I was wondering last night why there isn't video of airplane landings being taken as a routine course of action? If nothing eventful happens they can delete the footage but in an instance like this they would have video of exactly what happened.
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).
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.
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...
Where are you talking about?
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.
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.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incurs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/06/runway_incursi...
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.