A fully opaque cockpit would let pilots navigate with view-screens and holograms. Future airliner flight decks may do away with windows and move out of the nose of the aircraft, according to Airbus. The European aircraft manufacturer filed a patent application Dec. 23, published June 26, for a flight deck that relies mostly or entirely on electronic viewscreens. The first advantage is aerodynamic, since flight deck windows require interrupting the ideal scalpel shape of the nose, Airbus wrote. Also, big windows and the reinforcement required for them add weight to the aircraft.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Airbus Submits Patent Application for Windowless Jet Cockpit
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 30 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by redneckmother on Friday July 04 2014, @06:51PM
Dunno, it sounds like a Bad Freakin' Idea, to me.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jackb_guppy on Friday July 04 2014, @07:30PM
Next, they will want to leave the pilots on the ground, to save weight.
Then, place the control towers and pilots in the same room, to save power.
Wait! Is this not building a drone air-fleet? Been done, profit gone.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by isostatic on Friday July 04 2014, @07:31PM
So the cockpit can move out of the nose, which allows us to return to sitting in the nose ala 747. There's nothing like thundering down the runway in 1K (1A if you're left handed).
However as I understand it, all passenger cabins need to have exits front and back, the 747 predates it, and the 748 grandfathers it in. If that's the case, what can you put in the nose?
(Score: 4, Funny) by redneckmother on Friday July 04 2014, @07:44PM
Your finger.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday July 05 2014, @01:13PM
a bar - ask virgin atlantic...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @07:45PM
...If the electronics in a plane like this stop working,
everybody aboard is as good as dead when the plane crashes into the
ground including those poor unfortunate souls killed on the ground by
the impact and subsequent explosion because the pilots can't SEE
where they are going to properly deal with the emergency.
In a scenario like this, provided the communications and hydraulics didn't give out
and the plane is still (barely) airworthy this way, a chase plane and air
traffic control can work together with the pilot in the striken plane to bring
the plane in for a landing which would be miraculous since the pilot couldn't
see anything and had no working instrumentation to help him/her.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jackb_guppy on Friday July 04 2014, @08:40PM
Nothing new...
Lose Hydraulics - lose the plane
Lose Electronic - lose the plane
Lose an Engine - On some, can you say "Flying Bricks" - lose the plane.
What do you think we are still flying in 1940's
Hell, our cars are going the same route.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Friday July 04 2014, @09:12PM
Not true at all. There are several examples of where planes have been successfully landed in every example you cite above. It's pretty reasonable to assume though that a successful outcome is unlikely if there is no way the pilots can actually see where they are and where they are going.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 04 2014, @09:39PM
I concur with the above poster.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @10:28PM
Many large aircraft are capable of full hands off Instrument Landings, although these are not commonly done in the US, Some EU countries allow them routinely.
If the ONLY difference is the loss of the view screens, these planes are probably no less safe than a regular plane.
If we presume loss of ALL electronics, in an aircraft of this size, you are already probably toast anyway, not withstanding the heroics of a few Captain Sullenberger types.
So really this just add the risk of losing the ALL cameras and ALL view screens at the same time. (Yes, we have to assume they would have redundant systems).
You would think such a system could also support VR headgear.
You would think such a system would be really good at mapping traffic right onto the view screen, either by optical detection or radar assist.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Friday July 04 2014, @11:02PM
All the new pilots probably have no real skills better than that of the Chair Force operating drones. Guys like Captain Sullenberger are a dying breed. It makes no sense to give the new pilots windows when they lack the skills to actually do anything about it other than hit some buttons. Basically, everything is so fly-by-wire and automated these days that you don't learn anything. Sullenberger was old enough to by flying planes when they didn't have all those advances, and as a result, his 20k hours at the time were more meaningful to me.
I also don't understand why every failure has to be black and white. Why wouldn't there be redundant screens? I've mentioned it before, but it's not impossible or even all that hard to create the redundant systems all the way down to power generation.
Both the pilot and co-pilot should have separate systems, and those systems should have complete redundancy especially on the camera systems. Chances are if the cameras are taken out, the flight deck would have been taken out too.
It's nice to have that absolute ability to see. At this point though I'm not sure what you really gain.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Saturday July 05 2014, @02:31AM
Planes are built with redundant systems, so there are fail safes. Just like the anti-lock & power breaks in your car, if either fails it fails over to a prior system - lastly to standard breaks, You will work harder, but it still stop the car.
Hydraulic, there is at least two system (one per engine).
Electrical, there is again an A and B, and I thing a C.
Computers, again the same.
so on and so on.
When they started to computerize the cockpits, the old gauges (two of each) where as doubled with the new stuff.
Now, you would be right, there will be at least two cameras pointing in the same direction. The screens would be on different circuits too. Also with the ability to switch from one camera to another, so encase of emergency there will be a fail safe.
