-on hand luggage, or did he have his trunk with him ? |
|
| |
Hahahaha, very funny. I have a statue of Ganesh on my altar.
He removes the obstacles that sometimes get in my way that I
can't move for myself. 2 times I have looked to his guidance,
and 2 times he has answered. (Him and Shiva). |
|
| |
Four armed is forewarned.
...wait, that can't be right. |
|
| |
//What's the archaic plural suffix?// |
|
| |
The usual standard for "archaic" among English-speakers is
the early-modern English of Shakespeare and the King
James Bible. King James was slightly later than
Shakespeare, but the committee who translated his bible
deliberately chose a slightly old-fashioned style, because
... well, because that's a common feature of religious
texts, at least as far back as pagan Roman hymns. |
|
| |
Anyway, in that early-modern English, the suffix for the
plural was no suffix. |
|
| |
In The Merchant of Venice, Portia says "They have o'erlookd
me and divided me [...]". This is a plural, and "have" is just
"have", not "haveth". Then, later on, she says "It droppeth
as the gentle rain from heaven [...]". This is the singular.
Shakespeare doesn't always use -eth for the 3rd singular.
Sometimes he uses the more modern form, -s. But he
never uses -eth in the plural. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, in the Book of Zechariah, we have this: |
|
| |
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Turn ye now from
your evil ways, and [from] your evil doings: but they did
not hear, nor hearken unto me, saith the LORD." |
|
| |
"The LORD" (singular) saith. But "They" (plural) did not
hear. Note no suffix. |
|
| |
{peers severely over pince-nez spectacles towards [8th of
7]'s pew} |
|
| |
... and there wath much rejoifing. |
|
| |
// removes the obstacles that sometimes get in my way that I can't move for myself. // |
|
| |
We have that too. It's called HMX ... |
|
| |
and there was much re-joisting... |
|
| |
As airplanes have proven quite capable of crashing in a
wide variety of inconvenient places it seems right to
include the cameras on the aircraft itself, shirley? A couple
facing forward and some facing aft, perhaps a few looking
downish, with the feeds stored locally and perhaps
collectively uploaded to a repository once per flight and
more frequently if there's some sort of distress or if the tail
falls off. |
|
| |
<Bestows sorrowful look of reproach on [whatrock]/> |
|
| |
<Points meaningfully at Jan 19 anno./> |
|
| |
Even [Voice] pays more attention that you do. Please, do try to keep up ... |
|
| |
A recording of exactly what happened and when inside the cockpit might give an extra level of information that the CVR and FDR don't convey; even when both are retrieved, sometimes the actual events have to be inferred. |
|
| |
<peers at indicated anno> |
|
| |
Goodness me, will you look at that. A similar anno, and
days before mine. I blame wormholes. Or perhaps just
worms. |
|
| |
I would of thought it would be better to put the cameras in the //wide variety of inconvenient places// that the aeroplanes are planning to crash in. |
|
| |
If the pilot were to file a flight path in advance of the crash, the camera could be pre-installed to record the end of the flight. |
|
| |
If this is impractical then millions of cameras and storage devices could be dispersed by airdrop all over the wide variety I'm sure a camera can be got on alibaba for £0.02 and a storage device for £0.03 so ordering a hundred meelion will only cost a meelion squid which I'm sure is worth it. |
|
| |
// If the pilot were to file a flight path in advance of the crash, // |
|
| |
Interestingly, careful review of an admittedly small and unrepresentative collection of General Aviation flight plans show that on no occasion has any of the flight crew signified their intention* to end the flight by anything other than a boringly conventional landing. |
|
| |
This would present significant challenges to the effective pre-placement of recording devices, though your masterly cost-benefit analysis should be more than sufficient justification for proceeding without further discussion. After all, what could possibly go wrong ? |
|
| |
*Cross-referencing to the appropriate log books does show that on very rare occasions, the flight has ended with something other than a boringly conventional landing - but it is also clear that said deviation (in one case literally, off the runway, across the grass and very nearly straight into an inconsiderately parked shed) was never in the mind of those involved until it happened. |
|
| |
What about creating a series of Airport Flight Data
recorders? These would be sealed boxes positioned
at strategic locations about the airport order to
observe such things as landing, takeoff etc. Their
access would be restricted to use by the NTSB. You
could have them setup to record on 24hour loop or
something and then in the event of an incident the
video could be acquired and analyzed. |
|
| |
//a series of Airport Flight Data recorders?// |
|
| |
There is a tendency in this direction, take the new NATS
digital control tower <link>. Much better views via
cameras than a standard control tower might have on a
full video wall. Digital schematics of aircraft movements
Vs the old wooden blocks with paper stuck on. But, it is a
surprise that runways haven't had high-quality cameras
covering the runway from both ends and both sides for at
least a decade. |
|
| |
I did recently learn that "high quality" cameras should be
treated cautiously. Take those Ring camera doorbell
thingies. the 1st gen was 720p, 1080p is more common
now. Can you see someone's face stealing your bike from
35 ft away? Absolutely not, you need 5MP minimum, 12
for preference. Is a garden variety camera streaming
1080p going to see anything other than the hugest parts
falling off at 1500 metres? No. |
|
| |
If you wanted high quality images of aircraft taking
off/landing back in 2002 for example, and you haven't got
a person aiming a zoom lens, then you'd need something
like a large-format film camera triggered by light beams
at intervals down the runway. For hundreds of flights/day
and the relative rarity of major incidents, it's not worth
it. |
|
| |
I would love a camera that would let me photograph events that were happening in 2002. Presumably it has some kind of dial on the top to adjust for time? |
|
| |
Just get a really big camera and place it 18 light years away. |
|
| |
[voice] aren't there optics problems with resolution &ce.? |
|
| |
Apart from the small issue of getting it there and getting the film back to be processed |
|
| |