Cams in Cockpits

Nah, we are all in this for fun. Sometimes we just forget how much fun we are having. :-)

I HAD to give you a GA for that simple comment.

You are one of the few!!

Thanks for the reminder.

Thank you and glad to have given some inspiration, Andy. As I said before, you are one of my favorite people here.

We don't always agree on everything, thats human, but we generally pull in the same direction. I am happy with that!

Okay. Enough wishy washy stuff.

We need to get to the violent arguments. :-)

How right you are!!

Always have to have the last word, huh? :)

I have the last word!

Please! Cut it!

No you don't.

Thus, the formation of the Earth's first verbal-black hole was formed…

Yes I do!

And since you posted Anon you wont get a reminder about my post.

I win!

The single ability to prevent a possible second 9/11 type of attack on say a football/Baseball stadium with say YOUR children watching a game or similar........30,000 possible victims?

I really don't know how many can go into such a stadium! But I did find this on Wiki:-

Michigan Stadium is the largest stadium in the United States with an official capacity of 109,901,^[6] but has hosted crowds in excess of 115,000. It is the third largest stadium in the world and the 31st largest sports venue including auto racing and horse racing

Maybe you can think of an even better worse target?

Think out of the box! Shooting an aircraft down with 200 passengers is minor in comparison.....So it would be nice to know EXACTLY where such an aircraft is and where it may be going.....its coming!!!

Black Sunday (1977 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WOW, I've not seen that one.

During the 911 attacks here in the US, they did scramble military fighter interceptors and with all the high tech radar systems tracking the high jacked aircraft, the interceptors were dispatched to the wrong sectors which took them out of the picture. Go figure,huh? So, my point is nothing is fool proof.

That was total chaos. ATC didn't know which planes were hijacked, confused the call signs of the planes, had no one in the military to make decisions (they were all in a meeting) and I'm not sure the planes that were finally scrambled were even armed.

Then, would the pilots of the fighters actually shot the planes down, if they could?

Cameras? Not a chance they would have helped!

A remote "self-destruct" button might not even have helped.

I agree, hopefully the military is now trained, but how it would affect them mentally I have no idea.....nasty.

The aircraft were not armed. No missiles, no guns.

There was talk about colliding military jets into hijacked aircraft, but as you said, there was too much confusion and and not enough time to react given our readiness status.

Passengers abord Flight 93 did a better job than the military that day.

We must NEVER forget the anonymous heroes of Flight 93.

NEVER EVER.

I salute them.

It may never be known just how many lives they saved by losing their own.....but it could have easily increased the total number by many 1000s. Diving onto Grand Central in the middle of the rush hour could easily have added 50,000 for example.......

I bet you all know even "better" targets....."better" not being a very good word in this example....sorry.

I bet you anything you like, the military have practised that many times since and will get it right the next time!!!

Also there were several targets......and confusion.....plus disbelief.....but it must not be allowed to repeat itself.....

Well put!!!

It's not up to the competition. It's up to the FAA.

The data could be automatically deleted once the aircraft had safely landed. Nobody need see it......

The local electric train commuter system has cameras in the trains and cameras on the stations. There is the ability for security to monitor such cameras, and by using the PR system in the trains and on the platforms, make real time comment etc. And if thought necessary, the power to such trains can be turned off to effectively disable the trains, while maintaining services like lights etc from the onboard batteries. Going the next step, I am not sure if the trains can be remotely driven.

If it can happen for commuter trains ... why not commuter planes? I do like the idea of changing a plane's controls to remote drone-like options. That sure beats the call from the cabin staff to anyone onboard with flying experience if all the tech crew are disabled with even something like food poisoning.

I wouldn't want the power to my airplane turned off.

Point noted .... but even to shut down one engine by remote control might get the point across that 'big brother' is watching those up the pointy end of the cigar tube.

Plane and trains are two completly different machines. In an airplane, you just don't stop at the next cloud and park, they don't work that way.

To continue with what I was trying to say, because an aircraft is not a ground base vehicle, it add more complexity to the situation like MH370 and the aircraft involved in 911.

I totally agree that the aircraft flight tracking has to be improved and soon, but to disable any craft that leaves the ground, in my opinion isn't the right approach. Lyn may have the right idea with a self destruct charge that takes out everyone at once. That way the innocent won't suffer 5 minutes of total terror free falling from 30,000 ft(+)

I appreciate the thought, but please don't help me out by alleviating my 5 minutes of free fall suffering.

.

In fact, I volunteer to take on the heavy burden of the suffering time for everyone aboard....and I'll even submit to consecutive punishment terms....five minutes for each and every passenger.....just strap a parachute to me that opens once there is enough air/heat to survive and push me out of that doomed plane. My parachute will make sure I don't short change anyone by falling too quickly to experience each of their individual 5 minutes of terror.

