Airbus Patents Windowless Cockpit That Would Increase Pilots' Field of View

Failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-07 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Are there at least windows behind the screens so that they can be moved out of the way in the event of a problem?

Re: Failsafe? by bondsbw · 2014-07-07 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re: Failsafe? by Penguinisto · 2014-07-07 05:09 · Score: 5, Informative

If the system is down so far as needing that, then it's already crashing i'd suspect.
Not necessarily.
Even 'fly-by-wire' systems are always at least dual-redundant (quad-redundant if it's a military jet), and it *always* has a source of backup power (EPU/APU, batteries, etc).
These screens we don't know about, and always have a single-point of failure: the screen itself. So if power dies off, at least with glass windows, the pilots can still see out and glide to a 'dead-stick' landing (even if it's not on a runway) using the backup power to the flight controls.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re: Failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-07 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative

There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.
There are numerous reasons pilots can't see out real windows. Things like clouds, fog and night. Yet pilots can flight on instruments just fine and it is routine. Planes land on instruments only every day.
Re: Failsafe? by TWX · 2014-07-07 05:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

So if power dies off, at least with glass windows, the pilots can still see out and glide to a 'dead-stick' landing (even if it's not on a runway) using the backup power to the flight controls.
Perhaps we should call it the Sullenberger Test.

I can see one way that such screens could work- make them multilayer LCD. A black layer closest to the window, a white later, then the image layer. The black layer serves to block sunlight, and the white layer helps to white-balance the screen and provide some additional light blocking. In the event that power fails, the screens turn clear.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re: Failsafe? by Albanach · 2014-07-07 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

And yet, wouldn't a pilot who left the cockpit while the plane landed using instruments be fired?
Re: Failsafe? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-07-07 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

These screens we don't know about, and always have a single-point of failure: the screen itself.
Obvious solution: Have more than one screen, so each one is not a single point of failure. But that is already part of the design, since the pilot and co-pilot each have their own screen.

So if power dies off, at least with glass windows, the pilots can still see out and glide to a 'dead-stick' landing (even if it's not on a runway) using the backup power to the flight controls.
Obvious solution: Route the backup power to the view screens as well.
Re: Failsafe? by zlives · 2014-07-07 05:28 · Score: 5, Funny

aha you hit the nail on the head.... the plane is windowless so you the passenger cannot see that there is NO PILOT
(adjust my tin foil hat slightly)
Re:Failsafe? by Cowclops · 2014-07-07 05:34 · Score: 3, Informative

They don't touch down in zero visibility - you have to be able to see the runway before you get below IFR minimums or else you go around and circle till the fog clears or go to another airport. However, its still true that the other 98% of the flight, they don't need any visibility and a 3d display is just as good as anything else they could use in IFR conditions.
Re: Failsafe? by mattventura · 2014-07-07 05:38 · Score: 2

TFA mentions that the screen uses rear-projection, so you could have multiple projectors to display the picture, and redundant cameras to capture it.
Re: Failsafe? by Qzukk · 2014-07-07 06:01 · Score: 3, Informative

The worse thing that could happen to a view screen is that it gets so smashed up
Well, no, the worst thing is that it falls out, and so does the pilot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Failsafe? by NatasRevol · 2014-07-07 06:04 · Score: 3, Informative

It depends on the airport, pilot & airplane.
If all are certified, yes they can land in zero visibility to 0' AGL.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re: Failsafe? by lgw · 2014-07-07 06:17 · Score: 2

You never want to make landing harder than it needed to be. Sure, you can land completely blind, but it's more dangerous than when you can see the runway. Like any other cockpit automation, this is a cool idea that should replace (not merely augment) the existing systems after a couple of decades of data on how reliable it actually is.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re: Failsafe? by vic-traill · 2014-07-07 06:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

I just wonder how this plays out with a screen failure and no transparent windshield?

An unusual set of circumstances but airplane accidents almost always are ...

