You'd need potentially an unrealistic number of cameras. Even if you decide on a case by case basis, you still have to weigh the risk that every component adds, and with a finite amount of money to spend on risk reduction you want to get the most bang for your buck.
I'm operating under the belief that more time to respond to issues is always a plus. Do you disagree?
Good enough is good enough.
It's a cost, which is why I'm trying to understand what the ROI would be.
> Good enough is good enough.
In cases like this, yes, but ... planes do crash due to mechanical failure and it's not unusual for there to be confusion from instrumentation where visual confirmation could help.
To answer your earlier question, not to split hairs, but I disagree with "always". You can inadvertently increase risk when trying to reduce it, or unwittingly prioritize things that offer less bang for your buck. That's why risk analysis is important.
I want to be clear I'm agreeing with you that some cameras would be useful in general. I think my only disagreements are that eyeballs are fine for this scenario, and that "more" isn't always meaningfully useful or necessarily better.
I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well.
For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy