Cameras to monitor engine fires?

[Guest airbus2]

I guess confusion could occur but surely a L and R sticker will help?if the camera shows a view like this, http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview...7_wing_view.jpgThen it is easy to tell that they are the right engines.Dave

[RobertVA 0]

Oh Really?!:-hmmmI've never seen the fan shrouds attached to the aft end like that. Must be a new engine concept! I haven't seen a reverse swept wing on that large an aircraft before either

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>I guess confusion could occur but surely a L and R sticker>will help?>>if the camera shows a view like this, >http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview...7_wing_view.jpg>>Then it is easy to tell that they are the right engines.>>Davei rest my case......

[Guest airbus2]

>Oh Really?!>:-hmmm>I've never seen the fan shrouds attached to the aft end like>that. Must be a new engine concept! I haven't seen a reverse>swept wing on that large an aircraft before eitherThat is a view from a 747, looks ok to me:-hmmm All i was trying to say is that if the screen shows the engine, with the wintip on the right hand side, that is obviously a display of the right hand engine.I probably should have used a better picture..doh.Dave

[RobertVA 0]

The picture shows the leading edge of the wing AND the engine intakes. The picture is from the FRONT half of the fuselage. With the wing tip in the right side of the PICTURE that HAS to be the LEFT wing.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/176238.jpg

[Guest airbus2]

Yep, i realise i have made a mistake.Sorry guys.I will be enjoying my humble pie now.:-)Dave

[Guest PARADISE]

You'd have crashed and burned with your cameras on;-) John M

[Guest airbus2]

>You'd have crashed and burned with your cameras on;-) >>John MYeah, i would have been able to watch the whole thing from different angles.Well, we all make mistakes...dont we?;-) Dave

[Cessnaflyer 56]

>i rest my case......Hahaha

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

It wouldn't change things one iota. So long as there is a pilot up front mistakes will be made. There is more than enough instrumentation in the cockpit for the pilot to identify a malfunctioning engine. There is no instrument that can tell a pilot which is his left hand and which is his right hand. That has to come from his brain and in an emergency situation it is very easily misinterpreted. Automation is generally considered as the best answer to eliminating pilot error.Roger

[Guest PARADISE]

Yes.......and no. Who creates this automation? Humans. And, as you stated, they don't know their right hand from their left hand. Maybe we should leave the flying to the bird-brains.John M

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

I think it would be a good idea, not very hard to implement, and the cost is not that high. Actually it's minimal as it concerns safety.Some A340s also have a tail mounted camera that can be zoomed. I've seen a german carrier video that shows such footage from the tail camera.I can think of two incidents where such visual information would be usefull to the pilots.One is the accident of the BMI 734, but technology was not that advanced back then and the cameras where bulky and heavy.Then, it's the Air Transat (if I recall correctly) A340 that had a fuel leak and wrong information from the instruments AND the operations manual, resulted to the crew opening the cross feed valves, thus feeding the leaking engine with all their fuel.As a result, they run out of fuel about 150nm out in the ocean and thanks to their airmanship they managed to glide the aircraft down to a safe landing a Madeira (again if not mistaken).Now, in this case, if there was a visual clue, they MAY have seen the fuel vapor trace from the leaking engine. But as it was dark it may not have been visible.The Air Crash investigations episode about this incident left some questions as to whether the cabin crew or passengers noticed the vapor from the fuel leaking.George DorkofikisAthens, Hellashttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

>Maybe we should leave the flying to the bird-brains.That's precisely my point - automation allows for this.With the advent of the two pilot cockpit mostly all aircraft systems are now pretty much fully automated and controlled by computers thus allowing the pilots to get on with the job of flying the aircraft. Indeed Boeings concept of dark cockpit and a warning system on a "need to know basis" is all aimed at allowing "bird btains" (your words - not mine :-) ) to fly the aircraft with minimal distraction.A classic example is that on the Boeing 747 the engine fire warning system is inhibited during take-off. As he is accelllerating down the runway approaching V1 the last thing a pilot needs is a fire warning bell ringing in his ear. That's an accident looking for somewhere to happen. At 400 ft the fire warning system is re-activated and if there IS a fire, then all #### will break out in the cockpit warnings. The pilot can then take the appropriate action with the aircraft safely established in the climb.When a large aircraft manufacturer asked the CEO of a large American airline company what could they do to make the aircraft more safe, he replied " take the pilots out of the cockpit". What he was of course refering to was "human error" and whilst it is debatable as to whether this will ever be achieved, the amount of automation is continually increasing. One day .. perhaps ? :-)Roger

[Guest PARADISE]

>When a large aircraft manufacturer asked the CEO of a large>American airline company what could they do to make the>aircraft more safe, he replied " take the pilots out of the>cockpit". What he was of course refering to was "human error">and whilst it is debatable as to whether this will ever be>achieved, the amount of automation is continually increasing. >One day .. perhaps ? :-)>>Roger>> Typical mindless response by a non-caring, and obviously non-flying, CEO. Taking pilots out of the cockpit has absolutely nothing to do with making aircraft more safe, but everything to do with the bottom line he/she has to show the stockholders every quarter. Just imagine how much money could be saves if you take employees out of the equation.CEO's would love to run their companies with no humans at all.....they cost too much.BTW, Roger, I'm not bashing you...I know you're just reporting what you've heard:) John M