Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Airbus Patents Windowless Cockpit That Would Increase Pilots' Field of View

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the looking-at-the-screen dept.

Transportation 468

Zothecula writes Imagine showing up at the airport to catch your flight, looking at your plane, and noticing that instead of windows, the cockpit is now a smooth cone of aluminum. It may seem like the worst case of quality control in history, but Airbus argues that this could be the airliner of the future. In a new US patent application, the EU aircraft consortium outlines a new cockpit design that replaces the traditional cockpit with one that uses 3D view screens instead of conventional windows.

cancel ×

468 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Failsafe? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400629)

Are there at least windows behind the screens so that they can be moved out of the way in the event of a problem?

Re: Failsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400659)

If the system is down so far as needing that, then it's already crashing i'd suspect. There are no parachutes as a failsafe either.

Re: Failsafe? (4, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about 3 months ago | (#47400741)

There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.

Re: Failsafe? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400901)

There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.

There are numerous reasons pilots can't see out real windows. Things like clouds, fog and night. Yet pilots can flight on instruments just fine and it is routine. Planes land on instruments only every day.

Re: Failsafe? (3, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about 3 months ago | (#47401025)

And yet, wouldn't a pilot who left the cockpit while the plane landed using instruments be fired?

Re: Failsafe? (5, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47400859)

If the system is down so far as needing that, then it's already crashing i'd suspect.

Not necessarily.

Even 'fly-by-wire' systems are always at least dual-redundant (quad-redundant if it's a military jet), and it *always* has a source of backup power (EPU/APU, batteries, etc).

These screens we don't know about, and always have a single-point of failure: the screen itself. So if power dies off, at least with glass windows, the pilots can still see out and glide to a 'dead-stick' landing (even if it's not on a runway) using the backup power to the flight controls.

Re: Failsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400969)

Deadstick landings are no longer possible. The rodders are no longer directly connected.

Re: Failsafe? (5, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47400985)

So if power dies off, at least with glass windows, the pilots can still see out and glide to a 'dead-stick' landing (even if it's not on a runway) using the backup power to the flight controls.

Perhaps we should call it the Sullenberger Test.

I can see one way that such screens could work- make them multilayer LCD. A black layer closest to the window, a white later, then the image layer. The black layer serves to block sunlight, and the white layer helps to white-balance the screen and provide some additional light blocking. In the event that power fails, the screens turn clear.

Re: Failsafe? (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47401029)

These screens we don't know about, and always have a single-point of failure: the screen itself.

Obvious solution: Have more than one screen, so each one is not a single point of failure. But that is already part of the design, since the pilot and co-pilot each have their own screen.

So if power dies off, at least with glass windows, the pilots can still see out and glide to a 'dead-stick' landing (even if it's not on a runway) using the backup power to the flight controls.

Obvious solution: Route the backup power to the view screens as well.

Re:Failsafe? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400849)

These are aimed squarely at the American market, where all new passenger planes will be required to have a belly turret that'll also serve as the back up in case of display failure.

Re:Failsafe? (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 3 months ago | (#47400917)

No, that would wreck the entire engineering of getting rid of the windows in the first place.
Besides, there are display systems with a reliability that is more than adequate, and it's probably redundant in some fashion just to be sure.

Hey, maybe they have a couple of Oculus Rifts stored in the glove compartment just in case the big screen goes wonky, or they want to play a quick game of Battlefield before leaving international airspace. :p

Failsafe? (4, Informative)

Njovich (553857) | about 3 months ago | (#47400963)

Did you ever land in fog? Noticed that in commercial airports, they usually don't bother with removing the fog?

Planes land with zero visibility all the time.

And when the video feed dies... (4, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | about 3 months ago | (#47400631)

What then?

Re:And when the video feed dies... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400711)

They fly via instrument flight rules.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400719)

What then?

Everyone dies.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (4, Funny)

pkinetics (549289) | about 3 months ago | (#47400751)

Ctrl-Alt-Del

Re:And when the video feed dies... (3, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 months ago | (#47400765)

Pilots routinely fly on instruments these days anyway, this is particularly true and night and in bad weather where visibility is minimal to non-existent. Think of landing a plane in thick fog, an operation that is common these days. The scary thing would be loss of instruments and electronic control systems. That would require pretty much total failure of the electrical and hydraulic systems and the backup systems. Something I don't believe has happened in a commercial airliner in more than 20 years.

Though I agree with you, there should be windows for emergencies if they lose everything else and only have windows it's not going to be easy to land the plane because they'll have lost all instrumentation and hydraulic assist. That might be one of those times you just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400853)

Windows also allow people to see in, like in hijacking situations...