.

My understanding is that only the IRS will have that power.

Nothing to worry about.

LOL!!

I do believe that UK trains and buses have also full video surveillance.

Here I am not sure....though all stations have video cameras, but not always switched on!! The police must REQUEST first, DUUUHHHHH!! As if they know when someone will be attacked beforehand......Thats the Germans for you......

In the not to distant future, all we'll need in the cockpit is a man and a dog. The man's there to feed the dog, and the dog's there to make sure the man doesn't touch anything.

Although many here like the idea of Cams and GPS signalling for passenger jets, there may be better methods of tracking aircraft already around, THAT WE ARE UNAWARE OF BECAUSE IT IS BEING KEPT SECRET.....for a specific purpose.....who knows?

I think that this new incident will prompt some fast specific changes.....

If an airline promoted itself as installing cameras and backup systems, with their own centralised 24/7 monitoring etc, then this might be a massive marketing edge to attract more flying customers from other operators less inclined towards duty of care. Who needs the FAA and international regulators? Employees can make the free choice to join such an employer or not. Let the market decide.

The chance of injury or death is so much less than the drive to the airport that I would be far, far happier if I could just get thorough the airport screening without feeling like I am entering a Nazi concentration camp.

After that I think that the market would be far more interested in lower fares and not being sandwiched in a center seat between two 350 lb individuals that are long overdue for a shower.

It just doesn't work that way, and there's plenty of good reasons why.

You, and everybody who flies, NEEDS THE FAA AND INTERNATIONAL REGULATORS!

I should not have to tell you this.

What is the "duty of care" of which you speak?

Profit is a demanding mistress. Unregulated, carriers would do even less oversight and maintenance that they do now.

Take those rose colored glasses and smell the fire at the crash scene.

PERFECT! Well said (even if I actually said it first!!!) I agree entirely.

In addition to cameras in cockpits,there should be hidden cameras at the entrance to the cockpit & in passenger areas including baggage compartment to monitor movement of people,smoke etc

You have no concept of reality.

What would these cameras accomplish, exactly?

Would you stop the plane and arrest the hijackers?

Send a fireman to put out the fire?

The plane will still be hijacked. The passenger will still be unruly. The fire will still burn.

You will have a video record of the end of the lives of the passengers and crew, that's about it.

Facial recognition with security cameras is now quite refined.(Numberplate detection for cars at gas stations can already stop fuel being pumped based on a vehicle's registration and widely circulated security alerts).So if a passenger's face triggered a monitoring camera, even in the airbridge, then steps can be undertaken so the potential is at least investigated before the plane moves. And yes, there would be errors, but better to engage before the problems escalate.

I have not totalled up the number of airport gates vs the number of planes flying but I image that there could be less gates .... hence less cameras .... hence lower costs. And for the commercial opportunity thinkers out there, a security company could run the camera system, with regular security updates, again offering a marketing difference to the airport security services without this capability.

And for the camera system in the airbridge knockers, there could be a second camera system at the check in point for cross referencing with other travel documents and to ensure that identities are not 'swapped' with others with ill-intent before entering the plane. (The same could also apply to cabin and tech crews on the same flight).

There has been contraversy locally about prisoners being released with GPS tracking etc and how people can get around the system. Now my cat and dog carry an RFID chip under the skin. What if there was a short term technology that applied an RFID tag to each passenger at the check in once security has been accepted. That tag could allow people to get on a plane, ship or train etc. And in the 'sick' department, in a terrible accident, investigators could better ID the bodies with the RFID tags.

A lot of good ideas for one post. Well put!

You mean like the hidden cameras in those auto-flush valves of the urinals?

Where is my comment

Maybe HERE or HERE

May be there one or more chinese passengers who didn't like to go to china,so they did something.

In that case it would seem simpler to just not get on the plane in the first place.

Whatever really happened, it looks like the aircraft FMS (flight computer) was programmed to make the diversion.

When it was programmed (before or after takeoff) and if it was programmed in error or not is anyone's guess.

As we generally are of a 'thinking and questioning engineering perspective', it would be better to put the snide remarks to one side and come up with some practical arguments about the pros and cons of cameras in cockpits as originally framed by Fredski.

Waving my own flag, #118 raised the option of facial recognition pre-flight cameras ... and then it was buried in the cut and thrust of getting in the last word.

As for MH370, the gathering and assessment of the collective data from all sources, be it the miltary radar of Thailand that apparently detected the aircraft changing direction to weather satellite information that could be studied for 'hot spots', the whole process is akin to the current almost irrational comments on 'Cams in Cockpits'. The underlying topic deserves better from us.

What do UN human rights council say on this,who is blocking safety of travellers?.