Windowless Cockpit Patent

[Machinbird]

See what Airbus has filed for!
Airbus submits patent application for windowless jet cockpit | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/airbus-submits-patent-application-for-windowless-jet-cockpit/)

Whoever filed the patent seems to think you could put the cockpit anywhere in the aircraft. I don't think they have considered the acceleration forces on the crew in some of these positions.

Throwing the crew around in their "cockpit" is one way to initiate a PIO!

I'd be interested to know how they expect to avoid the occasional non-squawking object one encounters.

[golfbananajam]

is this the first step in operating them in the same wayas drones, from the ground. But what happens in an emergency (or otherwise) when the crew needs to see out the window?

[armchairpilot94116]

First you take away their windows so they can't see out of them. Then you take them away from the plane itself.

[kcockayne]

Just more of the same old "bullsh*t"that forms an ever increasing part of modern life.
Thank God i'm getting even older !

[1jz]

No offense but, first airbus emphasized All ends out over automation but, then had to rethink after several serious incidents and crashes. Now, what a vague idea of being totally blind in case of failure of the CRTs but, I guess they must be using a periscope for emergency purposes.... Hahah

[DozyWannabe]

From the article, before we get too het up!

Of course, the patent application is just that: a patent application. It doesn’t address issues such as exactly how to create functional interactive holographic aircraft flight instrumentation. Nor does it attempt to address substantial practical issues about a cockpit made up entirely of virtual instrumentation
...
Don’t expect to actually see a passenger aircraft without cockpit windows any time soon; the time it takes for large planes like those built by Airbus and its main competitor Boeing to go from conception to reality is measured in decades...

Also, consider the source. ArsTechnica is a technology news site (albeit a long-standing, reputable one). In the tech arena, we're well used to patents such as these being filed - not necessarily with the intent of making the patent a reality so much as a potential financial opportunity should another company make something similar and thus require some form of licencing.

:ok:

...first airbus emphasized All ends out over automation

*sigh* - No, they didn't.

[Dairyground]

A windowless cockpit as such is probably not inovative enough to deserve a patent.

I recall reading, several years ago, about an experimental B737 that had the flight deck duplicated somewhere back in the fuselage. The "classic" flight deck was retained, for safety reasons, but it as demonstrated that the aircraft could be successfully flown from the experimental flight deck in all phases of flight.

Also, an early concept for Concord(e), even before they agreed on the final "e", was that there should be no windows in the droop nose. The flight crew would have sight of the outside world only in subsonic configuration.

So, unless there is a lot more to it, the patent claim should fail on the grouns of "prior art".

[underfire]

There has been quite a bit of talk with manufacturers, about a windowless fuselage.
'windows' would be replaced by displays fed by cameras.
The fuselage without windows would weigh about 25% less. That is very significant. The ac would be much quieter inside the cabin as well.

I can see this on the flightdeck very easily. Instead of windows, you would have a bank of displays. The display size would not be restricted. HUD would be integrated, as well as many other features such as zoom, IR, ILS/GLS guidance, or thermal. Hell, you could even have a touchscreen with the FMS right on the display, no looking down.

Aerodynamically, the nose without windows would be an incredible leap forward.

Looking at the Patent app, prior art may be the Starship Enterprise!
http://i61.tinypic.com/2em3ax5.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

The fuselage without windows would weigh about 25% less.A fuselage without any windows at all (which isn't what we're talking about here) would be far lighter than that as there would be no need to worry about any passengers wanting to fly in the thing ...

[underfire]

Dave, monitors would replace the 'window' space. Cameras would provide the view. most people wouldnt even know the difference...(Emergency exit doors would still have windows.) Look how popular the Airbus tailcam is...

I have been on many military aircraft where there are no windows, no one seemed to care.

(flightdeck is in the fuselage ;-) )

[sky9]

isn't that what a simulator is;a windowless cockpit? :D

[dubbleyew eight]

touch screens! a wonderful control idea ....NOT!

once upon a time there was an ocean going tug boat.
bloody huge thing.
engineers thought we'll equip it with the latest in control systems.
we'll use touch screens and virtual buttons.

they built the new wonder tug using all the best that modern control systems could offer.
come the day the paint had dried and the sea trials were underway.
touch on the screen and turn left.
touch on the screen and full power.
touch o the screen and we come to a stop.
touch on the screen and we power up again.
touch and turn left.

the sea trials went on for a few hours and touch what you liked and the ship obeyed. all went sparklingly well for the hours of the sea trials.
heading back to port and all were patting themselves on the back.
wonderful stuff.

heading back to the jetty and about to manoeuvre for the final tie up against the wharf and the captain got a fit of the sneezes.
little bits of spit went everywhere on the touch screen.
the computer proceeded to interpret every little bit of spit as a key press.
the ocean going tugboat came faithfully to full power turned as instructed and totally demolished the end of the jetty.

captains last words.
a sweep of the hand past all the modern high tech interfaces and the instruction "....fcuk it all off. its a fail"

I kid you not. this really did occur.

who's for the new airbus interface then?????