Re:And when the video feed dies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400877)

Airbus is so arrogant that they don't believe it will happen.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (4, Insightful)

geniice (1336589) | about 3 months ago | (#47400937)

Last time Airbus allowed an actual pilot to control one of their planes they crashed it into the south atlantic. Given the development cycle for planes if Airbus were to introduce such a feature it will be after the biologicals have been removed from anywhere they can cause problems.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 months ago | (#47400909)

your thinking is incorrect, multiple non-dependent systems exist with backup systems. The windows in the cockpit happen to be one of those

Re:And when the video feed dies... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400835)

It's always funny to read the knee-jerk anti-technology attitude on slashdot.

For what it's worth I'll try to educate you: RIght now modern airplanes are almost entirely flown using computers, with no physical connection between the controls and the actual bits that do the flying. If ANY of those highly complex computerized systems (in addition to their multiple backup systems) fail completely, you're fucked regardless of how well you can see out the windows. Removing physical windows in favour of "virtual" ones is actually a great idea for all the reasons already stated and if you cannot see this, perhaps you should spend less time on a site for "nerds" and more time on a site for luddites.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47400921)

Removing physical windows in favour of "virtual" ones is actually a great idea for all the reasons already stated and if you cannot see this, perhaps you should spend less time on a site for "nerds" and more time on a site for luddites.

Well said.

While I would have reservations about flying on the plane, if they actually get it into production, all the worries stated in posts above have been worked out as well as can be. Planes that do have windows are crashing all the time. Being able to see through holes in the fuselage didn't save them.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400957)

A car analogy:

Even with cars now, a lot of newer ones have the accelerator completely by wire, and the new Infinities coming out are completely drive-by-wire where the steering wheel, brake pedals, and accelerator are all just sending statuses to the CMs on the CANBus with no mechanical connection between the controls and the rest of the vehicle.

This isn't new technology here. Stealth fighters have had fly-by-wire for decades.

The nice thing about having the forward view disconnected from the actual windows is that the cockpit can be placed anywhere on the plane. With colliminated light technology a staple in flight simulators, it would not be hard to provide a true 3D projection to the windows, with the added bonus of fog and other stuff not needing to be displayed. Combine that with an IFR rating, and this is a very good engineering advance.

Wish we made good stuff in the US still... if Boeing tried this, there would be ambulance-chasers lined up for miles waiting to serve papers.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400837)

Kiss your ASS Goodbye!!!!

Re:And when the video feed dies... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47400867)

What then?

Alt+F4 - it always closes the window and gets it out of the way.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (5, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 months ago | (#47400887)

Simple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]

"In 1929, he became the first pilot to take off, fly and land an airplane using instruments alone, without a view outside the cockpit. Having returned to Mitchel Field that September, he assisted in the development of fog flying equipment. He helped develop, and was then the first to test, the now universally used artificial horizon and directional gyroscope. He attracted wide newspaper attention with this feat of "blind" flying and later received the Harmon Trophy for conducting the experiments. These accomplishments made all-weather airline operations practical."

And yes it was the Jimmy Doolittle. If you do not know about him you should read up on him.

Re:And when the video feed dies... (0)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#47400977)

The window leads to a lot of mistakes as well, probably far more than a video feed dying.
Cases have been documented when flying over an large body of water pilots can get disinterested and confuse their up from down, and fly their plains upside down, until they crash.

In the rare case where the feed dies, there are a bunch of other instruments available for them.

 

why must this be an either/or? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400635)

can't we have both?

Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400641)

So what happens when the first plane has a power blip, or an engine failure? How can you land with no view?

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (2)

AaronLS (1804210) | about 3 months ago | (#47400661)

One word: pinball wizard. Wait that's two words, or is it three?

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47400893)

One word: pinball wizard.

Not sure if a deaf, dumb, and blind kid could pass the FAA check-out exam... ;)

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

Dionysus (12737) | about 3 months ago | (#47400663)

So what happens when the first plane has a power blip, or an engine failure? How can you land with no view?

Considering modern planes are fly-by-wire, can you even land without power? (wondering, don't know myself)

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47400687)

Yes, the airplane will land without power.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47400791)

Yes, the airplane will land without power.

Do you mean 'land', as in controlled descent to a specific place ... or do you mean 'land' as in 'gravity still works'?

It will eventually stop flying, but that may not be the same as 'landing'.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47400905)

He means that the controls are dual/quad redundant (as in multiple paths for the signal), and every fly-by-wire jet has backup power units (EPU/APU, batteries, etc.)