--
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
Re:Failsafe? by camperdave · 2014-07-07 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are no display systems more reliable than a plate of glass.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re: Failsafe? by Darinbob · 2014-07-07 07:07 · Score: 2

Copilot tells a funny joke, captain spews hot coffee over the monitor, whoops, left "window" now unusable.
Advanced technology is good, but this is overreliance on advanced technology.
Re:Failsafe? by spacefight · 2014-07-07 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative

This is true. The strongest category is CAT IIIc and the need for visibility is not existent. The so-called decision height for landing is also not existent. IIIc is not in use though, so I to IIIb are used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Re: Failsafe? by ganjadude · 2014-07-07 07:37 · Score: 2

actually IMO the worse thing would be a lag in the feed, you think you are 1 mile to landing when you are on top of the airport

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Failsafe? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-07-07 07:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are no display systems more reliable than a plate of glass.
True.
Alas, the controls are also wired to high heaven, and if the computers fail, all windows will do is give the pilots a great view of the crash caused by failure of the control systems.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re: Failsafe? by Obfuscant · 2014-07-07 08:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Last time I checked passenger planes could glide about as well as a brick.
You should read about an incident that has become known as the Gimli Glider. That was a 767 (passenger plane) that was piloted with no working engines to a safe landing with only minor injuries during the evacuation.
The glide ratio reported there was 12:1, which is actually better than the Cessna 172 (9:1) or 182 (10:1). Those numbers are approximations since they depend upon the best glide speed, which depends on aircraft weight and condition. In any case, much better than "a brick".
Re: Failsafe? by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-07 09:44 · Score: 2

He doesn't mean the autopilot lands, although it is possible. He means that the pilots land "blind", using instruments only.
When you learn to fly aircraft you start off on Visual Flight Rules (VFR). You have to be able to see outside at all times, so no flying at night or in fog or in clouds. You then move on to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), and can basically fly through anything the aircraft can handle without the need to ever look out the window.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: Failsafe? by Obfuscant · 2014-07-07 09:59 · Score: 2

There are numerous reasons pilots can't see out real windows. Things like clouds, fog and night.
Pilots can still see out the windows while in the clouds, in fog, and at night. Clouds and fog reduce visibility, but not always to zero, and the difference is, of course, that once a pilot flies out of the clouds or fog the windows are still perfectly good. A broken/disabled electronic display would still be broken/disabled.
As for "night", you have no idea what flying a plane is like, do you? "Night" doesn't disable a window, it just means the sun is down. Pilots can still see other planes, lights on the ground, and sometimes even stars. That all allows see and avoid to work, and maintains a pilot's orientation (up/down). Losing visual clues to orientation can be fatal.

Yet pilots can flight on instruments just fine and it is routine. Planes land on instruments only every day.
Very few planes land on "instruments only" in any day, and at most airports they NEVER do. Even "flight on instruments" doesn't mean the pilot doesn't look out the window. In fact, "see and avoid" is still the requirement under hard IFR. It becomes mandatory under VFR conditions.
Re: Failsafe? by bbn · 2014-07-07 10:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

The worse thing that could happen to a view screen is that it gets so smashed up you can't resolve fine details through all the cracks (actually, the absolutely worse thing that could happen is that it ceases to exist, but at that point you've got other problems). But the fine details are hardly necessary for flying and landing.
Not so, This 747 went through a ash cloud from a vulcano and got their windscreen sandblasted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

As Flight 9 approached Jakarta, the crew found it difficult to see anything through the windscreen, and made the approach almost entirely on instruments, despite reports of good visibility. The crew decided to fly the Instrument Landing System (ILS); however, the vertical guidance system was inoperative, so they were forced to fly with only the lateral guidance as the first officer monitored the airport's Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). He then called out how high they should be at each DME step along the final approach to the runway, creating a virtual glide slope for them to follow. It was, in Moody's words, "a bit like negotiating one's way up a badger's arse."[1] Although the runway lights could be made out through a small strip of the windscreen, the landing lights on the aircraft seemed to be inoperable. After landing, the flight crew found it impossible to taxi, due to glare from apron floodlights which made the already sandblasted windscreen opaque.
As you see, they didn't eject. They landed the plane flying blind.
Re:Failsafe? by Idarubicin · 2014-07-07 10:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

No, that would wreck the entire engineering of getting rid of the windows in the first place.
In principle, there could be 'emergency' windows that were smaller or more awkwardly placed (perhaps even requiring the use of a periscope or physical light pipe) that could nevertheless still be used to land a plane in the event of a complete failure of the electronic display system. From an engineering standpoint, even a switch from giant wrap-around windows to small portholes is still going to provide some improvement in strength and weight.
That said, it's worth noting two things. First, modern aircraft are so heavily electronics-dependent (and fly-by-wire driven) that in the event of a catastrophic failure of onboard electronics, the loss of virtual windows may not actually be the biggest problem on your plate. Second, modern aircraft are often rated for landing completely blind (at suitably equipped airports); even if you lose the view from the entire front 'window', a landing on instruments is still a reasonable option.

