Cameras and obstacle sensors on wingtips

[Noknoipobin]

It is worth noting that ground collisions involving aircraft on taxiways or ramps happen quite frequently — for various reasons such as poor visibility, not seeing (or perhaps not looking) misjudging distances, or other aircraft parking too far from the line, and so on.

I believe that if aircraft were equipped with cameras or sensors at the wingtips, such incidents could be virtually eliminated or at least greatly reduced. Pilots could monitor the situation on a cockpit display and see projected wingtip clearance lines showing whether the wingtip is about to strike any obstacles.( In cases of doubt or when a warning is triggered — for example, while taxiing past another aircraft at very close proximity — the pilot should still primarily look outside as usual; it’s not meant to be an “instrument taxi.”) The system could even provide visual alerts in green, yellow, or red, or indicate the remaining distance to nearby objects.

Even small economy cars today have such systems, yet aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars do not. ICAO, FAA, or whichever authority could simply require new aircraft to be equipped with them, and set a timeline for retrofitting older aircraft as well.

Yes, SA, SOPs, or procedures are important and must be followed, but what I’m suggesting here might actually be more practical or have a more tangible impact.This measure serves as the last line of defense to prevent such incidents.

It’s just a silly idea of mine. And don’t you think it would be useful?(like TCAS)

[Less Hair]

I hope for something like this for a long time as well. Why make wingtip clearance a guessing game? It would add less weight than a mobile phone. There would be many uses of more camera views around an aircraft, including monitoring of ground handling and service progress and status. Some VIP aircraft seem to have this.

[Propellerhead]

777-300 already has 3 cameras for seeing the position of the main wheels, to enable a 180 turn on the runway (there is a black stripe painted on the top surface of the wing which you line up with the edge marking of the runway). Can also be used during tight turns to make sure main wheels don’t leave the paved surface (sort of). And there is one so you can see if the nose wheel is on the centreline. As you say, also great to see if the tug is attached, if the ground crew are ready or sat chatting and picking their nose.

You might get a lot of nuisance alerts as the wing tips extend over the grass. But overall, probably a good and feasible idea.

You could also design an aircraft with folding wing tips 😉

[Noknoipobin]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Regarding the issue of nuisance alerts from warnings that may not indicate actual obstacles, I believe that with today’s advanced technology, this should not be difficult to resolve. For example, improvements in both lateral and vertical accuracy, adjustable angles, imaging and laser-based technologies used in aircraft docking systems and other solutions that I can’t think of right now — but those with expertise in this field should be able to handle it easily.

Or even if there are concerns about such nuisance alerts, they can simply be disabled — for example, using a terrain override button — while other main functions would still remain active, allowing the pilot to consider whether it is safe to continue taxiing or not.

[TURIN]

It is worth noting that ground collisions involving aircraft on taxiways or ramps happen quite frequently

This is not true.
Aircraft are damaged far more often by ground equipment being driven or pushed into them. Even ground equipment with proximity sensors.
The added complexity, modifications and certification of this sort of equipment really isn't worth it.

[stilton]

Originally Posted by Noknoipobin

It is worth noting that ground collisions involving aircraft on taxiways or ramps happen quite frequently — for various reasons such as poor visibility, not seeing (or perhaps not looking) misjudging distances, or other aircraft parking too far from the line, and so on.

I believe that if aircraft were equipped with cameras or sensors at the wingtips, such incidents could be virtually eliminated or at least greatly reduced. Pilots could monitor the situation on a cockpit display and see projected wingtip clearance lines showing whether the wingtip is about to strike any obstacles.( In cases of doubt or when a warning is triggered — for example, while taxiing past another aircraft at very close proximity — the pilot should still primarily look outside as usual; it’s not meant to be an “instrument taxi.”) The system could even provide visual alerts in green, yellow, or red, or indicate the remaining distance to nearby objects.

Even small economy cars today have such systems, yet aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars do not. ICAO, FAA, or whichever authority could simply require new aircraft to be equipped with them, and set a timeline for retrofitting older aircraft as well.

Yes, SA, SOPs, or procedures are important and must be followed, but what I’m suggesting here might actually be more practical or have a more tangible impact.This measure serves as the last line of defense to prevent such incidents.

It’s just a silly idea of mine. And don’t you think it would be useful?(like TCAS)

Couldn’t agree more and so does Boeing

They have been testing such a system in a 777 for some time now

Google ‘Boeing SOCAS’

[FullWings]

I think the most useful presentation would be an overhead view. That could be generated without cameras on the wingtips so would stand more chance of being retrofitted due to less cost and complexity. I fly the 777-300 and even the limited camera fit on that can be very helpful, as above.

[Noknoipobin]

Even though aircraft are equipped with GPWS, they still crash into the ground.
Even though airports have numerous runway incursion prevention systems, along with pilot SOPs, incursions still occur.
Even with TCAS installed, aircraft still collide.
Even though laws exist, there are still offenders and lawbreakers.

So, it’s pointless — better not to have them at all.

Try thinking about which situation would result in more incidents: having such systems or not having them.
Nothing can ever be 100% foolproof.

Maybe I’m just being too optimistic.

I also fly the 777-300ER,(and 200,200er,300)which has cameras underneath and on the tail that can provide a top view.But they’re practically useless in situations where you need to see how far you are from another aircraft or an obstacle that’s only a few meters away.(from our wings)

Those who want to use it can turn it on, and those who don’t can turn it off — just like any other camera that comes installed.

