Airbus: Pilots don't really need windows
07-03-2014, 03:31 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: Right Seat
Posts: 81
Airbus: Pilots don't really need windows
All the more reason to stick with Boeing.
Airbus: Pilots don't really need windows - seattlepi.com
Future airliner flight decks may do away with windows and move out of the nose of the aircraft, according to Airbus.
The European airplane maker 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.
Putting the flight deck at the front of the cabin takes valuable space away from the cabin, "thereby limiting the financial profits for the airline company exploiting the aircraft," Airbus wrote.
Without the need for windows, the flight deck could move "to an unused zone of the aircraft, and in particular into a zone difficult to configure for receiving passengers or freight," Airbus wrote. One possibility is the base of the tail, where the flight deck could still have some windows. Another is in part of the cargo hold.
Finally, relying more on viewscreens would improve pilots' perception and awareness, by giving a more complete view of what's going on outside the aircraft, according to Airbus.
In addition to the viewscreens, Airbus envisions a system that could project holograms of objects such as storm clouds and ground obstacles, and chart a course around them.
"The object of this preferred version is to immerse the pilot in a three-dimensional universe, at the center of the action," Airbus wrote.
Airbus: Pilots don't really need windows - seattlepi.com
Future airliner flight decks may do away with windows and move out of the nose of the aircraft, according to Airbus.
The European airplane maker 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.
Putting the flight deck at the front of the cabin takes valuable space away from the cabin, "thereby limiting the financial profits for the airline company exploiting the aircraft," Airbus wrote.
Without the need for windows, the flight deck could move "to an unused zone of the aircraft, and in particular into a zone difficult to configure for receiving passengers or freight," Airbus wrote. One possibility is the base of the tail, where the flight deck could still have some windows. Another is in part of the cargo hold.
Finally, relying more on viewscreens would improve pilots' perception and awareness, by giving a more complete view of what's going on outside the aircraft, according to Airbus.
In addition to the viewscreens, Airbus envisions a system that could project holograms of objects such as storm clouds and ground obstacles, and chart a course around them.
"The object of this preferred version is to immerse the pilot in a three-dimensional universe, at the center of the action," Airbus wrote.
07-03-2014, 05:14 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by TheFly
The object is to remove the human aspect as much as possible. We may not be fond of pilotless airliners, but the next generation or the one after that won't have a problem with it.
Current drone tech isn't even remotely close enough. It would have to at least be as operationally reliable and safe. Imagine a state of the art jetliner with all its redundant systems. Now up that to include way, way more redundancy of many systems. 2 autopilots and one auto throttle? One auto brake system? Ha! 5 or 6 of each, maybe. Oh and design those systems where some guy in a trailor can run the QRH, and oh better make it 100% hack proof while you're at it LOL! Current CAT3 or ETOPS standards would be an absolute joke compared to what would be needed. Every single airport, every single runway, full autoland and taxi ability with way, way more redundancy than today. All to save the costs of pilot labor, which is only a few bucks a ticket.
It makes for cool Ryanair trolling press releases and all that. Hey, did you hear…? etc. But we're no where near pilotless airliners. Remote control planes have been with us for generations, and they're still not even close to anything like that even from just a cost perspective, let alone the tech.
We're an absolute steal of a bargain for airline managements.
07-03-2014, 06:00 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: Under the Frog
Posts: 1,125
It's coming faster than you think.
Yesterdays impossibilities are today's reality; one company is already looking into "windowless" cabins, replacing the walls with super HD screens.
https://travel.yahoo.com/blogs/compa...230001687.html
In 50 years, when hypersonic air travel is the norm, people will be looking back at the "backwards" 20-teens, wondering how on earth we ever flew these slow-poke airplanes at .78-.85 mach, as they're cruising along at mach 6+...
I'm sure Boeing is just as heavily invested in this future as is apparently Airbus.
Removing windows makes sense, from a structural and aerodynamic point of view. With high enough definition screens, you wouldn't know the difference. Have you seen these new 4k screens on the market?
Remember when DVD was "as good as it'll ever get"? That was what, less than 10 years ago?
Yesterdays impossibilities are today's reality; one company is already looking into "windowless" cabins, replacing the walls with super HD screens.
https://travel.yahoo.com/blogs/compa...230001687.html
In 50 years, when hypersonic air travel is the norm, people will be looking back at the "backwards" 20-teens, wondering how on earth we ever flew these slow-poke airplanes at .78-.85 mach, as they're cruising along at mach 6+...