--
~Idarubicin
Re: Failsafe? by turbidostato · 2014-07-07 11:27 · Score: 2

"How would you feel if your loved ones were on a plane, it crashed, and they were killed or mutilated and maimed for life, because some twit thought windows were a bad thing to have in an airplane?"
How would you feel if your loved ones were on a plane, it crashed, and they were killed or mutilated and maimed for life, because some twit thought parachutes were a bad thing to have in an airplane?
Re: Failsafe? by lgw · 2014-07-07 11:36 · Score: 2

If it works. If it works. That's just it, this isn't a phone app, and there's no reason to believe it's reliable until it's been in service for many years and has proven that it's reliable. During that time, you make sure the old way is still there.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re: Failsafe? by Solandri · 2014-07-07 13:50 · Score: 2

Air Transat 236 also glided in to a safe landing. A fuel leak in one tank and crew misdiagnosis of the problem led them to pump all the fuel in the good tank into the leaking tank, resulting in fuel starvation at cruise altitude. The incident is not as well known because the pilots have refused to talk about it.

The altitude (10 km) and distance to the final airport (120 km) when the second engine flamed out also point to a 12:1 glide ratio. Slightly better in fact as the pilot had to execute a 360 and some S-turns to bleed off altitude just prior to landing. It was an A330, which is slightly larger than a 767. Both are widebody (twin aisle) aircraft, and both were saved by the RAT providing emergency power. So while it's certainly possible to power electronics even with total engine failure, it's not something a good engineer should be designing the plane to be reliant upon in an emergency.

And when the video feed dies... by HBI · 2014-07-07 04:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

What then?

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:And when the video feed dies... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-07 04:58 · Score: 4, Informative

They fly via instrument flight rules.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by pkinetics · 2014-07-07 05:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Ctrl-Alt-Del
Re:And when the video feed dies... by rahvin112 · 2014-07-07 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pilots routinely fly on instruments these days anyway, this is particularly true and night and in bad weather where visibility is minimal to non-existent. Think of landing a plane in thick fog, an operation that is common these days. The scary thing would be loss of instruments and electronic control systems. That would require pretty much total failure of the electrical and hydraulic systems and the backup systems. Something I don't believe has happened in a commercial airliner in more than 20 years.
Though I agree with you, there should be windows for emergencies if they lose everything else and only have windows it's not going to be easy to land the plane because they'll have lost all instrumentation and hydraulic assist. That might be one of those times you just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-07 05:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's always funny to read the knee-jerk anti-technology attitude on slashdot.
For what it's worth I'll try to educate you: RIght now modern airplanes are almost entirely flown using computers, with no physical connection between the controls and the actual bits that do the flying. If ANY of those highly complex computerized systems (in addition to their multiple backup systems) fail completely, you're fucked regardless of how well you can see out the windows. Removing physical windows in favour of "virtual" ones is actually a great idea for all the reasons already stated and if you cannot see this, perhaps you should spend less time on a site for "nerds" and more time on a site for luddites.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by LWATCDR · 2014-07-07 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Simple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
"In 1929, he became the first pilot to take off, fly and land an airplane using instruments alone, without a view outside the cockpit. Having returned to Mitchel Field that September, he assisted in the development of fog flying equipment. He helped develop, and was then the first to test, the now universally used artificial horizon and directional gyroscope. He attracted wide newspaper attention with this feat of "blind" flying and later received the Harmon Trophy for conducting the experiments. These accomplishments made all-weather airline operations practical."
And yes it was the Jimmy Doolittle. If you do not know about him you should read up on him.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by rubycodez · 2014-07-07 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

your thinking is incorrect, multiple non-dependent systems exist with backup systems. The windows in the cockpit happen to be one of those
Re:And when the video feed dies... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-07 05:15 · Score: 2

