Hacker News Reader

If there were, they'd do it, but it doesn't help their business, so they don't.

They must be some kind of gods really. Anything they do is because it make perfect sense. If there's something they're not doing it's because of course it's not worth doing!

Yeah, who'd think a business would try and not spend money on something they don't need in a cut-throat industry.

Imaging and storage used to be much more expensive, so if this decision was to be reviewed today, I am pretty sure regulators would start requiring it.

Just because things are as they are, doesn't mean that they couldn't be better.

Nah. External cameras wouldn't do anything significant to improve safety or help with crash investigations so there's no reason for the FAA to impose such a requirement. It's just a silly idea.

But regulators do revisit existing rules all the time. If you really want this then feel free to file a formal petition for rulemaking. If you do that then they'll have to at least look at it.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/petition

Reply on news.ycombinator.com