Now the question will there be a periscope? Charles Lindbergh, in the Spirit of St Louis, did not have a forward window either. He use a periscope, mounted sideways to help see.
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Saturday July 05 2014, @04:45AM
Whoa, slow down there. Not quite. "Standard Brakes" are not a prior or redundant system separate from your power assist or anti-lock system. Rather, those are merely bolt-on enhancements to the basic hydraulic braking system. And stopping a car equipped with power brakes when the power assist isn't there isn't just harder, it's *fucking* hard. Manual brakes, while taking a bit more effort, are still totally usable in a safe way in day-to-day driving, power brakes with no power are not.
A better analogy is that of dual chamber master cylinders in cars, which isolate (usually) the front wheels from the back wheels, so if you have a catastrophic failure, such as a ruptured brake line, you only loose braking power at 1/2 your wheels. Braking power is reduced, but you can still stop the vehicle.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Saturday July 05 2014, @01:19AM
An example of one plus or minus is luck of the draw, and supported by the same answer as yours.
United Air over Colorado, Third Engine in tail, compressor "wheel" exploded, cut all three hydraulic lines/system. The plane clashed - lost the plane. Yes people lived. Having extra pilot on-board to help control equipment, help too.
So, should there be extra pilots on planes now to lend-a-hand?
Last year S.F. plane crashed on landing, for going too slow - lost the plane. Yes people lived. Cause mainly, too many in cockpit.
So, should there be less pilots?
Enjoy humor. LOL
(Score: 2) by egcagrac0 on Saturday July 05 2014, @12:38PM
This is Airbus. They've been building Fly By Wire craft for the past 30 years. [airbus.com]
If you lose the electronics, you lose controlled flight.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @08:02PM
This reminds me of my biggest gripe with Star Trek. Why do they always put the bridge on the top-most deck? Sounds like a terrible idea to me, especially since they can literally put it anywhere else. One of my favorite tactics when I played Bridge Commander was to aim for the bridge. I am really surprised they didn't regularly do that on the show. They would also escort people through the bridge to the meeting room for goodness sakes. They really need tightened security and to know what the word "classified" means. Yeah yeah, I know it was the future and they were explorers, not military, but the basic thought should still be there regardless given the anomaly of the week they would run into.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @08:09PM
Should have escorted those visitors through the holo-deck, then they would never have to deal with them again.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @09:12PM
Actually, that's brilliant. Visitors should have been beamed into a virtual ship on the holodeck, much like installing untrusted software in a VM.
(Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Saturday July 05 2014, @12:51AM
Maybe they were.
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday July 04 2014, @09:30PM
>> "Why do they always put the bridge on the top-most deck?"
a. The Bridge module is replaceable, which isn't so practical if it's buried in the center of the ship.
b. The Bridge gets its own deck, meaning if somebody's going to gain access to it other than through the Turbolift, they're doing so with a space suit on.
c. Their technology was at a point where even directly hitting the bridge wasn't enough to kill the command crew.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @03:21AM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday July 05 2014, @03:51AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @05:41AM
In the original Star Trek, the bridge was a separately maneuverable escape craft.
There is one episode where this functionality was actually used - but don't ask me which one, it's been forty years.
(Score: 2) by quitte on Saturday July 05 2014, @07:45PM
uhm no. It was TNG that had a detachable saucer section. This was actually done very early in the series. I think even at Farpoint Station? The reason was to improve the TNG budget or something. However the Bridge of the detached section was somewhere else. before detaching the saucer the whole bridge crew had to be relocated.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday July 05 2014, @06:24AM
they were explorers, not military
What Star Trek were you watching? Just they said they were explorers and they came in peace, but the phasers and photon tubes never got rusty. If anything, they kept getting worn out from overuse.
If anything, they were the military, and given the task of exploring just to keep them busy between wars [and occasionally start one just by "exploring".
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @08:23PM
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HSR-Cockpit.html [nasa.gov] 1995
From November 1995 to January 1996 a NASA Boeing 737, equipped with a windowless research cockpit in the passenger cabin, and a Westinghouse BAC 1-11 avionics test aircraft, conducted approximately 20 test flights from NASA Langley Research Center and NASA's Wallops Island Flight Facility, Va.
http://papers.sae.org/861755/ [sae.org] 1986 (Boeing)
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=902353 [spiedigitallibrary.org] 2000
Translation: Not patentable, at least not in the US.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Friday July 04 2014, @09:12PM
No, no, no. That was a Low Cost Windowless Cockpit Research Vehicle. This is an Aircraft with a cockpit including a viewing surface for piloting which is at least partially virtual. It doesn't matter that it goes on to say free of any glazed surface. The words are different!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by maxim on Friday July 04 2014, @10:44PM
So.... So the plane runs Linux then?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 05 2014, @03:29PM
Unless it's a supersonic plane, then it will run Mach.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by maxim on Sunday July 06 2014, @09:57AM
I wish I could mod you up