Removing physical windows in favour of "virtual" ones is actually a great idea for all the reasons already stated and if you cannot see this, perhaps you should spend less time on a site for "nerds" and more time on a site for luddites.
Well said.
While I would have reservations about flying on the plane, if they actually get it into production, all the worries stated in posts above have been worked out as well as can be. Planes that do have windows are crashing all the time. Being able to see through holes in the fuselage didn't save them.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by geniice · 2014-07-07 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Last time Airbus allowed an actual pilot to control one of their planes they crashed it into the south atlantic. Given the development cycle for planes if Airbus were to introduce such a feature it will be after the biologicals have been removed from anywhere they can cause problems.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by joe_frisch · 2014-07-07 05:34 · Score: 2

Assuming CATIIIc zero visibility operations will be approved, a lack of windows should be fine for normal taxi and flight. The pilots are already relying on operating entirely by instruments.
That said, there could be emergencies where real outside visibility would be nice - water ditching, etc. Those may be rare enough though that it isn't a significant extra risk.
Will sure may flying airliners even less interesting than it is now.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by Millennium · 2014-07-07 05:40 · Score: 2

Is there really no room for any other sort of reaction, in between blind faith and knee-jerk opposition?
From time to time, technology fails. This is a simple fact of life, and normally, the people making the technology will be the first to tell you this (the people selling the technology, not so much, which is a source of tension between the two). It doesn't take a Luddite to see that one needs to have failsafes in place. This is, in fact, what the word "failsafe" means.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by NotDrWho · 2014-07-07 06:09 · Score: 2

You have to understand the complex mathematics of Airbus' futuristic engineering:
!pilot = !pilot-salary

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by T.E.D. · 2014-07-07 06:15 · Score: 2

Believe it or not, most pilots are trained to perform instrument-only landings. I believe any commercial airliner (and most military) even has a system on-board specifically designed to facilitate this.
I've personally see even amateur pilots take off, fly around and successfully land a simulator that did not have a working visual system, relying on instruments alone. Not something you'd like them doing regularly with actual lives at stake, I'll grant you. However, it is trained for. In event of emergency, I know I'd hope my pilot has done exactly this successfully in a simulator many times before.
Re:And when the video feed dies... by NatasRevol · 2014-07-07 06:24 · Score: 2

I didn't even think about that.
Radar cameras could easily see through the fog/rain/snow. Fewer 'controlled flight into terrain' accidents.
If they can see the leading edges of the wings, perhaps fewer icing incidents as well.
This should actually improve flight safety by eliminating the shortcomings that windows have.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

blue screen of death by starworks5 · 2014-07-07 04:54 · Score: 5, Funny

has never been more literally applied

Prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-07 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

The bridge of the Enterprise.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by AaronLS · 2014-07-07 04:55 · Score: 2

One word: pinball wizard. Wait that's two words, or is it three?

oh you fly with no front windows .... how cute... by DirtyFly · 2014-07-07 04:55 · Score: 2

Been there ... done MORE than that :) http://www.jpbellphotography.c...

NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! by tekrat · 2014-07-07 05:01 · Score: 2

Seriously, didn't the crash at San Fran with the 777 who relied too much on technology that failed teach ANYBODY ANYTHING? When the tech stops working, it's up to the pilot to actually FLY and LAND the plane.

How many people have to die to teach that you can't rely 100% on technology that can and will fail while the plane is still airborne?

I don't say this often, but Oy-veh-gevalt!

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! by geniice · 2014-07-07 05:30 · Score: 2

Rather fewer than the number that will die if you keep letting half evolved monkeys mess with the controls.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by MightyYar · 2014-07-07 05:02 · Score: 2

So many systems on a plane are dependent on electronics... I'm not sure a camera and TV would be the hardest part to make reliable. Worst case you could give them some battery powered goggles or something.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by gstoddart · 2014-07-07 05:03 · Score: 2

Yes, the airplane will land without power.

Do you mean 'land', as in controlled descent to a specific place ... or do you mean 'land' as in 'gravity still works'?

It will eventually stop flying, but that may not be the same as 'landing'.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-07 05:16 · Score: 2

I believe flight MH370 actually "watered" instead of "landed".

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Failsafe? by Njovich · 2014-07-07 05:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Did you ever land in fog? Noticed that in commercial airports, they usually don't bother with removing the fog?