[Basil]

Meh, been done before!

http://www.weekendhobby.com/rc/webboard/picture%5C288255214202.jpg

[underfire]

RC touchscreen flightdeck.....

http://i60.tinypic.com/73ndde.jpg

[roulishollandais]

Thank you Machinbird for extracting that information.

Gilbert Klopfstein said WINDSHIELD is the First instrument.

Daimler Benz/ Airbus's autoritarism radicalism and excess of systems' mind is at work once more, no matter of price of life. History learns them nothing:ugh:

[dubbleyew eight]

when I see under fire's screen image I could just spit ....or sneeze :E

[Ian W]

A fuselage without any windows at all (which isn't what we're talking about here) would be far lighter than that as there would be no need to worry about any passengers wanting to fly in the thing ...

You obviously have not flown recently. SLF routinely now close the blinds (if any have been left open) on getting to their window (sic) seats and either go to sleep or extract electronics. Flights nowadays are like being in a cargo hold. Most SLF would not notice the lack of windows.

[EEngr]

underfire (http://www.pprune.org/members/416394-underfire)

That looks like a lot of floor space to tie up for cockpit functions when the airlines could sell it as additional seats. It will more likely be Occulus Rift VR goggles and joystick controllers for the flight crew, seated in the last row of economy.

[underfire]

D8,
Touchscreens, time to evolve my friend....

Here is the flightdeck for the A350...

http://www.flightstory.net/wp-content/uploads/Airbus_A350_XWB_MSN1_flight-deck_center.jpg

and B787

http://www.boeing.com/randy/images/787flt_dk_close_lg.jpg

EE, according to the patent, the flightdeck is relegated to forward baggage..

http://i57.tinypic.com/1fifr5.jpg

[captjns]

For those of you too young to remember NASA's windowless B737 program.

http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/c/c1/96-005.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/SynthVision.html

[Greenlights]

it's funny to see how people do not accept modernity or any possiblity. As long as it is new for them, it should not happen. Everything should stay as it is.

Yeah, 20 years ago, if we would have talked about Ipad or Iphone here, maybe some of you would say "oh no way !! you're kidding ! you touch screen of your phone and if you missed it, you may call a wrong number and blablabla"

guys, please, get real.

If planes still have winshield, it is not for your own pleasure to post nice pics on FB huh. Yeah, we know, "best office view" and blablabla...no no...it's because we do not have choice at the time of speaking.

But the day where, windowless plane will be possible and less expensive, believe me, companies will not care what you think or not.

It is ALL about money. Not for your pleasure.

wake up and be open minded. Don't be so backboned !

[s6b]

Windowless cabins (and presumably Flight Decks) are well on their way.

Windowless supersonic private jet with live-streaming screens (http://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/24/supersonic-private-jet-replace-windows-with-live-streaming-screens/)

[Cough]

So thinking longer term, is this just a stepping stone for the flight deck to be located at the fwd freight bay or porta cabin?

You decide!

[Zaphod Beblebrox]

Where are the Mercury 7 when you need them?

There must be a window, with explosive bolts; so the astronaut....
So the Astronaut Pilot can see out and escape if necessary...

"Yah, Zer could be zie window in da Hatch for the astronaut Pilot to ziee out off. "

[fleigle]

I see huge commercial possibilities here, even with a conventional aircraft layout you could stuff at least another 4 1st Class seats up front and make the pilots sit in the back near the bogs, a money-maker all around!!!
:E

[DozyWannabe]

There must be a window, with explosive bolts; so the astronaut....
So the Astronaut Pilot can see out and escape if necessary...

And they had to reconsider that after it turned out that the explosive bolts could fire unintentionally in the event of a short circuit (e.g. in case of contact with water). They almost drowned a Mercury astronaut (Gus Grissom) because of that one!

[Geragau]

Dear underfire...there was never a Zulu on the bridge of NCC-1701. There was Mr Sulu, just saying........

[TURIN]

Underfire.

787 is not touch screen. Cursor controlled. :ok:

[DozyWannabe]

787 is not touch screen. Cursor controlled. :ok:

As is the A350XWB, apparently:
A350 XWB News: Touch Screens not currently available in A350 XWB cockpit, but not discharged for the future. (http://tinyurl.com/n4avchh)

[rh200]

Whilst there are many things which are possible utilising technology, it can be hard to determine the balance between "just because we can, should we", or being stuck in the dark ages (no pun intended).

