Airbus patents the Asiana inspired windowless cockpit

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name

Display name:
iWin
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.
attachment.php

attachment.php

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/article/Airbus-Pilots-don-t-really-need-windows-5596374.php

What could possibly go wrong?

We that the Airbus systems never fail, right?
 

Attachments

  • viewingplatform.png
    viewingplatform.png
    32.1 KB · Views: 278
  • 628x471.jpg
    628x471.jpg
    21.4 KB · Views: 277
Considering that UAVs operate in a similar manner, there is nothing to stop this from happening. In fact, it's easier than an UAV as no radio bandwidth is required for control.
 
Structurally, windows are very inconvenient to add to a pressure vessel, so I can see the motivation. They can likely make a lighter weight aircraft this way, albeit more complex.

Really, not a ton different than fly by wire, and the electronics could likely allow a nice overlay between actual and SV/IR to enhance/simplify vision on a single viewing space.

All that said, I'll stick to windows, thanks.
 
That would be one Airbus I would NEVER ride in. What if the electronics fail? "Backups, system checks. This would never happen." "But what if it did happen? The pilot would have to fly it. We want a window!"
 
That would be one Airbus I would NEVER ride in. What if the electronics fail? "Backups, system checks. This would never happen." "But what if it did happen? The pilot would have to fly it. We want a window!"

Your argument is senseless, the exact same situation exists right now with windows, if the electronics fail, those windows will give a pretty view of the on coming crash.
 
That would be one Airbus I would NEVER ride in. What if the electronics fail? "Backups, system checks. This would never happen." "But what if it did happen? The pilot would have to fly it. We want a window!"

Then you shouldn't fly in current fly-by-wire planes.
 
Structurally, windows are very inconvenient to add to a pressure vessel, so I can see the motivation. They can likely make a lighter weight aircraft this way, albeit more complex.

Really, not a ton different than fly by wire, and the electronics could likely allow a nice overlay between actual and SV/IR to enhance/simplify vision on a single viewing space.

All that said, I'll stick to windows, thanks.

I wouldn't replace the pilot's windows, but they could have that for the pax windows. Cameras outside and LCD screens running along the inside of the cabin replacing the windows. Less maintenance than actual windows i would think.
 
I wouldn't replace the pilot's windows, but they could have that for the pax windows. Cameras outside and LCD screens running along the inside of the cabin replacing the windows. Less maintenance than actual windows i would think.

Those heated front ones are the expensive ones with the accorded maintenance costs as well. You could even make an 'invisible hull' with screens. Why people who are fine with fly by wire systems are afraid of simple video monitor systems is kinda beyond me.
 
That would be one Airbus I would NEVER ride in. What if the electronics fail? "Backups, system checks. This would never happen." "But what if it did happen? The pilot would have to fly it. We want a window!"

As a fellow electrical engineer, I share your distrust of electronic systems. :eek: :hairraise: :yikes: :D

I wonder if a PED could interfere with an electronic display? :stirpot:
 
That would be one Airbus I would NEVER ride in. What if the electronics fail? "Backups, system checks. This would never happen." "But what if it did happen? The pilot would have to fly it. We want a window!"

Windows easy. You just have to worry about BSOD.
 
Your argument is senseless, the exact same situation exists right now with windows, if the electronics fail, those windows will give a pretty view of the on coming crash.

Then you shouldn't fly in current fly-by-wire planes.

As a fellow electrical engineer, I share your distrust of electronic systems. :eek: :hairraise: :yikes: :D

I wonder if a PED could interfere with an electronic display? :stirpot:

Windows easy. You just have to worry about BSOD.

And not one of you picked up on what movie I was loosely quoting. I'm ashamed of you all. :D
 
At first I thought the topic of this thread was a hoax. But I checked, and there is indeed a patent issued to Airbus. It's pretty easy to find at uspto.gov

The text of the patent suggests several possible places for the pilot to sit. One of these proposed cockpit locations was in the vertical fin, with the idea that a window could be placed there without any aerodynamic penalty.

Several of the seating schemes listed appear to forgo the traditional side-by-side arrangement of cockpit crew. That brings up the question: how easy or difficult would CRM be, if you are sitting tandem instead of side-by-side?
 
Last edited:
Interesting question, but it presumes maintaining a 2 pilot cockpit.
 
I think the flying public will prefer having the crew responsible for their safety be sitting in the seats that ensure they will be the first ones to die.
 
That would be one Airbus I would NEVER ride in. What if the electronics fail? "Backups, system checks. This would never happen." "But what if it did happen? The pilot would have to fly it. We want a window!"

To assure the passengers, just play the recording...

"You have nothing to worry about (click)...worry about (click)...worry about (click)..."
 
"This is your Captain, on behalf of all of us on the poop deck, we thank you for flying with us today."
 
Most of us area pilots on this board, so the question is: would YOU want to fly this airplane?
 
Most of us area pilots on this board, so the question is: would YOU want to fly this airplane?


May as well fly it from the ground. Minimizes the risk of vertigo. Of course, when the **** hits the fan, it's not quite as easy to set "reset."
 
May as well fly it from the ground. Minimizes the risk of vertigo. Of course, when the **** hits the fan, it's not quite as easy to set "reset."

Airbus is hinting that they can just as well move the pilot(s) to the ground. Not me getting on that plane, sharley.
 
It's the hacked SSL data link that's the issue.... :rolleyes:
 
It's the hacked SSL data link that's the issue.... :rolleyes:

We're not s'posed to know about the drones that lost contact and went into circle mode and crashed and/or were self-destructed by the range officer.

THAT may be an issue if the aircraft has a couple hundred souls on board.
 
Last edited:
Airbus is hinting that they can just as well move the pilot(s) to the ground. Not me getting on that plane, sharley.

Me neither. Especially after seeing the list linked in post 11!
 
Back
Top