The Unanswered Question

[dc9]

I'm not a pilot but I've looked into well over fifty air accidents and many of them involve the engines. Unfortunately most pilots cannot see their wings or engines from the cockpit. Why is there no camera pointing at the engines so that pilots can diagnose problems correctly? In my research it would seem that such a simple additions would save hundreds if not thousands of lives.

[Karl]

I'm not sure what trend you saw, though I am interested in hearing more about it.

I found the two most prevalent causes for pilots such as myself to die while flying were running out of fuel and flying in weather the pilot was not properly trained or prepared for. I excluded airliner type aircraft from my research. Perhaps you didn't and saws some trend that I didn't.

[dc9]

I think my personal favorite example where having this technology probably would've saved lives; British Midland Flight 92

[Flyingdreamz]

Engines have become so reliable now they typically fail due to two reasons, no fuel or human error. In the cockpit their is plenty of information to figure out what is going on with the engines at any given time. See the engines will not help anything and when s**t hits the fan there's not much you can do other then run the checklist and hope for the best.

[Wingman]

The Kegworth air disaster (British Midland Flight 92) is an interesting reference. Looking into it, the instruments would have been sufficient to determine the cause of the problem, but there was a difference between the pilots' training and the aircraft that they were flying. Yes, in this incident, a view of the wings/engines would have (and did, for those in the cabin) made it easy to determine which engine had failed. The instruments in the cockpit would have done the same, if the crew was trained to use them.

[Cesar82Pilot]

Engines have become so reliable now they typically fail due to two reasons, no fuel or human error. In the cockpit their is plenty of information to figure out what is going on with the engines at any given time. See the engines will not help anything and when s**t hits the fan there's not much you can do other then run the checklist and hope for the best.

As far as I know twin engine planes can fly with only one engine. FSPassengers sometimes have made me fly with one engine simulating damage, both times I crashed because of my lack of skills. Also some jets are equipped with the RAT, that gives you soeme power to the systems in case of engine failures. CS757 & 777 autodeploy it when for some reason the engines turn off.

[dc9]

Engines have become so reliable now they typically fail due to two reasons, no fuel or human error. In the cockpit their is plenty of information to figure out what is going on with the engines at any given time. See the engines will not help anything and when s**t hits the fan there's not much you can do other then run the checklist and hope for the best.

Yay actual pilot input.

The way I see it is if an engine fails, looking right at it would help you determine if going through the restart procedure is a viable option. Time is one thing you don't wont to waste in an emergency. Again I wouldn't know as I've never experienced being in a plane so I dunno..

The Kegworth air disaster (British Midland Flight 92) is an interesting reference. Looking into it, the instruments would have been sufficient to determine the cause of the problem, but there was a difference between the pilots' training and the aircraft that they were flying. Yes, in this incident, a view of the wings/engines would have (and did, for those in the cabin) made it easy to determine which engine had failed. The instruments in the cockpit would have done the same, if the crew was trained to use them.

I've explored a ton of air emergencies and for whatever reason it seems more times than not the most interesting ones are when it's determined to be pilot error. That or faulty maintenance.

[Flyingdreamz]

Yay actual pilot input.

The way I see it is if an engine fails, looking right at it would help you determine if going through the restart procedure is a viable option. Time is one thing you don't wont to waste in an emergency. Again I wouldn't know as I've never experienced being in a plane so I dunno..

Unless its a fire, looking at the engine will not help at all. Though ECIAS (on a large aircraft), you can see almost every parameter of the aircraft. It also orders alerts and messages in order of what needs to be dealt with first. Almost all ECIAS alerts and warnings require seeing the QRH- quick reference handbook, and then run a checklist. This is the case because on anything more then a kingair or even a small single engine turboprop has so many sub-systems that to have things memorized is impossible.

On a single engine small airplane, the engine failure checklist is as follows.
- Fuel pump on
- carb heat
- mixture full
- Prop full forward (if constant speed)
- switch tanks
- turn key to bump starter

You can know that off the top of your head however, in a c172 you don't have have a 20 to 40 item system thats just for fuel getting from the tanks to the engine.