One should never under estimate the psychological aspect of particular things to the punters. Often raw statistics showing advantages to safety or cost will have no effect whats so ever in some cases.

For example, if ever there was a move to pilot-less commercial aircraft, well good luck with that. The comfort knowing that there somebody up front with just as much to loose as you is a good thing. The problem, is thats not always the case.

[DozyWannabe]

it can be hard to determine the balance between "just because we can, should we"

Sure, but at the risk of repeating myself - the existence of the patent application doesn't mean anything other than if some person or company does decide - at some unspecified point in the future - to build an aircraft which uses the technology specified in the patent, they'll have to pay Airbus for the privilege of doing so. It's a technology market thing, not an aviation thing. :ok:

[Machinbird]

they'll have to pay Airbus for the privilege of doing so. It's a technology market thing, not an aviation thing. Patents are not forever. They have limited life and then they expire.

By the time anyone seriously thinks about doing a windowless cockpit, the patent will probably be dead. Besides, Boeing has prior art that they can probably use to show that the Patent is essentially useless.

[DozyWannabe]

Patents are not forever. They have limited life and then they expire.

Something I'm well aware of - and believe me, I'm no fan of the way patents have been (ab)used - especially in the tech sector over the last decade and a half!

The point I was trying to make was that, prior art or no, this is far more likely to be a speculative move for potential financial gain than it is a statement of intent that Airbus intend to use the technology in airliners any time soon.

[Aluminium shuffler]

It's a damned stupid idea. Where is the fail safe in projected displays vs a window? It's bad enough having crippled flight controls and limited instrumentation following severe electrical failure, but to be completely blind?

As for the idea of a cockpit in the base of the fin, two major issues come to mind. 1) how do you pressurise it without a blow out? 2) the translational movements of the pilots' seats will conflict with their rotational movements and the visual elements, creating disoreintation and CFIT events.

Only an amateur engineer could come up with such folly. It shows how little input pilots have at Airbus. God, how I hate their aeroplanes!

[safetypee]

Some 20 years ago I participated in a meeting just south of Stockport where the subject was discussed along with a pilotless aircraft. The objective was to take a strategic view of commercial aviation and the means of reducing operating costs.
The pilotless topic was quickly revised to a single pilot, which would still reduce costs.
The windowless concept was being considered in order to reduce aircraft weight and thus cost. Glass, even plastic is relatively heavy along with the supporting structure/strength, and complexities of fuselage shape and aerodynamics of a cockpit. It’s much simpler and lighter to design and build a pressurised symmetric tube than a complex nose section with holes in it.

The windowless ideas were put on the back burner to be reassessed in line with advancements in structural materials and other means of cost reduction; there may come a point where the cost savings from having no windows vs investment and risk were not well balanced with the use of a plastic fuselarge.
The ideas of a single pilot aircraft were kept alive, if only as differing levels of training and qualification for two pilots. There were some interesting points relative to using two ‘equally qualified’ pilots for monitoring vs one qualified pilot together with technological monitoring.
The main risk in not having a pilot was that of public perception (even though driverless trains are being accepted), where a second pilot would be required if only for landing in the event of a combined incapacitation and systems failure. Which given some views of current operations might not be far from that trend.

[Linktrained]

A " driverless train" or, I think, most moving vehicles can STOP. An aircraft has to continue to move - perhaps in a holding pattern for a while, until the fuel is all gone.


I do not know how long a Harrier could remain stationary on "Auto Hover".

[Machinbird]

At present, a sharp eye can detect the momentary glint of the sun off another aircraft at extreme range, the beat of a wing, and smoke arising from an unusual event.

IMO, until we have camera systems that will pick out events such as these with greater reliability than the basic human eye, then the camera systems will be non-starters as well as the associated windowless cockpit.

It has to be better to make sense. Almost as good as the human eye just is not sufficient. To be better, an artificial vision system will have to have a certain degree of interpretive smarts built into it.

At the moment, from what I've seen, artificial vision systems for use in an aviation setting are only pretty good.

[777boeings]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought that in order to file a patent application, one had to have some kind of a working model. In other words you can't just file a patent on an idea. Can you?
If it turns out I'm wrong then I'm going to patent anti gravity and wait til it's invented! :)

[FLEXPWR]

Most patents can be filed without a working protoype. Anyhow, I can see that technology is going forward, whether we like it or not.

This idea, me no like. The day an operator asks me to fly a windowless cockpit, I'll go fishing. If that's the way they want it, they can find drone operators (they'll never be pilots), I'll take my bike and it the trails, as much fun.

The astronauts on Apollo mission said they wouldn't fly in the bloody re-entry capsule without a window, although they had no use for it. They got their window. Of course it's easier to have a handful of astronauts to stick together than thousands of pilots.

