Airbus: Pilots Don't Really Need Windows

Airbus: Pilots Don’t Really Need Windows

Nor do passengers. Why not replace them with screens that run commercials during the entire flight?

Technology • July 2014 • Views: 1,814

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.

More: Airbus: Pilots Don’t Really Need Windows - seattlepi.com

Electronic Viewscreens Windowless Cockpits

Recent Pages by Skip Intro:
Trump Partner in Running for New FBI Building - ABC2News.com Plot to Kill Muslims in Kansas Was Foreseen in Report on Right-Wing Extremism That Politicians Slammed Donald Trump's Candidacy Is a Threat to American Democracy The Man Who Showed Donald Trump How to Exploit Power and Instill Fear Too Good to Be True? Dick Morris Might Join the Trump Campaign

Jump to bottom

16 comments

wheat-dogghazi Jul 3, 2014 9:18:00pm

Those that forget the past will repeat previous mistakes.

The original plan for the Mercury spacecraft did not include windows (viewports), not was there any provision for manual control of the spacecraft. The engineers, not being pilots, did not expect the pushback they got from the astronauts, who refused to get in a windowless “tin can” running on remote control. The astronauts won that battle.

Airbus is proposing something similar. With no visual cues (other than those provided by video links), the flight crew would basically be flying using IFR (instrument flight rules) all the time. It would be like flying a simulator, except the simulator is actually airborne, with 300-400 people inside.

It’s a really stupid idea, and I can’t imagine any pilot would be willing to fly such an aircraft.

1Peter G1 Jul 4, 2014 7:03:15am

re: #1 wheat-dogghazi

Unless one considers the number of incidents in which pilots confused by their visual perceptions killed themselves and everyone on board instead of relying on their instruments as they should. As well as the foolishness of putting the pilots in the most vulnerable position in the aircraft, the nose, when the windows, always a weak point, offer very limited visibility and remote cameras offer much better. Then it is a great idea.

wheat-dogghazi Jul 4, 2014 7:42:10am

re: #2 1Peter G1

Unless one considers the number of incidents in which pilots confused by their visual perceptions killed themselves and everyone on board instead of relying on their instruments as they should. As well as the foolishness of putting the pilots in the most vulnerable position in the aircraft, the nose, when the windows, always a weak point, offer very limited visibility and remote cameras offer much better. Then it is a great idea.

Can one tell us how many incidents one is speaking of?

lawhawk Jul 4, 2014 7:47:39am

I get the move to shift away from providing windows to the passengers - since you’d be able to stiffen the fuselage and provide a more secure airframe, but the pilots should not be constrained to fly via video screens. The possibility of an electrical failure is high (and there are documented issues with flights with electrical fires and other similar issues including loss of power, and electrical problems would mean the pilots lose all ability to see the outside environment. They’d be unable to control the aircraft under those conditions and a crash would be inevitable.

Rightwingconspirator Jul 4, 2014 8:20:36am

Just because we can does not mean we should.

John Vreeland Jul 4, 2014 1:25:15pm

Naval vessels have operated this way for decades. The ship is controlled from a dark room filled with displays, deep inside. They still have a topside watch, though, to keep an eye on whatever might be floating nearby and in case the entire ship loses power, but these might be moot points in a jet aircraft.

1Peter G1 Jul 4, 2014 2:57:10pm

re: #3 wheat-dogghazi

Accident reports are freely available from your government. But you can try and get life insurance as the pilot of a small aircraft if you would prefer. Instruments do fail on occasion but that is what pilots are for.The Air France plane that went down in mid-Atlantic had a frozen pitot tube and the pilots did everything wrong after that. Most CFIT incidents, that is a controlled flight into terrain are attributable to pilot error with weather being a secondary factor. Keep in mind that military pilots who are the people most likely to move into civilian flight often fly nap of the earth missions at night with no visual frames of reference.

I will make my argument for heavy aircraft from an engineer’s point of view. Every meter of cable or wire or hydraulic line in a heavy transport constitutes a risk. Running all of those to the front of the aircraft, the most vulnerable point for a strike or collision, makes no sense. The pilot’s station should be near the wing root wing is the strongest structure in the aircraft. That would minimize the length of all control and instrumentation systems on board. All you need at the front are redundant cameras. That’s it. Everything else that runs to the front of the aircraft represents added risk of failure.