[Noknoipobin]

Originally Posted by Noknoipobin

Even though aircraft are equipped with GPWS, they still crash into the ground.
Even though airports have numerous runway incursion prevention systems, along with pilot SOPs, incursions still occur.
Even with TCAS installed, aircraft still collide.
Even though laws exist, there are still offenders and lawbreakers.

So, it’s pointless — better not to have them at all.

Try thinking about which situation would result in more incidents: having such systems or not having them.
Nothing can ever be 100% foolproof.

Maybe I’m just being too optimistic.

I also fly the 777-300ER,(and 200,200er,300)which has cameras underneath and on the tail that can provide a top view.But they’re practically useless in situations where you need to see how far you are from another aircraft or an obstacle that’s only a few meters away.(from our wings)

Those who want to use it can turn it on, and those who don’t can turn it off — just like any other camera that comes installed.

A: What is a pilot for?

B: To ensure the safety of the aircraft and passengers.

A: That’s not true. Accidents still happen even though planes have pilots, and often the cause is the pilot themselves. So there’s no need for pilots—AI would be better.

B: Uh… (thinking)( That might be true, because AI has no ego. Sad.)

Suppose AI is flying the plane. During taxi, do you think the AI would rely only on the view from the cockpit like a human pilot to avoid obstacles or other aircraft, or would it also use cameras or sensors /Lidar/Radar on the wingtips or other devices beyond that?

During a meeting with ATC officials, I asked why they didn’t reduce the separation for approaches, like in some countries, since it would bring many well-known benefits. Instead of answering, they asked me how many go-arounds occur per year. They said there are none here (because of the spacing arrangements- 6-7nm on that day)). I could only think to myself that they focus only on this one side—the negative side, what cannot be done—without considering the many benefits that would result.

[jimba]

Value of cameras at distance from cockpit

I like the idea of wingtip cameras.

While ground vehicles do more frequently contact aircraft, there have been a number of recent examples of taxiing aircraft contacting others.

Backup cameras have been mandated on autos for years after inconvertible research showing dramatic reduction in backup accidents. Newer vehicles often have a 350 degree camera suite and I find them so useful that I can confidently enter tight spaces.

Many years ago I captained a type with 142’ wingspan. We were never quite sure about our clearances when going into tight spots in unfamiliar airports without the familiar yellow guide lines.We could put the FE up the top hatch to get a better view but it was still a little nerve wracking.

Surely wingtip cameras are cheap enough that a cost-benefit analysis would favour them.

[Someone Somewhere]

3D LIDAR sensors are getting amazing and increasingly reasonably priced.

The problem, same as with cameras, seems to be mounting them somewhere that isn't obscured but doesn't mess up aerodynamics.

[dixi188]

I've posted this before.
The L188 Electra had wing tip clearance spot lights that shone vertically downwards from below the wing tip. They illuminated a spot on the ground showing where the wing tip was.
Simples? But that was 1957.

[MechEngr]

A big problem with wingtip clearance monitoring with lidar or cameras is when the plane is being towed no one is inside to power it up or to hit the brakes.

For avoiding fixed obstacles during taxi, there's enough cheap compute power available to take the GPS derived location along with heading data and overlay a map of all the light poles and concourse structures as well as the edges of the taxiways (to avoid driving into the mud). But I am not sure those events are frequent enough to justify the overall spend. That is, multiply the cost of the damage by the probability of the damage to see if the system to avoid the damage costs more or less. If the system costs more than the expected cost of the damage, it's not going to be an economic choice. That evaluation also excludes damage the system cannot avoid, even though the system was paid for.

[A320 Glider]

A top down view would be the best.

[Less Hair]

I'd say a wingtip mounted camera each and distance measurement equipment like a parking beeper might be even better.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Originally Posted by Propellerhead

You could also design an aircraft with folding wing tips 😉

Isn't that available as on option on the 777?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Amadis of Gaul

Isn't that available as on option on the 777?

It was originally offered as an option on the 777-200. But no one ordered it, and it was quietly dropped from the options list.

However, the basic idea still had merit, so folding wingtips are basic on the 777X series - no option for the 'fixed' wingtip on the 777X.

[Less Hair]

AFAIK the original 777-200 plan were entire folding outer wings not just folding wingtips like on the 777-9 today.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

AFAIK the original 777-200 plan were entire folding outer wings not just folding wingtips like on the 777-9 today.

That's basically true - there were going to be flight controls outboard of the fold point (which of course means hydraulics) - which made the thing very complicated and heavy compared to a conventional wing.
The folding wingtips on the 777X have nothing outboard but the lights, and the folding mechanism is relatively simple (and light) compared to the original 777 plan. Basically makes it the same width as a current 777-300 so they can use the same gates.

I read somewhere that a 777X wingtip folding in flight is being considered catastrophic for cert purposes - but I doubt it really would be, as there really be that much wing that folds and an uncommanded fold would be readily controllable by a competent pilot.
However, it's probably easier to simply certify that it'll never happen since otherwise they'd have to do flight tests with the wingtip folding uncommanded - and that would be messy.

[Someone Somewhere]

You could, today, probably do an electromechanical (like one of the 787 spoiler pairs) or electrohydrostatic (like A350) actuator for the outboard ailerons to avoid having hydraulics go through the join. Plenty of other roll control surfaces (roll spoilers, inboard ailerons) for redundancy, so you might be able to avoid bringing two supplies out there, or use two electric actuators.

Putting an aileron out there probably also means a much stiffer folding part of the wing to avoid aileron reversal.

As for LIDAR...

https://www.sick.com/us/en/catalog/p...s&tab=overview

Could also have benefits in terms of picking up people walking near engines.