Chances are, in the near future, one idiot will actually come forward and offer to pay for himself to have the privilege of flying a windowless cockpit. :ugh:

[DozyWannabe]

Where is the fail safe in projected displays vs a window?

Er, at least one backup projector run off a different electrical bus?

Not that I'm advocating this design - it seems to have many potential "gotchas", and as I said, I suspect this is just an R&D tech "patent grab" rather than a workable real-world solution.

[AirRabbit]

I would never want to say that the human capacity for coming up with imaginative ideas or concepts must, at some point, come to an end. Everyone recognizes that without such capacities most of us would likely be living on the Euro-Asian land mass, "sea-going" ships would have been limited to being "seen" in a bottle, taking a trip to the bottom of the ocean would still remain in nightmares, observing balloons floating into the air would remain the purview of kids capturing their own “hot air” for “party-time,” we’d still be wondering about that big orb in the sky at night, and on and on and on. BUT, at the same time, there are probably dozens, at the very least, of such “crazy,” “nutty,” or “weird” ideas that were never to be seen or heard of again – even after a seemingly unwarranted amount of “hoopla.”

I think that doing such things are buried in the human propensities to seek to advance beyond their current situation – and since the beginning, the cost for developing even the barest of beginnings of any such propensity, while seeming to grow exponentially in cost, the commensurate results in advancements are invariably each immeasurably smaller and smaller. However, recognizing all this doesn’t seem to dampen the curiosity or the excitement with which those who are drawn to such longings virtually leap into the next step in their “nutty" or "weird” search for “newer” and “better.” Some such goals, perhaps most, are likely to fail … but, inevitably, at least some, are likely to succeed – and I, for one, cannot predict which category any of these “really out there” ideas are likely to fall. But, who would have ever guessed that putting a full-scale "night club" in a highly modified "trailer" of the "over-the-road," long distance tractor/trailer big-rigs, that are now often seen on US highways, the apparently ever increasing "rage" among the younger rich, would ever see the success that their current frequency would indicate? That's probably where the TV Series gets the name ... "Weird, Strange, True!"

At the moment (and I stress, at the moment), I cannot imagine passengers being willing to fly on "pilotless" airplanes - nor can I imagine flight crews flocking to "pilot" airliners from their secure and windowless environment in the forward portion of the aft cargo bin - regardless of the number of back-up systems or electrical busses. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Certainly, not me.

[captainbirdseye]

Pilotless aircraft will only happen when the Aircraft manufacturers are ready to sign all the cheques for any mishap and resulting court action.

[speedrestriction]

Reality check: touchscreens are useless in turbulence, single pilot airliners are a risk to the public à la E190 crash in Africa (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=46c3abde/0009&opt=0) last year.

There is a gulf between what constitutes engineers' and accountants' wet dreams and what is sensible from a regulatory and safety standpoint.

[RVF750]

As real pilots will attest, there is nothing more annoying about cockpit instruments, EFIS and mechanical alike, than bloody fingerprints all over them!

I spend so many hours of my life cleaning the greasy marks off, I need to consider treatment for OCD......oh, wait.


Anyway, I can see the day large long haul aircraft have a windowless design, with an area reserved with skylight displays for all round clear vision. The pilot will sit in a central area, touch screen control displays and side stick for emergencies. They will be like a zoo for the passengers to look at. In a low central position. Curved displays all round, very Star Trek.

It will happen. Providing the redundancy and back ups are good enough, imagine the selectable screens with synthetic overlay or IR imaging as well. As all controls will be configurable, there will be no separate type ratings either.

Fortunately, I'll be long retired by then.

[727gm]

Adult Engineering Supervision Required.... "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

[underfire]

Here is the remote cockpit for a UAV pilot..

Lotz of those being trained up right now.

http://i60.tinypic.com/25amczl.jpg

[RVF750]

O'Leary must be salivating at the thought......

[Pub User]

So all those cameras, displays, digital processing units, power supplies and appropriate backup systems are lighter and cheaper than some sheets of perspex and glass?
Necessity is the mother of invention; this is not necessary.

[oldoberon]

Dave, monitors would replace the 'window' space. Cameras would provide the view. most people wouldnt even know the difference...(Emergency exit doors would still have windows.) Look how popular the Airbus tailcam is...

I have been on many military aircraft where there are no windows, no one seemed to care.

(flightdeck is in the fuselage ;-) )

which military aircraft have no windows?

[Mechta]

which military aircraft have no windows?

British Army Aeroplane No1? :}

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/cody_aeroplane.jpg

[FE Hoppy]

http://static.thisdayinaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/tdia//2012/09/518x401xDOOLITTLE-James-H.-Lieutenant-USAAC-in-his-instrument-flight-aircraft1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.RhJudDvbNy.jpg

Nothing new in aviation.