Rocky-in-Connecticut Jul 4, 2014 3:20:47pm

windows in air/spacecraft are so 20th century.

I am for windowless designs withe the understanding old school direct video line feed redundant systems are in place to give pilots an option to bypass computer video processing and CPU crashes.

As a passenger, any flying wing design would immediately mean no window seats at all, or very limited. Viewscreens where passengers can pick and choose perspective they wish (front, rear, side LR, bottom, top mounted cameras) are the way to go. Various flying wing designs pop up from time as do more radical designs like this below:

gizmag.com

Skip Intro Jul 4, 2014 5:34:58pm

re: #7 1Peter G1

Keep in mind that military pilots who are the people most likely to move into civilian flight …..

I don’t believe that’s the case any longer.

No, most of the airline pilots today come from a civilian background. The time (in years) that the military demands from pilots is over 10 years after graduation from flight school. It used to be 6 years. Additionally, the demand for the number of military pilots has decreased. When both of these factors are accounted for, the pool of military pilots available to be hired by airlines is decreasing. The number of civilian pilots being hired by the airlines has risen to the point that in recent years there are more civilian pilots than military.

usatoday.com

wheat-dogghazi Jul 4, 2014 7:38:19pm

re: #7 1Peter G1

Accident reports are freely available from your government. But you can try and get life insurance as the pilot of a small aircraft if you would prefer. Instruments do fail on occasion but that is what pilots are for.The Air France plane that went down in mid-Atlantic had a frozen pitot tube and the pilots did everything wrong after that. Most CFIT incidents, that is a controlled flight into terrain are attributable to pilot error with weather being a secondary factor. Keep in mind that military pilots who are the people most likely to move into civilian flight often fly nap of the earth missions at night with no visual frames of reference.

I will make my argument for heavy aircraft from an engineer’s point of view. Every meter of cable or wire or hydraulic line in a heavy transport constitutes a risk. Running all of those to the front of the aircraft, the most vulnerable point for a strike or collision, makes no sense. The pilot’s station should be near the wing root wing is the strongest structure in the aircraft. That would minimize the length of all control and instrumentation systems on board. All you need at the front are redundant cameras. That’s it. Everything else that runs to the front of the aircraft represents added risk of failure.

Bolded part 1. You are the one who said “consider the number of incidents” attributable to visual confusion. I asked you to back that statement up with data. In other words, it’s your job to dig up the figures, not mine.

Bolded part 2. This point contradicts your argument that pilots are better off flying under IFR. Granted, VFR did not help in that case, because the crew apparently had no visual cues to indicate trouble. I don’t see how video feeds would have helped the situation, however.

Bolded part 3. Of course, pilots fly frequently under IFR. I never said they didn’t. There’s no need for them to fly IFR all the time, however.

Bolded part 4. And I will make my argument from a pilot’s point of view. I’d rather look out a window, thanks very much, than look at a video screen. Even the Space Shuttle had windows in the flight deck.

Bolded part 5. A fair point, but how many such accidents occur in flight? Moving the flight deck to the wing area may improve the pilot’s safety, but only by degrees. They’re still going to be toast if their jetliner crashes into the side of a mountain at 600 mph.

As for the risks of control cables and lines failing, commercial and military transport aircraft have used the pilot-forward design for decades now. I’m pretty sure the engineers have minimized the risks of control failure after years of experience. Moving the flight deck to the wing root would shorten the distance, but there would still need to be lines running back to the control surfaces in the tail in any case.

Have you ever flown an airplane? From your attitude, I presume not. But maybe I’m wrong.

wheat-dogghazi Jul 4, 2014 7:53:11pm

re: #8 Rocky-in-Connecticut

windows in air/spacecraft are so 20th century.

I am for windowless designs withe the understanding old school direct video line feed redundant systems are in place to give pilots an option to bypass computer video processing and CPU crashes.

As a passenger, any flying wing design would immediately mean no window seats at all, or very limited. Viewscreens where passengers can pick and choose perspective they wish (front, rear, side LR, bottom, top mounted cameras) are the way to go. Various flying wing designs pop up from time as do more radical designs like this below:

gizmag.com

I guess I’m so 20th century, as well. I like looking out windows while flying, if there’s something to see. They do require design compromises that can weaken the integrity of the structure. They create many more points of potential leakage. I am very sure the engineers and the bean counters would prefer to do away with windows altogether.