[dc9]

Unless its a fire, looking at the engine will not help at all. Though ECIAS (on a large aircraft), you can see almost every parameter of the aircraft. It also orders alerts and messages in order of what needs to be dealt with first. Almost all ECIAS alerts and warnings require seeing the QRH- quick reference handbook, and then run a checklist. This is the case because on anything more then a kingair or even a small single engine turboprop has so many sub-systems that to have things memorized is impossible.

On a single engine small airplane, the engine failure checklist is as follows.
- Fuel pump on
- carb heat
- mixture full
- Prop full forward (if constant speed)
- switch tanks
- turn key to bump starter

You can know that off the top of your head however, in a c172 you don't have have a 20 to 40 item system thats just for fuel getting from the tanks to the engine.

Well now we've somewhat segued into something I know about; computers; I am a computer nerd and one thing that always fails at some point is technology. Qantas Flight 32 is worth mentioning... The technology was there but the flight crew was bombarded with a long list of false positive errors and was unable to grasp the gravity of their situation until a crew member left the cockpit to look out of a window to see the engine.

If I'm not mistaking (but I'm leaving my area of expertise) pilots are taught to put an enormous amount of trust in their electrical instruments but I couldn't say for sure.

I certainly see that it's not something every plane should have but in the grand scheme of things I feel it'd be better to have it and no need it than need it and not have it. If I had to take a shot in the dark I would say this technology has not been implemented due to the root of all evil, money, not because it's unnecessary. If I were to conclude I think I'd say that somewhere in the future there will be an accident when this simple modification would've helped the same way many additions to planes end up implemented; after they're needed. That would be a percentage so low but there will be that one time.

In a nutshell what I've gathered from this is that the probability of it being necessary is too minuscule to be economically feasible, yes?

Also, if I remember correctly you either did or do flight training. I want to take to the skies, can you PM me with any information I might find useful on the path to flying?

[Flyingdreamz]

Well now we've somewhat segued into something I know about; computers; I am a computer nerd and one thing that always fails at some point is technology. Qantas Flight 32 is worth mentioning... The technology was there but the flight crew was bombarded with a long list of false positive errors and was unable to grasp the gravity of their situation until a crew member left the cockpit to look out of a window to see the engine.

If I'm not mistaking (but I'm leaving my area of expertise) pilots are taught to put an enormous amount of trust in their electrical instruments but I couldn't say for sure.

I certainly see that it's not something every plane should have but in the grand scheme of things I feel it'd be better to have it and no need it than need it and not have it. If I had to take a shot in the dark I would say this technology has not been implemented due to the root of all evil, money, not because it's unnecessary. If I were to conclude I think I'd say that somewhere in the future there will be an accident when this simple modification would've helped the same way many additions to planes end up implemented; after they're needed. That would be a percentage so low but there will be that one time.

In a nutshell what I've gathered from this is that the probability of it being necessary is too minuscule to be economically feasible, yes?

Also, if I remember correctly you either did or do flight training. I want to take to the skies, can you PM me with any information I might find useful on the path to flying?

Pilots are somewhat required to trust our instruments even if they lie to us. Also if trained properly you know that with the ECAIS you start with the Left and go down then go to the right screen and go down. A lot of the time fixing one or two major items will fix most of the minor problems. For example, you have a electric bus go down. Lets say AC bus 1, well if you loose Gen 1 then you are going to loose, AC Util 1, AC Util 2, AC Service Bus, AC ESS will go gen 2. Your going to see messages for all of that, even though Gen 2 will automatic take over for Gen on the AC side. Has the Generator effected the engine, no. Are you going to die, no but thats just how the system works and you have to understand it before the messages on the ECAIS display make any since. (this is speaking in terms of any RJ, Large jet or Private jet that has 2 engines.)

[DDD]

Well if you ever watched, 'Air Crash Investigations' it shows a lot on this subject
Honestly I think that the aft engined planes like the DC-9 or CRJ should have cameras pointed at the engines to see the back so no one has to get up and see the rear window

Also the Qantas A380 disaster
I bet there should atleast be a camera under the wing because no on knew what happened until they got back to Sydney