The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

roundymac

ronan45 wrote: »

Allways wondered why they dont put cctv on passenger planes. I am an avid watcher of Aircrash Investigation. They seem to do a lot of guess work as to what the pilots was up to etc before the crash and moments up to it. Surely the cctv recorder disk could easily slot in the Flight Data Recorder?
Nothing fancy,just one in the cockpit
Is it a money issue/ privacy issue? They have them on buses.

I suupose you could say it's a privacy issue. It would not be very pleasent for the famillies of the deceased crew to watch their final moments. You can be sure some tv station would air these videos if they got their hands on them, using the age old excuse's, "the public have a right to know/ freedom of expression/press censorship and all the usual crap that they come up with".

amen

Problem with CCTV is the video is expensive in terms of storage. A lot of the current flight data that is store is just simple numbers or the state of a switch/control which are easily stored and (compressed?). Video though requires a lot of storage. A cctv from behind may not of use if the pilot obscures the view so you may need multiple cctvs so more storage etc

RangeR

amen wrote: »

Problem with CCTV is the video is expensive in terms of storage. A lot of the current flight data that is store is just simple numbers or the state of a switch/control which are easily stored and (compressed?). Video though requires a lot of storage. A cctv from behind may not of use if the pilot obscures the view so you may need multiple cctvs so more storage etc

True but tech gets so much smaller these days. You can record over 2 hours of HD video onto a 2GB Micro SD Card. These things are tiny. Just cycle the video every hour or two. You would really only be interested in the last 30 minutes of a flight, anyway.

bladeruner

It's intrusive enough that all our conversations are recorded.
Pilots recognised the need to get an insight into what was happening before a crash or serious incident and despite misgivings by many voice recordings began.
I don't think you'll ever see cameras in the flight deck in mainstream commercial aviation.

Wouldn't it be better if all surgery was recorded ? How many surgeons would agree to that?
Norra lot , I would warrant ....

xflyer

Actually I think quite a lot of surgery is recorded. It's a useful training aid.

View Profile

I dont think there are many accidents/incidents where having video would aid the crash investigators any more than with the voice and flight data recorders.

All the pilots control inputs are recorded anyway so video wont add much extra information.

If anything, video of the exterior aircraft control surfaces/engines would be more useful.

shaneoreillyo

is it better to have a degree before starting off or would ye recommend going straight to training colleges. in leaving cert now by the way so just weighing it up

eatmyshorts

shaneoreillyo wrote: »

is it better to have a degree before starting off or would ye recommend going straight to training colleges. in leaving cert now by the way so just weighing it up

Just go straight into flight training. You can always do a degree part time at a later date.

Ald

ronan45 wrote: »

Allways wondered why they dont put cctv on passenger planes. I am an avid watcher of Aircrash Investigation. They seem to do a lot of guess work as to what the pilots was up to etc before the crash and moments up to it. Surely the cctv recorder disk could easily slot in the Flight Data Recorder?
Nothing fancy,just one in the cockpit
Is it a money issue/ privacy issue? They have them on buses.

If anything it would be more useful to have CCTV outside at airports. For instance, tire bursts. I remember last year an Aer Lingus jet coming back from Amsterdam was warned on the frequency that it had possibly had a tire burst on take off but they couldn't be sure. All the emergency services were deployed and it emerged, while on approach, it was another aircraft that had taken off around the same time. Could also help in determining why aircraft go off runways etc. etc.

Tenger

Ald wrote: »

If anything it would be more useful to have CCTV outside at airports. ..........

Indeed, many years ago at Dublin in very blustery conditions we spotted a private jet wingstrike on landing. Our captain radioed it in, the pilot/tower had been unaware of it.
The tower was able to halt inbounds to do a runway inspection.

shaneoreillyo

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Just go straight into flight training. You can always do a degree part time at a later date.

thanks for the advise. is there no real adv. to a degree?

bladeruner

shaneoreillyo wrote: »

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Just go straight into flight training. You can always do a degree part time at a later date.

thanks for the advise. is there no real adv. to a degree?

I would advise you to do the degree first, if you lose your medical at some point in the future or get made redundant or even just get sick of giving up your soul to this industry, you'll have something to fall back on.
It's going to be hard to convince a bank to give you cash for the ATPL course at the moment anyway.
Just my thrupence worth.

TECH WORLD

Hi of course airplanes should have cctv on board ,would save millions on investigations and deter suicide bombers because pilots could view them from cockpit

bladeruner

TECH WORLD wrote: »

Hi of course airplanes should have cctv on board ,would save millions on investigations and deter suicide bombers because pilots could view them from cockpit

There is CCTV of the forward galley area on many aircraft ( not on Ryanair aircraft yet cos it's not mandatory according to the IAA)


That's different to CCTV in the cockpit.

TECH WORLD

Guys all they need is a weeks footage or a day really when You think about it. 6 months storage from 16 cameras can be stored on a sata 3.5" hard drive 1tb. So its not rocket science. There is some other reason they dont want video on planes

Tenger

TECH WORLD wrote: »

Hi of course airplanes should have cctv on board ,would save millions on investigations and deter suicide bombers because pilots could view them from cockpit

Am not sure how knowing they were on camera would deter suicide bombers!!

Not letting anyone into the cockpit is a better solution to that possibility.