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47400999)

No, he was right. Gravity rules. I never said the airplane would land softly.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400845)

Define "land",

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47400931)

I believe flight MH370 actually "watered" instead of "landed".

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47401023)

"Ditched"

Every airplane can land on water at least once.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

sabri (584428) | about 3 months ago | (#47400775)

Considering modern planes are fly-by-wire, can you even land without power? (wondering, don't know myself)

Short answer: yes.

Most passenger aircraft that require electronics to fly are outfitted with a so-called RAT [wikipedia.org] : Ram Air Turbine. In case of a catastrophic engine failure (or fuel burnout), the RAT will be deployed and provide power for critical systems. The RAT is a small device that looks like a propeller and is usually mounted underneath the aircraft. The forward momentum of the plane will provide sufficient wind to generate power.

There is good episode of Air Crash Investigation [wikipedia.org] on this as well.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

Shadowmist (57488) | about 3 months ago | (#47400737)

So what happens when the first plane has a power blip, or an engine failure? How can you land with no view?

Airline pilots have what is known as an Instrument Flight Rating for a reason. They don't depend on looking out the window to fly.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 3 months ago | (#47400913)

I think a bigger concern is simply the human engineering aspect of sitting in a cockpit looking at screens for long flights. It seems like it would accelerate fatigue. Windows provide some sense of openness and relaxation. I wonder which the pilots would prefer.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47400927)

They don't depend on looking out the window to fly.

...they do however need visual in order to land. Guidance tools like ILS (Instrument Landing System) only gets them to the right glide-slope and direction for the runway... it won't get them on the thing.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 months ago | (#47400769)

So many systems on a plane are dependent on electronics... I'm not sure a camera and TV would be the hardest part to make reliable. Worst case you could give them some battery powered goggles or something.

Control surfaces. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400793)

On those Airbuses and new Boeings, all the control surfaces are electronic. Meaning, your life has been dependent upon those same issues the parent mentions already.

I think it would be great to have vision enhancement to see through fog or whatever with the help of a computer integrating what it "sees' via radar or any other sensor they put in - infrared? Lidar? Telescoping? Imagine a computer that integrates it into a visual system that give the pilots super vision.

Most incidents are because pilots didn't see shit.

Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47401027)

You can't fly an Airbus without power anyway so it doesn't matter if you can't see.

blue screen of death (5, Funny)

starworks5 (139327) | about 3 months ago | (#47400651)

has never been more literally applied

Prior art (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400653)

The bridge of the Enterprise.

Re:Prior art (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400761)

Prior art? You keep using that term but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:Prior art (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47400943)

Prior art? You keep using that term but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Doesn't really matter if it's sci-fi, as long as the basic concepts are explained in the original story and the patent doesn't contain anything really unique to make it happen.

Re:Prior art (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 months ago | (#47400949)

prior forecasting art.

meanwhile, the space shuttle had windows, as do the manned craft that dock with ISS

Re:Prior art (1)

toejam13 (958243) | about 3 months ago | (#47400981)

I thought of that, too. The use of video screens for aircraft like the Concorde has been discussed for years. Unless there are specifics in their patent that are new and ingenious, I would think that they'd have a hard time with the patent in the courts.

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400669)

please keep the answer to yourself.

oh you fly with no front windows .... how cute... (2)

DirtyFly (765689) | about 3 months ago | (#47400679)

Been there ... done MORE than that :) http://www.jpbellphotography.c... [jpbellphotography.com]

What could possibly go wrong (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47400701)

Sure. Sounds like a great way to add a lot of unnecessary complexity to make the system more unreliable. Is the extended view really worth this?

Re:What could possibly go wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400805)

Well, the view screens could stop working, and the plane could plunge to its doom, full of screaming passengers.

Wait, was that a rhetorical question?

Re:What could possibly go wrong (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 3 months ago | (#47400863)

Well, to be fair (and since nearly everybody else is piling onto the obvious drawbacks), this should actually remove some complexity and a significant point of failure. Windows, their joints with the fuselage material, and the resulting corners are a major engineering headache.

Also, it avoids the whole "lasers into the cockpit windows" issue. </snark>

Re:What could possibly go wrong (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#47400899)

Lets promote this as a way to avoid the problems of broken windshields from bird strikes. And lets completely ignore that a bird could still strike the camera and completely block the view rather than just partially compromising it.

Re:What could possibly go wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400959)

To be fair, just about any failure that would result in the screens being rendered useless would also result in total loss of control of the plane... So, really, the additional risk is pretty much nonexistent. This is compounded by the fact that cockpit windows are virtually useless these days, anyway; most of your flights are conducted via instruments, with very few exceptions.

What could go wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400705)

So, power goes out...