I'm sure Boeing is just as heavily invested in this future as is apparently Airbus.
Removing windows makes sense, from a structural and aerodynamic point of view. With high enough definition screens, you wouldn't know the difference. Have you seen these new 4k screens on the market?
Remember when DVD was "as good as it'll ever get"? That was what, less than 10 years ago?
07-03-2014, 07:30 PM
#6
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: Right Seat
Posts: 81
Well while we are getting rid of windows and pilots, let's just get rid of the passengers too FAA Considering Passenger Ban | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
Gotta love the Onion.
Gotta love the Onion.
07-03-2014, 07:40 PM
#7
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Boeing Pipe Dreams too
From an engineering standpoint, what the patent says makes sense. Use the space in an airplane in the most efficient manner.
From a pilot perspective, it is alarming.
From an economist's standpoint, it doesn't make sense.
From a mechanic's perspective, drone technology has shown its weakness in systems reliability. It usually isn't the hardware, ie, wings, engines, flight controls.
It is usually the electronics and/or link that fails.
Boeing also patents aeronautical ideas that will never see the light of day. I saw a drawing for a diamond or x-shape plane, where the wing had sweepback, and the horizontal had sweep-forward.....and they joined at the tips.
I saw one curved/blended wing design so that when viewed from the front, it appeared to be a circle.
Boeing does this to protect itself in case someone else decides to do it.
I think Airbus did the same. Doesn't mean anyone thinks it is practical, feasible, or will gain public acceptance.
Or will be built.
From a pilot perspective, it is alarming.
From an economist's standpoint, it doesn't make sense.
From a mechanic's perspective, drone technology has shown its weakness in systems reliability. It usually isn't the hardware, ie, wings, engines, flight controls.
It is usually the electronics and/or link that fails.
Boeing also patents aeronautical ideas that will never see the light of day. I saw a drawing for a diamond or x-shape plane, where the wing had sweepback, and the horizontal had sweep-forward.....and they joined at the tips.
I saw one curved/blended wing design so that when viewed from the front, it appeared to be a circle.
Boeing does this to protect itself in case someone else decides to do it.
I think Airbus did the same. Doesn't mean anyone thinks it is practical, feasible, or will gain public acceptance.
Or will be built.
07-03-2014, 09:25 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 392
We all wonder if pilot-less airplanes are going to take away our jobs but this makes me sleep better at night:
If you're already creating an environment for passengers to be able to survive at altitude, why would they not create an extra space for two pilots? To save money? As a previous poster mentioned, it would cost trillions to retrofit the airports of the world to be able to meet yet unknown certification standards.
As long as there are people on airplanes, I'll sleep well knowing that at least for 50 years there will be airplanes built with pilots.
It'll happen someday, though.
If you're already creating an environment for passengers to be able to survive at altitude, why would they not create an extra space for two pilots? To save money? As a previous poster mentioned, it would cost trillions to retrofit the airports of the world to be able to meet yet unknown certification standards.
As long as there are people on airplanes, I'll sleep well knowing that at least for 50 years there will be airplanes built with pilots.
It'll happen someday, though.
07-04-2014, 03:49 AM
#10
Otto
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: Turkish Pile Driver
Posts: 1,806
This is a logical first step towards an airliner drone. Once pax accept the pilot can't physically see where he is going and relies on screens and sensors, it is a very small shift to accept they are now looking at this data from an air conditioned basement hundreds of miles away, instead of an inaccessible part of the jet. I'm not ready to turn in my wings and go to Creech to learn to fly drones just yet but I'd be using the ostrich's vaunted "put my head in a hole" defense if I just denied the possibility this will happen.
The public has already shown they want to fly as cheaply as possible, imagine how much money the company will earn/save turning the cockpit into revenue generating seating. Then think how much more money they'll save when 1 drone operator can operate 10 jumbo jets all at once by himself. The day will come, I just hope I don't see it.
The public has already shown they want to fly as cheaply as possible, imagine how much money the company will earn/save turning the cockpit into revenue generating seating. Then think how much more money they'll save when 1 drone operator can operate 10 jumbo jets all at once by himself. The day will come, I just hope I don't see it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
