Plane crash at SFO - would it kill them to install a camera at theairport?
 

You know there's something wrong when pretty much every (or at least
any) Russian can have a forward-looking hi-def webcam hanging off the
rear-view-mirror of his car, but a major airport like SFO apparently has
ZERO cameras recording general views of runway and tarmac operations.

So now they have to spend millions of dollars, integrate data from
dozens of witnesses and video footage taken a mile away, data recorders,
ground radar, take months doing that to figure out exactly what happened
- when a friggen $200 camera could have recorded the botched landing in
hi-def glory.

Someone explain why someone (FAA, NTSB) can't bash the heads of the
various "vested interests" (pilots, unions) and overcome their
"candid-camera" shyness and install these bloody cameras at airports so
that these accidents at least get a video record documenting exactly
what happened.

No excuse - they're cheap enough, and there are enough of them operating
*inside* the terminals - with no real proven utility so far (because
like the mythical Bigfoot, the terrorist-passenger has been proven to be
notoriously hard to capture on film for the past 12 years - but we'll
keep spending billions of dollars and turn air-travel into a nightmare
in the process).

Plane crash at SFO - would it kill them to install a camera at theairport?
 

So now they have to spend millions of dollars, integrate data from
dozens of witnesses and video footage taken a mile away, data recorders,
ground radar, take months doing that to figure out exactly what happened
- when a friggen $200 camera could have recorded the botched landing in
hi-def glory.

Why do you think a camera pointed at the runway from some random
vantage point would reveal the secret answer?

There's no question that the plane came in too low, the tail clipped
the seawall, and things went downhill (so to speak) after that. The
question is why.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

Plane crash at SFO - would it kill them to install a camera at the airport?
 

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:52:13 -0700, Morgoth Bauglir wrote:

So now they have to spend millions of dollars, integrate data from
dozens of witnesses and video footage taken a mile away, data recorders,
ground radar, take months doing that to figure out exactly what happened
- when a friggen $200 camera could have recorded the botched landing in
hi-def glory.

Why do you think a camera pointed at the runway from some random
vantage point would reveal the secret answer?

There's no question that the plane came in too low, the tail clipped
the seawall, and things went downhill (so to speak) after that. The
question is why.

http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...-thinking.html

Not the first time a plane has landed short at SFO, a Japan Airline
did so in 1968(?), landed in the water, all the passengers wwere
safely removed, the pilot later committed Hari-Kari.

Wikipedia has "On November 22, 1968, Shiga, Japan Airlines Flight 2
operated by a McDonnell Douglas DC-8 accidentally landed in San Francisco
Bay approx. 2.5 mi (4.0 km) short of San Francisco International Airport.
The aircraft was recovered after being in the water for 55 hours. There
were no injuries to the crew or to any passengers. The probable cause was
"the improper application of the prescribed procedures to execute an
automatic-coupled ILS approach. This deviation from the prescribed
procedures was, in part, due to a lack of familiarization and infrequent
operation of the installed flight director and autopilot system". The
aircraft was repaired by United Airlines at San Francisco International
Airport and returned to JAL in March 1969.[7][8] Pilot Kohhei Asoh said
that he mistakenly believed that he was landing on the runway when in fact
the plane hit the water several hundred yards away.[9

Plane crash at SFO - would it kill them to install a camera atthe airport?
 

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 9:17:07 PM UTC-4, Fly Guy wrote:
You know there's something wrong when pretty much every (or at least

any) Russian can have a forward-looking hi-def webcam hanging off the

rear-view-mirror of his car, but a major airport like SFO apparently has

ZERO cameras recording general views of runway and tarmac operations.



So now they have to spend millions of dollars, integrate data from

dozens of witnesses and video footage taken a mile away, data recorders,

ground radar, take months doing that to figure out exactly what happened

- when a friggen $200 camera could have recorded the botched landing in

hi-def glory.



Someone explain why someone (FAA, NTSB) can't bash the heads of the

various "vested interests" (pilots, unions) and overcome their

"candid-camera" shyness and install these bloody cameras at airports so

that these accidents at least get a video record documenting exactly

what happened.



No excuse - they're cheap enough, and there are enough of them operating

*inside* the terminals - with no real proven utility so far (because

like the mythical Bigfoot, the terrorist-passenger has been proven to be

notoriously hard to capture on film for the past 12 years - but we'll

keep spending billions of dollars and turn air-travel into a nightmare

in the process).

re cameras doing runways

it seems to mediocre mind me that the aviation insurance industry--if our govt is too stubborn and dysfunctional to do an obvious --would demand such because the rare crash/
occasional contact/especially near contact is probably more often than is publicized

such is opposed by the airplane jockey union?

if so, it's not that hard to understand that they don't like big brother/orwellianism/second guessing/being fined-suspended

because i presume there is generally public relations/play acting by the airplane interested
industry, and because errors and s happen to flawed human beings

meanwhile, a pundit wannabe excretes semi terrific wis-dumb

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...ks/yWRw-CSix2w