Plane's black boxes going to France (No equipment to access them inCanada)

I still want to know why there are (apparently) no video cameras
installed to provide a visual record of landings and take-offs at
large airports (in general) and specifically Toronto. Or is this a
liability issue where it's better NOT to have such a visual record to
avoid cases of negligence being caught on tape?

------------

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...2-e6f1a7062ba1

Plane's black boxes going to France
Greg Bonnell
Canadian Press
Thursday, August 04, 2005

The flight data recorder from Air France flight 358 that crashed in
Toronto on Tuesday August 2, 2005, is shown in Ottawa, Thursday,
Aug.4, 2005. Investigators analyzing the cockpit voice recorder and
flight data recorder - the so-called black boxes - in Ottawa hoped to
have some data available later Thursday, federal Transportation Safety
Board’s lead investigator Real Levasseur said.

TORONTO -- Investigators trying to piece together the final moments of
the Air France jet that skidded off a Toronto runway earlier this week
say they don't have the equipment needed to download key data held by
the plane's two black boxes.

The cockpit voice and flight data recorders will have to be sent to
France, where colleagues have offered equipment necessary to access
the information, Transportation Safety Board lead investigator Real
Levasseur said Thursday.

"We do not have the type of equipment to download that type of data
from those types of recorders," Levasseur said. The decoding gear
needed to translate the data is very expensive, he added.

"This is an early type of recorder that was put into that aircraft."

Levasseur said the data tapes will be escorted to France for the
information to be downloaded. The data will then be returned to Canada
for analysis.

Investigators hope the information they hold will reveal conversations
between the pilots and Pearson's control tower Tuesday in the moments
before the passenger jet skidded 200 metres off the 2.7-kilometre
runway.

They also may indicate whether the passenger jet experienced brake
failure and hydraulic pressure problems during its failed landing.

Levasseur thanked investigators for their arduous work at the crash
scene -- a smouldering hulk of ash and charred, twisted metal.

"It's humid, it's hot, it's full of smoke because the wreck is still
smoking from time to time and it has to be hosed down," Levasseur
said.

"It's wet out there, they're in mud and it doesn't smell very nice, as
you can imagine."

Earlier, Levasseur said the first officer, or co-pilot, of the Air
France passenger jet that crashed and burned at Pearson International
Airport would be interviewed Thursday. The co-pilot was at the plane's
helm when the crash occurred.

Levasseur said Flight 358's pilot, also known as the captain, is still
in hospital with unspecified injuries to his back.

Levasseur said he will not be interviewed by the investigation team
until doctors are satisfied he is in suitable mental health to talk
about Tuesday's crash.

"I will not be talking to him until he is capable of talking to us,"
Levasseur said.

None of the 309 passengers and crew perished in the fiery crash, a
fact largely credited to the crew who were quick to get everyone on
board off the aircraft before it was consumed by the flames.

Flight attendants will be debriefed in the coming days.

Levasseur said the crew did not declare an emergency to air traffic
controllers or anyone else as the Airbus A-340 approached the runway.
Preliminary evidence suggests there was nothing wrong with the
aircraft upon approach, but Levasseur stressed that still needs to be
confirmed.

The plane was still travelling at about 150 kilometres per hour when
it left the runway, which helps explain why it plowed through 200
metres of field before coming to rest in a wooded ravine, he said.

Wreckage of the charred plane still littered the area with excess fuel
and water still in the area, but there was no evidence of the plane
breaking apart between touchdown and when it overshot the runway.

"We don't have any indication that any part of the airplane is
missing," Levasseur told a news conference, adding that the engines
appeared to be in good shape.

Some parts of plane will be removed for examination for Thursday,
although Levasseur said it is a gruelling process.

"This is meticulous work," he said. "This is hard work."

He added that three of the plane's four thrust reversers were
operating correctly, but the condition of the fourth during landing
remained unclear due to extensive fire damage to surrounding metal.

Thrust reversers help to slow down the plane upon landing.

Fly Guy wrote:
I still want to know why there are (apparently) no video cameras
installed to provide a visual record of landings and take-offs at
large airports

Me too. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Or is this a
liability issue where it's better NOT to have such a visual record to
avoid cases of negligence being caught on tape?

Whose negligence, the runway's? I would think most of the evidence
that could be caught on video would implicate the pilots, not the
airport or traffic control.

I still want to know why there are (apparently) no video cameras
installed to provide a visual record of landings and take-offs at
large airports (in general) and specifically Toronto.

Hmmn. An airport like Toronto has a crash, what, every 25 years?
Doesn't sound very cost effective to me. I'd rather they put the
money into grooving the runway to prevent hydroplaning or something
else that might actually improve safety.

John R. Levine wrote:

I still want to know why there are (apparently) no video cameras
installed to provide a visual record of landings and take-offs at
large airports (in general) and specifically Toronto.


Hmmn. An airport like Toronto has a crash, what, every 25 years?
Doesn't sound very cost effective to me. I'd rather they put the
money into grooving the runway to prevent hydroplaning or something
else that might actually improve safety.

Maybe they could add a few wires for the runways and tailhooks for the
planes.
Then, point the runways and adjust speed of these runways to Fox Corpen.

"John R. Levine" wrote:

I still want to know why there are (apparently) no video cameras
installed to provide a visual record of landings and take-offs at
large airports (in general) and specifically Toronto.

Hmmn. An airport like Toronto has a crash, what, every 25 years?
Doesn't sound very cost effective to me.

What do you think it costs to have a few CCTV cameras and VCR's
running 24/7?

Heck, if your corner quickie-mart can do it then why is it
impracticaly for a major air port?

Why put black boxes in air planes then? Not every plane will crash
during it's service life - so let's apply the same logic there.

Air traffic control communications is recorded continuously, so why
not add a video record to it?