Slashdot Mirror


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

Zothecula writes Imagine showing up at the airport to catch your flight, looking at your plane, and noticing that instead of windows, the cockpit is now a smooth cone of aluminum. It may seem like the worst case of quality control in history, but Airbus argues that this could be the airliner of the future. In a new US patent application, the EU aircraft consortium outlines a new cockpit design that replaces the traditional cockpit with one that uses 3D view screens instead of conventional windows.

36 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. Failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re: Failsafe? by bondsbw · · 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.
    2. Re: Failsafe? by Penguinisto · · 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?
    3. Re: Failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re: Failsafe? by TWX · · 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.
    5. Re: Failsafe? by Albanach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet, wouldn't a pilot who left the cockpit while the plane landed using instruments be fired?

    6. Re: Failsafe? by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    7. Re: Failsafe? by zlives · · 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)

    8. Re:Failsafe? by Cowclops · · 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.

    9. Re: Failsafe? by Qzukk · · 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.
    10. Re:Failsafe? by NatasRevol · · 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
    11. Re: Failsafe? by vic-traill · · 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
    12. Re:Failsafe? by camperdave · · 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!
    13. Re:Failsafe? by spacefight · · 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...

    14. Re:Failsafe? by CrimsonAvenger · · 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"
    15. Re: Failsafe? by Obfuscant · · 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".

    16. Re: Failsafe? by bbn · · 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.

    17. Re:Failsafe? by Idarubicin · · 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
  2. And when the video feed dies... by HBI · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What then?

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:And when the video feed dies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      They fly via instrument flight rules.

    2. Re:And when the video feed dies... by pkinetics · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ctrl-Alt-Del

    3. Re:And when the video feed dies... by rahvin112 · · 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.

    4. Re:And when the video feed dies... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:And when the video feed dies... by LWATCDR · · 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.
    6. Re:And when the video feed dies... by rubycodez · · 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

    7. Re:And when the video feed dies... by geniice · · 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.

  3. blue screen of death by starworks5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    has never been more literally applied

  4. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The bridge of the Enterprise.

  5. Failsafe? by Njovich · · 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.

  6. nice work by globaljustin · · 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
    1. Re:nice work by Frequency+Domain · · 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.

  7. Entrusting our lives to complex software by Stuntmonkey · · 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.

  8. What could possibly go wrong here? by garry_g · · Score: 3, Funny

    After all, Windows is so old school ...

  9. strong objections by amoeba1911 · · 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.

  10. Missing the point by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · 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.

  11. What about on the ground? by Nidi62 · · 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