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.

Comments

Failsafe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[bondsbw]

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.

Re: Failsafe?

[Penguinisto]

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.

Re: Failsafe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[TWX]

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.

Re: Failsafe?

[zlives]

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?

[camperdave]

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

Re:Failsafe?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

Re: Failsafe?

[Obfuscant]

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".

And when the video feed dies...

[HBI]

What then?

Re:And when the video feed dies...

[Anonymous Coward]

They fly via instrument flight rules.

Re:And when the video feed dies...

[pkinetics]

Ctrl-Alt-Del

Re:And when the video feed dies...

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:And when the video feed dies...

[geniice]

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.

blue screen of death

[starworks5]

has never been more literally applied

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

The bridge of the Enterprise.

Failsafe?

[Njovich]

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.

nice work

[globaljustin]

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

Re:nice work

[Frequency Domain]

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.

What about on the ground?

[Nidi62]

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.