My argument against such an idea is partly on humanistic and aesthetic levels. Shutting people up in a windowless metal tube for several hours to me sounds a bit like cattle transport. Airline companies supposedly are trying to make flying more enjoyable and more comfortable. Personally, I would not enjoy being shut up in a metal tube without the opportunity of looking out a window now and again. Flying should not be the airborne equivalent of the submarine corps. Some of us enjoy flying, as pilot, crew or passenger, because it gives us the sensation of freedom.

High Flight
by John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air….

Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace.
Where never lark, or even eagle flew —
And, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
- Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

I doubt you’d get the same feeling shut up in a windowless room for a few hours.

Joanne Jul 5, 2014 10:09:05pm

As someone who used to fly week in and week out for 10 years, I would freak the fuck out with no windows. As a pilot, I don’t care where they are as long as they can fly and get me from point A to point B in one piece. It’s not like they can see out the windows and how often does a jet fly VFR? That’s what cameras are for if needed (you see them on overseas flights where the camera is on in-flight entertainment).

When incidents happen, the pilots and 1st class almost always fare worse than the rest of the aircraft. Put the pilots where they have a better chance at saving as many passengers as possible. And I don’t think the nose is that place.

socrets Jul 6, 2014 7:00:35am

re: #11 wheat-dogghazi

My argument against such an idea is partly on humanistic and aesthetic levels. Shutting people up in a windowless metal tube for several hours to me sounds a bit like cattle transport. Airline companies supposedly are trying to make flying more enjoyable and more comfortable. Personally, I would not enjoy being shut up in a metal tube without the opportunity of looking out a window now and again. Flying should not be the airborne equivalent of the submarine corps. Some of us enjoy flying, as pilot, crew or passenger, because it gives us the sensation of freedom.

It IS cattle transport. Since airlines have become less interested in providing even a basic amount of comfort to passengers in the pursuit of $$$, I’m sure getting rid of windows will be great because passengers will be drinking themselves into a stupor just to deal with the claustrophobia.

Aunty Entity Dragon Jul 6, 2014 4:04:33pm

re: #12 Joanne

As someone who used to fly week in and week out for 10 years, I would freak the fuck out with no windows. As a pilot, I don’t care where they are as long as they can fly and get me from point A to point B in one piece. It’s not like they can see out the windows and how often does a jet fly VFR? That’s what cameras are for if needed (you see them on overseas flights where the camera is on in-flight entertainment).

When incidents happen, the pilots and 1st class almost always fare worse than the rest of the aircraft. Put the pilots where they have a better chance at saving as many passengers as possible. And I don’t think the nose is that place.

Right after the first production break at about body station 334 or so in a B727-100 (old school bird, but I worked a lot on them) would be best, but you add a LOT in drag by puting your cockpit up above the cabin.

Joanne Jul 6, 2014 4:27:03pm

re: #14 Aunty Entity Dragon

Right after the first production break at about body station 334 or so in a B727-100 (old school bird, but I worked a lot on them) would be best, but you add a LOT in drag by puting your cockpit up above the cabin.

I don’t think above like an old 747, but across the center with aisles left and right. Like a separator: 1-7 first, 8-20 coach A, pilot cabin, 21-33 coach B, or on long distance flights: 1st, business, pilot cabin, coach.

And to make it truly fun…make their cabin 2” glass so we can see if they’re sleeping. :-)

1Peter G1 Jul 7, 2014 8:22:41am

re: #11 wheat-dogghazi

Actually it is not my job to dig up statistics that are freely available with only a single simple Google search but here you go: faa.gov

The fact is that pilots fail a lot more often than instruments which almost always have backups. Instruments don’t have inner ears that lie to them about aircraft orientation. Also factual is that camera based systems allow pilots to see things through a much broader spectrum (as required) with a much enlarged field of view. The nose of the aircraft obscures most of the pilots view. Collision avoidance for anything but a very small object is best handled though radar, another instrument entirely. There is no good reason for putting pilots and vulnerable control systems at the most vulnerable part of the aircraft. Not anymore. Ask phone users if they really need an electromechanical keyboard?

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!