Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the looking-at-the-screen dept.

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.

10 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 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?
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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)

    5. 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".

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

    has never been more literally applied

  3. 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.
  4. 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.