Planes land with zero visibility all the time.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by fustakrakich · 2014-07-07 05:25 · Score: 2

"Ditched"

Every airplane can land on water at least once.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by edman007 · 2014-07-07 05:28 · Score: 2

In a highly redundant system it should be enough to have multiple monitors inside, with multiple cameras outside whose field of view significantly overlaps. Camera fails? Well the other camera can still see the same thing. Monitor fails, well you can pull up that camera on another monitor. All cameras are cross connected via multiple display computers, and display computers are powered via separate power busses. So a display computer failing does nothing, a power surge only affects half the system, and half your monitors can pull up half your cameras which still gets you a full view. In an extreme case like a power surge killing systems it shouldn't affect everything, but you still only get a degraded system, not a failed system.

Also don't forget that power systems are many times redundant on planes (any engine can power it, APU can power it, battery can power it, and ram air generator can power it) and have to go through certifications that they don't fail in a way that causes damage (usually implemented by putting breakers on the power systems, if it surges it disconnects and lets the backup take over). And on top of that you can still fly by instruments alone. Something as simple as a short or loss of multiple engines does not kill power on a modern commercial plane.

split the difference by goombah99 · 2014-07-07 05:28 · Score: 2

why not just reduce the window area to half it's current size. If the savings is really significant then that would be significant too. Then compensate with the video system. the remaining window would be the failsafe.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

nice work by globaljustin · 2014-07-07 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

You probably did more analytical thinking when you formulated the following paragraph than the entire design team who made this crap & the people who funded and approved the project:

I can see one way that such screens could work- make them multilayer LCD. A black layer closest to the window, a white later, then the image layer. The black layer serves to block sunlight, and the white layer helps to white-balance the screen and provide some additional light blocking. In the event that power fails, the screens turn clear.

the 'black layer' could be the hydrostatic glass that can be darkened when electric current is applied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

see, the way business works today, they will put Million$ into projects based on some dumb idea (or supply chain order for a contractor) before they even know how it would actually work

one last thing, i was disappointed by the pedantic "point/counterpoint" conversations on this thread up till I found TWX's comment...

YES...it is ALWAYS STUPID to not have an analog back up

in aviation, and life, you should always have an analog back up whenever possible

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Re:nice work by Frequency+Domain · 2014-07-07 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a student about a dozen years ago. GPS was all shiny and new in the civilian world, and he was an ex Army Ranger. I thought he'd be really gung-ho about GPS, but he said he preferred a paper map. When I asked him his reasons, he said "A GPS unit with a bullet hole through it is a door stop. A map with a bullet hole through it is still a map."
Ever since then I've operated in the belief that robust technologies trump cool technologies.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2014-07-07 05:31 · Score: 2

So what happens when the first plane has a power blip, or an engine failure? How can you land with no view?

Airline pilots have what is known as an Instrument Flight Rating for a reason. They don't depend on looking out the window to fly.

Well, this is just a quicker way to increase passenger space by letting the pilots fly your plane from the comfort of their ipad at home.

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.

Entrusting our lives to complex software by Stuntmonkey · 2014-07-07 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Autonomous cars, and now this. I have to say I'm not so eager to entrust my life to complex software. Working in software I've seen countless times that complex systems show behaviors the designers didn't intend. At a minimum I'd want to know what dead-simple failsafe mechanisms have been engineered in to recognize and handle unknown states.

Re:Entrusting our lives to complex software by Overzeetop · 2014-07-07 06:01 · Score: 2

Software already flies your airplane for 95% or more of your journey.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re: Entrusting our lives to complex software by Stuntmonkey · 2014-07-07 09:08 · Score: 2

I have no problem with that, so long as there is a big red "disengage" button that allows a human pilot to assume control. What bothers me is entrusting our lives to software when such an override may be impractical, such as when your car is careening down the highway at 65 mph and you happen to be sleeping or reading a book.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by edman007 · 2014-07-07 05:31 · Score: 2

I don't think it's much of an issue, you can put cameras on board that are much better than what you can normally see (like a couple IR cameras), and identify actual objects (like other planes) in the monitor. It results in a much more interesting display. Not to mention at cruising altitude there isn't all that much to look at anyways.

Airbus want this probably because they can move the cockpit, it no longer needs to protrude out the nose (and impact aerodynamics), it can save lots of fuel that way.

