If the jet had done a 360, its unlikely the main fuselage would stay together, it would have broken into several large pieces.
(Language emphatically not work safe.)
How often per year you have terrorist attack (1 this year?) and yet you have billions of dollars spent and US Constitution shredded with the possibility of some sweating pot-belly stranger grouping your three-years daughter between her crotch, checking if you hadn't packed some explosives there (just like every american parent would sacrifice their child for their terrorist threat [just being extremely sarcastic here obviously]).
Its actually weird that each airport does not have close-circuit cameras recording each runway. I dont see a problem just make it what 24hours closed recording and its enough in case there is situation like this one.
Side note: from the initial pictures how the roof looked like, my assumption was that there were two bombs in overhead compartments. I would never guess that a belly diving would cause such a sever damage to the roof of the airplane where it looks like it was extensively burned.
If the former, I wonder if the plane's vertical profile was designed in such a way as to keep the fire above the passengers (if such a thing is even possible).
Given the current low price of high-quality video equipment, and the cost of both safety equipment and investigation, even in minor cases, this sounds actually like a good idea. Footage could be deleted quickly if nothing eventful happens, reducing the costs even further.
It would be much more helpful and less privacy-invasive than the rest of the airport camera circuit, and probably cheaper.
A "markets" person might think, if it's so cheap and the footage of a crash so valuable, why don't individuals across the bay setup their own cameras to record the runway, then sell the footage if it becomes valuable?
Wait, seriously? I'm interested...
The habit seems to be spreading by Russian immigrants too - I had a Russian driver the other week, and that was the first US taxi I had been in that had a dash cam.
Lots of money to do this. Still worth it but its much more expensive than a few go pros and tripods.
All for less than $100, and 5 minutes installation.
Where are you talking about?
The interesting question to answer isn't the exact mechanics of the crash, but why the plane came in too low. All the video footage in the world is not going to answer the why - the flight data and cockpit voice recorders might, on the other hand.
Other aircraft or objects in the vicinity.
Parts of the aircraft which have separated. Look to the telemetry data / communications in the case of the Columbia shuttle disaster as ground control tried to work out what was happening with the off-range readings for tire pressure sensors -- as the wing of the shuttle was being carved out from the inside by 6000°F reentry plasma.
Fine-grained movement of the aircraft, its components, the interior, fire and/or smoke, debris, etc, at 16-1000 frames per second 1080p resolution.
Runway incursions, airspace incursions, and other near-miss phenomena.
Small aircraft without FDR/CVR equipment.
The equipment cost is minimal. Equipping the plane itself with video capabilities would be an additional feature, but simply having ground, runway, approach, and departure path video would be useful. As others have noted, not only for the (very rare) emergencies, but for the far more common "incidents".
On the negative side: inclement weather, including rain, snow, and fog (the latter being common at SFO) would limit utility somewhat.
From that last (and presumably applying to Canada, not the US):
A Star analysis of Transport Canada data counted 5,677 incursions by aircraft, vehicles and pedestrians since 1999, averaging almost 400 a year.
video of boeing stress-testing 777 wings by deflecting them up with cables, against a stationary fuselage
first thing that came to mind after seeing the video of the crashed plane do a cartwheel on its wing.
However, this video was quite the shocker. Not only does the aircraft do a near 360 degree spin, but you could see the bottom of the aircraft as it spins with the tail up and nose down with the right wing up in the air. Amazing only 2 fatalities so far and the aircraft was intact as it was.
Let's take a 60m long body and assume perfect conversion of horizontal speed (=kinetic energy) into vertical speed (=potential energy). To lift the body by an average 30m, it would need a speed of sqrt(2gh) = sqrt(600) or less than 25m/s. That's less than 90 km/h.
Google gives me a landing speed of about 250 km/h for a 777. That gives us a factor of 3 in speed, or 7 to 8 in kinetic energy to cater for inelastic collisions, air resistance, energy loss digging the nose wheel or the whole nose into the ground to create a pivot point, etc.
Also, and probably more convincing, there's the example from a DC-10 crash in Sioux City in 1989. Both http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-06.pdf and http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890719-1 mention the word 'cartwheel', and that's also what I remember from the video (which I can't find now)
Also, for both flips, you would have to have the mass of the plane straight behind the pivot point. That is hard to achieve, as everybody who has done cartwheels will know (if not, imagine maiign a handstand on one hand with too much rotation that continues into a landing on one leg)
Something on the close order of a half-dozen more have spinal fractures and other injuries they won't ever fully recover from.
Of the 307 on board, about 170 of them were injured, ~25 quite seriously.
The problem is, when you hold your phone horizontally it's painfully obvious to other people you're taking a video. Holding it vertically allows for being more discreet. You might just be texting or something.
Smartphone manufacturers could also solve this problem by somehow auto-rotating the camera internally.
That made me laugh harder than anything yet this month.
How does CNN get exclusive access to an amateur video like this? What process was in place such that this didn't end up on YouTube first?
The entire transaction strikes me as a bit tasteless (perhaps even Ballardian), but raises another interesting question: once you have such a video, how do you put a value on it, given that there may be any number of other amateur videos taken, with a good chance that they're of better quality than your own?
I agree, but it does cause me to pause to consider the entire news business. CNN would pay for a video like this because they'll generate substantial revenue from it. If it were posted on Youtube, Google would generate substantial revenue from it. So I guess the question is, where is the line. Is for-profit news ethical? I definitely get immediately turned off when I see people profiting from stuff like this, but doesn't the media do exactly the same thing, just at scale?
The utility of that freedom being that if I had published the video immediately and forfeited my copyright, It would have better informed the audience earlier in the news cycle and led to less speculation.
Interesting. Does reducing audience (public) speculation actually matter? What if the person that captured the video immediately sent it to the NTSB and FAA so as not to impede the investigation, but sold it to the media?
CNN had the video endlessly looping for hours today, so my assumption would be it has serious economic value.
In any case, it's reasonable to predict that CNN has better footage already that they've chosen not to release yet.
Yeah seems like a legit reason for excitement.