Airbus looking for approval for a windshieldless cockpit

Loved from comments section below "After they install the same exact setup in Airforce One, I'm game."

 

A manufacturer is going to push the limits. Doesn't mean it'll ever be used. Windows are a pain in the butt as they require a lot of work. Video screen are much better. This i just another step towards fewer pilots.

For me, I'd love to have a pilotless airplane. I fly a ton and would love to sit in the back and let the plane do the work. The plane already flies itself. I'm just sitting there in case something goes wrong.

There's a massive market for folks who want and can afford an airplane but don't want to go through what it takes to be a pilot. It's coming..... watch.

 

Worked okay for the Spirit of St. Louis. Granted he had side windscreens, but no forward-looking windows (a fuel tank was there instead)

 

I would assume that this also means no side windows for the passengers?

If so, we have envisioned the claustrophobic submarine of the air.

I doubt that many pilots or passengers are going to like this lunatic idea.

 

On a vacation road trip recently, I tried to nap, lying down in the back of an SUV while someone else drove. ****ing terrifying to feel the vehicle change lanes or go around tight curves without having a visual reference.

No thank you, airbus.

 

In lieu of windows for the passengers, they could have flush-mounted video cameras on the outside of the aircraft that would convey images to the individual video screens that would replace the images one would normally see looking out the window.

 

It's a patent application; not some kind of request for FAA approval, so well off in terms of practical application. That said, if the visual image is as clear and reliable as a window, it has a lot of appeal. Less danger from bird strikes, better visibility (e.g. VFR you could see below a low wing and above a high wing), more flexibility in where the flight crew must be, and the ability to enhance visibility with wavelengths outside the visible, so you could see through some fog and clouds.

And it would be a step towards remote and autonomous operation, too, which is a whole other debate.

 

I'm waiting for my "Google" plane.

 

It already exists. It's called a "777."

 

I read a few months ago about how cruise ships were putting hi res 4k screens on rooms in steerage to make them seem like a room with a view, side benefit is that you could switch to some other view if you want.

I would be really curious what the economics of just making the plane a slick aluminum tube with video "windows". My guess is that the weight and aero savings would more than pay for the cost of the electronics.

What's really needed is some smart people to come up with a way to market this. I see it a lot like flying with instruments, people don't think twice about flying on a plane to a destinations that require an instrument approach where the pilots view isn't really that important. Probably the best way to sell it would be to show all the way that an instrument and sensor fusion could be overlaid on a highly reliable display system to show a better than naked eye view of outside. It could actually be just the thing to enable ops using Cat IIIc with FLIR or other sorts of sensors/systems used to show taxiways that wouldn't otherwise be visible to the naked eye in zero RVR conditions.

 

One advantage of "video windows" is that you can provide passengers with more views than just a replacement view for looking sideways out the window that is no longer there. For instance, a camera on the flight deck pointing forward could show you exactly what the pilots are seeing, and one on the bottom pointing straight down could show what you're flying over. And passengers in the aisle and middle seats could have the exact same views.

I have felt for years that airliners should have cameras pointed at the engines, landing gear and control surfaces that could be selected by the pilots to see what is happening with their airplane that they could not otherwise see. (This could have prevented several crashes, like the AA DC-10 at O'Hare that physically lost an engine and then the leading-edge slats on the same wing.) Perhaps views like that could also be made available to passengers; kids might get a kick at seeing their plane's landing gear retracting!

 

Yeah, Jim, especially when they are landing. My joke.

 

Also very handy during inclement weather and turbulence. "Nothing to worry about folks - look at those sunny skies in your viewscreens!"

 

Insofar as the proposal amounts to a supplemental form of imaging instrumentation, similar to FLIR, okay. But the part about eliminating the glass windshield - no thanks.

The tech to present a panoramic, ultra-high-dynamic range, ultra-high resolution, live 3-D image is not good enough - and then there's the question of reliability. From the NTSB:

"On January 25, 2008, about 0945, an Airbus A320, N462UA, operated by United Airlines as flight 731, returned to Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey, shortly after departure from runway 22R because three of the six electronic displays providing information to the flight crew went blank and several aircraft systems became inoperative..."

"According to Airbus, as of May 2007, 49 events similar to the United Airlines flight 731 and UK events had occurred in which the failure of electrical busses resulted in the loss of flight displays and various aircraft systems."
​

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2008/A08_53_55.pdf

Those 50 blackouts only represent reliability problems on the display side. Then there's the question of camera reliability. A small lens surface is more easily obscured than a large windshield. Thermal noise wreaks havoc with image sensors. Electronics can and do fail.

 

I want pilots to have skin in the game. I doubt remote operators would consent to wear a suit that administers a fatal electric shock if they lose contact with the plane. I would refuse to be a passenger on the plane for the same reason.

 

"Pilots" are the reason airplanes crash.

 

Another abrupt knee-jerk response. Wish you could debate that little remark with the Alaska Air flight 261 crew. Equipment failure can and has caused crashes.

 

You're ignoring all the crashes with causes other than pilot error (about half) as well as all the crashes prevented by human intervention, from extraordinary situations like US Airways 1549 to everyday decisions that prevent emergencies from happening in the first place. There are likely thousands of aviation incidents that never occurred due to routine acts of airmanship.

Pilot error is implicated in about half of commercial crashes, but it does not follow that pilotless aircraft would be better. Even if pilot error was the cause of all crashes, this tells you nothing about the readiness of automated alternatives.

 

The future will be a hybrid of the 2. I don't need to debate it. It's coming.

You now, "progress" and all.

 

An old airline joke: future crews of a pilot and a dog. The dog is there to bite him if he touches the controls.

Art