What could possibly go wrong here? by garry_g · 2014-07-07 05:32 · Score: 3, Funny

After all, Windows is so old school ...

Why would you do that? by kheldan · 2014-07-07 05:38 · Score: 2

I'm not even a pilot, but I think I understand the mindset of pilots well enough, having known a few: In the event of mechanical (or system) failure(s), any pilot is at least going to want to be able to peer out a window with his own two eyes to see what's going on. It's a backup system that is hard to cause failure in: If the windshield is shattered to the point where you can't see out of it, then you've got worse problems than not being able to see! This sounds like something some non-pilot (or worse, marketing monkey or bean-counter) came up with. Or maybe, just maybe, they're patenting it for the sole purpose of preventing anyone from doing anything this dangerous and stupid with airplane design?

Could we have some actual licensed experienced pilots please join this conversation? I'd like to know what you think about this, please.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:What could possibly go wrong by jeffb+(2.718) · 2014-07-07 05:39 · Score: 2

Yeah, but there could be quite a difference between breaking the windshield and breaking one or two of the potentially dozens of cameras that could be distributed around the airframe. It's a lot easier to design in redundant cameras than redundant cockpits.

Re:What could possibly go wrong by edman007 · 2014-07-07 05:39 · Score: 2

Yes, it's very worth it, it lets you move the cockpit so it doesn't interfere with aerodynamics. It will most likely result in an improved view (they can put cameras on the bottom so they can actually see crew on the tarmac when taxing). And removing the windows will help aerodynamics and save fuel. Considering the plane is already fly by wire, it's not a significant complexity addition.

In addition I wonder how this patent is even valid, the Virginia class submarine already does this, they have a photonics mast which means cameras are the only way to look outside. The benefits for them is that the periscope no longer enters the hull (safety), the control room no longer needs to be directly under the conning tower which means a bigger control room, and other items on the ship don't have a periscope they have to design around. Also the photonics mast is more capable as it's not limited by optical tech, they can put better cameras on it (IR) that you couldn't really do in a purely optical system.

strong objections by amoeba1911 · 2014-07-07 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

What if the electricity fails? What if the camera breaks? What if this, what if that? People had the same kind of very strong objections to fly-by-wire systems, and we've had planes for decades with no physical links between the controls in the cockpit and the control surfaces that move the plane. The number of accidents caused by failure of a fly-by-wire system? None. There are so many redundancies in these systems, it makes it very unlikely to fail.

Next... seeing outside isn't particularly important. Pilots don't really need to look out the window on these planes for flying. Especially when the plane is in fog or clouds, looking out the window can be actually confusing and disorienting and it's much safer to to look a the instruments. When coming in for a landing, the runway has a guidance system that guides the plane right onto the runway (ILS).

Plus, you can actually get a much better view of the outside using cameras and screens.

This being said, this is not an invention and it's not patent-worthy. As others mentioned, NCC-1701 had a viewscreen instead of a window... almost half a century ago.

Re:Submarines have been doing just fine for year by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2014-07-07 05:58 · Score: 2

>> Submarines have been doing just fine for years

Ever seen one dock?

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by gstoddart · 2014-07-07 06:28 · Score: 2

Every airplane can land on water at least once.

Funny you should say that.

A bunch of years ago I was involved in the airline industry.

The people who did the aircraft maintenance used to howl at the notion of the "water landing" -- because until those guys did it a few years ago in the Hudson, no commercial plane had ever done it and remained intact. Which makes what they did all the more impressive.

Those seat cushions under your chair in case of a water landing? Well, let's just say within the aviation industry, they're largely regarded as wreckage markers, not flotation devices to keep you alive in the event of a water landing.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! by NatasRevol · 2014-07-07 06:29 · Score: 2

Considering the screens could be a lot larger than the windows, AND the cameras could see through fog/rain/snow, I'd guess the pilots would prefer the screens.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Missing the point by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2014-07-07 07:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm actually less worried about the view-screen failing than most are; given how robust the systems on these planes are, it is unlikely that is going to be a significant problem. If it gets to the point where the viewscreen itself no longer works, the pilots probably will probably have other much more important problems to deal with, like catastrophic hull damage or engine failure (having said that, I'm all for the addition of a periscope or small viewport that can be used in emergencies).

