Yes, the cameras would not have helped here, but it dorsn’t mean they are useless in general.

Stupid car analogy: airbags help in most cases, but not all. Are they useless?

Regarding UA1175, they had someone extra, but not all flights happen to have someone extra in the cockpit.

> Yes, the cameras would not have helped here, but it dorsn’t mean they are useless in general.

I think that statement needs the support of actual evidence. Air incident investigation agencies make detailed reports of the causes of crashes, with specific, targeted recommendations to help ensure that similar incidents don't recur.

If we haven't seen recommendations for cameras like that, then I think it's reasonable to assume that the actual experts here have determined that cameras would not be helpful.

	▲	ExoticPearTree 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		FAA/EASA can dictate what equipment new airplans should/must have. And that is done in cooperation with the manufacturers. And manufacturers have zero incentives to add new equipment, airlines zero desire to do additional certifications for pilots. It is not reasonable to assume anything. Air crash investigators are not the experts on airplanes design.

▲

krisoft 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> airbags help in most cases, but not all.

Excellent. So in what cases does seeing the engine visually do help? So far we discussed UPS2976 and UA1175 where the presence or absence of the camera didn't change the outcome.

> Regarding UA1175, they had someone extra, but not all flights happen to have someone extra in the cockpit.

You are dancing around my question. What does the pilot do differently based on what they see? If you can't articulate a clear "pilot sees X they do Y, pilot sees Z they do Q" flow then what is the video good for?

in a sibling thread you say "There are countless situations where it can be helpful." But you haven't named even one of those countless situations yet.

	▲	ExoticPearTree 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Let's say there is a case like UA1175: - they can see how damaged the engine is - they can see if the wing is damaged in any way (over and under) - is there any other damage to the aircraft (like there was a piece of shrapnel that hit the plane) In other situations: - are the wheels out when the sensors say they are not - have a way to visually inspect critical parts of the plane while in flight (so you don't have to do a flyover and the tower to look with binoculars at the airplane) This is what comes to mind now. Happy? Or am I still dancing?
	▲	filleduchaos 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> So far we discussed UPS2976 and UA1175 where the presence or absence of the camera didn't change the outcome To be fair, the presence of a camera might have changed the outcome of UPS2976. Depending on when the fire developed fully, rejecting the takeoff based on the sheer size of the fireball on the wing might have led to fewer casualties on the ground. This is of course under the assumption of a world where a camera feed is a normal part of the flight deck instruments and there is a standard for the pilot monitoring to make judgments based on it.