Why not just make it out of transparent aluminum instead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

(ok, maybe not just like Star Trek, but close enough!)

Re:What could go wrong! (1)

FrozenToothbrush (3466403) | about 3 months ago | (#47400799)

I'm curious as to why it's not widely available in the consumer world. From everything I've read about it, it should've revolutionized a lot of industries ten years ago.

Re:What could go wrong! (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 3 months ago | (#47400983)

Cost. The wikipedia article says that the cost is similar to the cost of synthetic sapphire. For a cell-phone sized sheet of sapphire, the cost is apparently 10x as much as the cost of a similarly sized piece of chemically hardened Gorilla Glass (source [extremetech.com] ). Most customers would rather save 90% of the cost and get a slightly inferior product that they have to replace sooner.

Re:What could go wrong! (1)

geniice (1336589) | about 3 months ago | (#47401005)

Doubtful. In the context of industry weight is rarely much of an issue. If you high pressure vessel already weighs 50 tonnes the weight of a viewing port is unlikely to be an issue. For things like cars cost is going to be more of an issue than weight savings. For optical aplication CaF2 is mature tech and likely a better option.

Patentable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400709)

Aside from digging up prior art on such a thing, how is this idea patentable in any way, other than a very specific implementation? I.e., using certain technologies for range finding to ground, picture display, and umm... reasons?

Re:Patentable? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47400745)

Likely filing so there will be a fully run patent before anybody can implement.

I recall talk of this at least as far back as the '80s. Those cockpit windows are aerodynamically expensive and heavy.

Re:Patentable? (1)

Shadowmist (57488) | about 3 months ago | (#47400873)

Aside from digging up prior art on such a thing, how is this idea patentable in any way, other than a very specific implementation? I.e., using certain technologies for range finding to ground, picture display, and umm... reasons?

You have absolutely no idea on how patent law is applied.

Re:Patentable? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47400997)

You have absolutely no idea on how patent law is applied.

Sure we do: badly.

In Soviet America... (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 3 months ago | (#47400729)

>> looking at your plane

I'm sure the TSA already has plans to shut that down too.

We should just be happy that they're still considering leaving pilots in the planes at this point - the future might just be flying as cargo in really big (windowless) UAVs.

Not as bizarre as it seems actually (1)

Cidtek (632990) | about 3 months ago | (#47400731)

Planes have been landing for years with zero visibility with automated landing systems.

Re:Not as bizarre as it seems actually (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 months ago | (#47400961)

ask any pilot which type of landing they'd prefer, one with visibliity or one without?

Lag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400735)

Jerry's office pranks got out of hand when he rigged a 500ms delay in to the video feed...

NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (2)

tekrat (242117) | about 3 months ago | (#47400747)

Seriously, didn't the crash at San Fran with the 777 who relied too much on technology that failed teach ANYBODY ANYTHING? When the tech stops working, it's up to the pilot to actually FLY and LAND the plane.

How many people have to die to teach that you can't rely 100% on technology that can and will fail while the plane is still airborne?

I don't say this often, but Oy-veh-gevalt!

Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 months ago | (#47400813)

777 failed because the pilots ignored the warnings offered by the electronic systems, not because the electronic systems failed. The plane warned them a dozen times they were too low and they ignored it. This is just like the transatlantic flight that went down where the pilots listened to 77 warnings that they were in stall and did nothing to prevent it apparently because they thought they knew better than the electronic systems.

Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 3 months ago | (#47400923)

Which tells me that something is wrong with the warning systems if Pilots are ignoring them. Pilots aren't idiots, but a warning system that's too sensitive is useless. If the check-engine light on your car comes on all the time because your gas cap isn't tight enough, do you start ignoring it? Then when it comes on for a legitimate reason, you're probbably going to still ignore it.

I don't know what's going on here, but the fact that two different pilots ignored warning systems in the same plane that led to disasters tells me the problem might not be with the pilots, but with the warning systems. Why are the pilots ignoring them? Hubris is one answer, but a warning system that trains you to ignore it is another.

Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 months ago | (#47401019)

The transatlantic crash was blamed on lack of pilot/co-pilot communication. The co-pilot was pulling back on the stick endlessly.

777 was apparently due to a cultural issue of the co-pilot refusing to question the pilot.

These are all issues with people, not the electronic systems. Something that can be solved with training. Two crashes out of 100,000 flights is not a trend.

Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (0)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 3 months ago | (#47400989)

Citation needed.

Re: NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400815)

Stop speaking jew tongue and get with the times. Technology is the way of the future.

Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 months ago | (#47400915)

Modern airliners use FBW the pilot does not move the control surfaces he moves a joystick and a computer decides what to do.
Even the example you gave was pilots ignoring the electronics systems and not the electronics systems failing.

Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (0)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47401013)

By the way, the girls who died during that incident were run over by analog crash response trucks that had large windshields.

you missed the auction SUnday 4 F86 rear cockpits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400755)

rear cockpit glass"tic" (that material that makes the CLEAR cockpit glass) for auction, some of the lots had four at a time. Yeah the F86 like back in the Korean War... lol
I was thinking about one for a Green House. Or custom fit a skylight on a Van or School bus/Tour bus

I am on topic since these do give the Pilot a wider field of view. Although I still think it's rough if you want to SEE the landing gear from the cockpit.

Nevermind...

I bet I (50+ yr old) can yank out all the black boxes in in the back seat in half hour.. Even after all these years u fuckin bitchez..

Depth perception? (1)

suprcvic (684521) | about 3 months ago | (#47400779)

How would this effect the pilots depth perception? If it did, would it even matter?

Re:Depth perception? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400971)

The windowless cockpit achieves depth perception using 3D view screens. Since they go through this trouble, it probably matters.

Re:Depth perception? (1)

mtbrandao (3735361) | about 3 months ago | (#47401007)

3D googles. #3Disnotdead

2 words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400803)

Catastrophic failure.

Just put wings on windowless metal coffins ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400819)

It'll cut out all that unnecessary process and materiel in the airlines' supply chain.

What's the problem here? (1)

gunner_von_diamond (3461783) | about 3 months ago | (#47400821)

Technology doesn't ever fail. Never.

that's gotta suck when the TV goes out (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 3 months ago | (#47400839)

"tower, ByNight 666, help, we're flying blind."

"666, only until you're out of fuel, over."

Easier for Illuminati (1)

clam666 (1178429) | about 3 months ago | (#47400855)

At least now it will be easier for the planes to be flown into buildings without the pilots knowledge and no terrorists needed, by projecting a false camera view.

#911InsideJob #blessed #lolcats

Re:Easier for Illuminati (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 3 months ago | (#47400979)

Funny.... But I actually complained about that when they did it on 24 with the "magic ATC hacking box". Pilots aren't robots, if they see they're about to collide, they'll avoid it. Now there's another mechanism for the 3vil h4xx0rz to use.

But seriously. What happens when the video crashes (I guess the plane will, too), or gets hacked (and don't give me any bullshit about "airgapped")?

Patent? Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400871)

Seems obvious.

Goose Droppings.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400883)

What if the only thing that can be seen by the cameras feeding those screens is Goose Droppings?

I can hear the Pilot and Co-Pilot, speaking in unison.........

"OH SHIT!!!!!!"

How to prevent this from ever flying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400889)

Make it mandatory that the first flight include..

All airbus engineers
All airbus designers
All airbus executive
All airbus board members
All major airbus investors

Do that, and this deathplane will never lift off

Its fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400891)

as long as they do not replace it with MS Windows!

Pointless (1)

Down_in_the_Park (721993) | about 3 months ago | (#47400925)

For what does a computer need a virtual Cockpit? Pilots need a cockpit, computers don't. And I guess in 5 -10 years there is no pilot needed anymore

As Scotty Said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47400933)

more souless pieces of equipment ye'll nev'r see. Anytime I have to fly, they're completely interchangable parts nowdays.

Failure modes (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 3 months ago | (#47400973)

It's a good idea as long as everything's working perfectly, but the failure mode in the event of avionics problems makes it unacceptable.

Prior Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47401015)

Flight Simulators...

Sorry Airbus - your patent has been invalidated.

This "incomprehensibly stupid" idea is not even an an incremental improvement / and certainly not an original idea.

At most it is "let's implement a flight simulator inside the airplane and use it to really fly"...

Nothing new here at all, unless you count the reprehensible amount of stupidity involved in the risking of hundreds of people's lives on an idiotic idea.

Goatse on a plane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47401033)

Imagine , faced with GOATSE or two girls one cup whilst landing.

finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47401043)

that will solve a LOT of problems... no more laser problems, drag, visual problems because dirt and the limitation in the FoV. a lot of people thinks windows are a need to fly, but they are wrong at so many levels... you can pilot a plane by instruments in the hipotetical case of screen malfunction, the screen view can give you other visual systems like real time HUD, enhanced visuals, night vision, etc. in modern airplanes the pilot uses a joystick that isn't directly connected to the airplane surfaces and it works, so a cockpit with screens instead of windows is the logical step... i would even go further and install an oculus rift system for the pilot and copilot (with 2 spare systems and the screens)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?