TECH WORLD wrote: »

Guys all they need is a weeks footage or a day really when You think about it. 6 months storage from 16 cameras can be stored on a sata 3.5" hard drive 1tb. So its not rocket science. There is some other reason they dont want video on planes

The storage capacity isnt the issue. I would hazard a guess that no more than 12 hours storage would be needed. It is the certification for additional electronic devices on the aircraft as well as redesigning the CVR and FDR for video storage and any subsequent change to survivability that would pose problems.

In addition a video of the cockpit may not show the actual inputs of each person as clearly as the FDR log of the inputs does. Investigators do not care which hand the crew use, only that they hit that switch at that time.
"oh look his hand hit that switch.."
"...actually the input log shows nothing.......
"oh"

eatmyshorts

TECH WORLD wrote: »

Hi of course airplanes should have cctv on board ,would save millions on investigations and deter suicide bombers because pilots could view them from cockpit

TECH WORLD wrote: »

Guys all they need is a weeks footage or a day really when You think about it. 6 months storage from 16 cameras can be stored on a sata 3.5" hard drive 1tb. So its not rocket science. There is some other reason they dont want video on planes

I see you are advertising yourself as a CCTV sales and expert in your only other post on boards.ie. Kind of makes me think you've got a vested interest there!
What's your conspiracy theory about why "they" don't want CCTV on board?

Jimlad

Hello Pilots,

I am just wondering what is the best step forward to getting in the left seat.
Would I get my Licence or go to college and get some aviation backround behind me? Im not really sure what to do??

xflyer

It depend on your circumstances. Generally I would advise aiming to go to college to study something that interests you and one that will be sufficently well paid so you can save up to pay for your flight training unless of course you or your family have enough money or the means to obtain that money upfront to pay for flight training. That includes cadetships like Aer Lingus which of course require money.

Everyone has their own track to being a pilot. Without money behind them most people go to work via college and either save or borrow the money for flight training. Sometime in their mid twenties they are in a position to train as a pilot.

With money behind you there's the shortcut and the training can be done straightaway. The risk here is that the job doesn't come immediately and people find themselves in debt with no job and no qualifications other than as a pilot.

It depends on your circumstances which route you take. In a time when even an Aer Lingus cadetships requires a lot of money upfront there's no easy way into the left or right seat. But mind you there never was.

Lustrum

Have any of you ever experienced St Elmo's Fire? Is it only in thunderstorms that it happens? What was you reaction the first time you saw it (did you cack yourself or were you expecting it?)

Bearcat

St Elmo's fire is not where you want to be as your either in or close to an area of electrical activity. Sometimes this can't be avoided when deviating around CB weather. Cacking yourself......haven't heard that for a while. Especially on descents with st Elmo's fire expect moderate to severve airframe icing. That said haven't seen it for a while:)

bladeruner

Lustrum wrote: »

Have any of you ever experienced St Elmo's Fire? Is it only in thunderstorms that it happens? What was you reaction the first time you saw it (did you cack yourself or were you expecting it?)

It's pretty cool to look at, better turn up the lights quick though as you might be just about to be flash blinded by real lightening
Elmos fire I saw was pinky purpley.

mosesgun

This is surely the best thread ever in the history of the interweb. Probably a silly question but I’ve always wondered why on mainly overland routes, say coast to coast USA, life jackets are under the passenger seats when parachutes would surely be a better bet in the event of something going seriously wrong. Is it a cost issue or a, speed issue or something else?

Our man in Havana

I know that some United aircraft used in the states on overland sections did not have life jackets at all. The seat cushion detached and these were to be used as a floatation device.

Tenger

mosesgun wrote: »

This is surely the best thread ever in the history of the interweb. Probably a silly question but I’ve always wondered why on mainly overland routes, say coast to coast USA, life jackets are under the passenger seats when parachutes would surely be a better bet in the event of something going seriously wrong. Is it a cost issue or a, speed issue or something else?

Parachutes used by untrained people are not a good idea. And they do take up quite a bit of space.

Safer (and easier) to design the aircraft and pax seats to be able to handle a crash landing rather than trying to fly slow and level to allow the pa to hop out.


As already stated many US and Canadian aircraft are exempt from needing life-jackets as they are rarely over large bodies of water. Some aircraft are equipped with them as so they can operate certain routes (ie USA/Canada to Caribbean)

.......funnily enough the A320 that 'landed' in the Hudson river was equipped with life-jackets but many pax getting off did not use them as they are so used to hearing "your seat cushion will act as a floatation device".

orionm_73

To be honest, to get 300+ untrained people off an aircraft using parachutes would mean the aircraft flying at a steady and low altitude, using only doors aft of the engines, and presumably over land. If you can manage to do all that, then the probability is that the aircraft could land safely at the nearest suitable airfield.

pclancy

Any fun stories from empty ferry flights or times you've just flown without passengers?

Priority Right

pclancy wrote: »

Any fun stories from empty ferry flights or times you've just flown without passengers?

No great stories. But I can confirm that an empty 321 with everything stripped out (cabin seats, etc) on toga thrust (for performance reasons you see ) accelerates rapidly, rotates quickly, has a good climb rate and can handle quite nicely!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Priority Right

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I've only flown airbus so this isn't an all round answer. But if you compare the 321 with the 319. Same plane really just a bit stretched and the engines have different power ratings. The 321 with fuel and pax will just sit on an ils (which is great) and if you have to move is isn't as responsive as the 319. A 319 will move around more and feels more nimble. Nearly the same plane but do feel different when flying.