What does concern me is the image that is going to be projected onto these screens. It is going to be a mixed feed of camera images and sensors into one panoramic display. This raises flags for two reasons. First, cameras have fixed viewing angles, and windows do not. A pilot can lean a bit to the side while looking out a window to see just slightly more to the left or right; he won't be able to do so with a fixed TV image. Secondly, having worked with how computers merge panoramic images, I wonder how much lag there will be between the time the camera SEES its image and the time it actually is displayed on the screen; even a tenth of a second delay could be dangerous. I also wonder what information will be culled because the programs cannot make a seamless match between the different camera images otherwise. Programs that merge images can make some stupid assumptions sometimes and a detail at the border between two or more images is sometimes lost due to the algorithm.

A better initial use for this technology than completely replacing the cockpit windows, I think, would be to replace the PASSENGER windows. Those are far less critical to the plane. Giving each PASSENGER a small OLED screen in place of a window would greatly increase structural integrity and decrease fuel use while also allowing the technology to better mature before replacing the much more important viewports in the cockpit.

Why? by denzacar · 2014-07-07 07:46 · Score: 2

Nobody complains about all those people jammed into a metal tube with no windows powered by a nuclear reactor and dumped into the ocean(s)...

And no... Periscope only works for the last (first) 20 meters or so. They are buggering about on instruments and maps alone.
And did I mention nuclear missiles? Yeah... they jam those in there with the people.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

What about on the ground? by Nidi62 · 2014-07-07 08:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

As someone who has worked on the ramp of a major international airport, I have concerns about how this would affect ground operations. On the ramp there is a lot of visual communication between the pilots and the gate crews and others on the ramp. Major airports have bag tugs, cars, aircraft service trucks, buses, and even commercial delivery trucks driving around on the ramp, and where the vehicle traffic intersects taxiways, being able to actually see the pilot in the cockpit is very useful so that you know that they can see you. It is not uncommon for a pilot to wave traffic across to indicate they are not ready to taxi yet (usually this is signaled by the lights on the front landing ger being on, but to due a bright day or a bad angle they can often be hard to see). While there are plenty of aids for flying that reduce the need for a pilot to have visibility, when they are on the ground operating alongside hundreds of vehicles and thousands of people, sight and visual communication play very important roles.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil

Removes an important failsafe by Natales · 2014-07-07 08:38 · Score: 2

I was on a business trip once going from Lima, Peru, to Arica in Chile on a 727 when the pilot announced that the navigation system in the plane was basically dead. Instead of freaking out, he lowered the altitude and he visually followed the Iquitos river and other landmarks, piloting the plane the old fashion way, taking us to the destination safely. In a windowless cockpit that would have been a non-starter. I for one, want to keep an "analog backup" as an option. Thank you.

Nope... Still irrelevant... But thx for the straw. by denzacar · 2014-07-08 08:37 · Score: 2

I'm talking about airplanes the size of an airplane this system was designed for.
I.e. It's an AIRBUS.

While you rant on about "single engine GA aircraft", "airport departure" and ILS and VOR conditions under which you WON'T attempt landing - though I clearly talk about LANDING AN AIRPLANE THE SIZE OF A 747.
You're straw-mening.

I say:

A 747 lands at 172-207 mph. That's about 276-333 kph. Or 76-92 meters per second.
Meaning that they need AT LEAST 100 meters of visibility in order to see the ground 1 second before touchdown.

To which you reply:

There is no "1 second" rule. And your 100m == 1 second puts the aircraft at 194 knots. That's faster than landing speed. That's more than twice what a single engine GA aircraft will be going.

So take your pick.
You are either an idiot who thinks that 747 is a "single engine GA aircraft", landing is same as taking off, and the process of landing is the same as NOT landing, and who has difficulty reading or remembering numbers (note the speeds listed and the speed that you claim I listed)...
OR you are trying to push your limited experience in one field as an appeal to authority argument against logic by setting up a straw man or few.
Which makes you a liar and an asshole.

All your "I fly air-o-plains" talk means squat. But nice of you to share that.
I could never on my own present so adequately how fundamentally wrong your understanding of the situation being discussed really is.
Nor how self-righteous and smug you are about it.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Slashdot Mirror

Airbus Patents Windowless Cockpit That Would Increase Pilots' Field of View

74 of 468 comments (clear)