Airbus Patents Windowless Cockpit That Would Increase Pilots' Field of View 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.
Failsafe? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Failsafe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failsafe? (Score:5, Interesting)
True.
Alas, the controls are also wired to high heaven, and if the computers fail, all windows will do is give the pilots a great view of the crash caused by failure of the control systems.
Re:Failsafe? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that would wreck the entire engineering of getting rid of the windows in the first place.
In principle, there could be 'emergency' windows that were smaller or more awkwardly placed (perhaps even requiring the use of a periscope or physical light pipe) that could nevertheless still be used to land a plane in the event of a complete failure of the electronic display system. From an engineering standpoint, even a switch from giant wrap-around windows to small portholes is still going to provide some improvement in strength and weight.
That said, it's worth noting two things. First, modern aircraft are so heavily electronics-dependent (and fly-by-wire driven) that in the event of a catastrophic failure of onboard electronics, the loss of virtual windows may not actually be the biggest problem on your plate. Second, modern aircraft are often rated for landing completely blind (at suitably equipped airports); even if you lose the view from the entire front 'window', a landing on instruments is still a reasonable option.
Failsafe? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Failsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Failsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
It depends on the airport, pilot & airplane.
If all are certified, yes they can land in zero visibility to 0' AGL.
Re:Failsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
split the difference (Score:3)
why not just reduce the window area to half it's current size. If the savings is really significant then that would be significant too. Then compensate with the video system. the remaining window would be the failsafe.
Why? (Score:3)
Nobody complains about all those people jammed into a metal tube with no windows powered by a nuclear reactor and dumped into the ocean(s)...
And no... Periscope only works for the last (first) 20 meters or so. They are buggering about on instruments and maps alone.
And did I mention nuclear missiles? Yeah... they jam those in there with the people.
Nope... Still irrelevant... But thx for the straw. (Score:3)
I'm talking about airplanes the size of an airplane this system was designed for.
I.e. It's an AIRBUS.
While you rant on about "single engine GA aircraft", "airport departure" and ILS and VOR conditions under which you WON'T attempt landing - though I clearly talk about LANDING AN AIRPLANE THE SIZE OF A 747.
You're straw-mening.
I say:
A 747 lands at 172-207 mph. That's about 276-333 kph. Or 76-92 meters per second.
Meaning that they need AT LEAST 100 meters of visibility in order to see the ground 1 second before touchdown.
To which you reply:
There is no "1 second" rule. And your 100m == 1 second puts the aircraft at 194 knots. That's faster than landing speed. That's more than twice what a single engine GA aircraft will be going.
So take your pick.
You are either an idiot who thinks that 747 is a "single engine GA aircraft", landing is same as taking off, and the process of landing is th
Re: Failsafe? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, wouldn't a pilot who left the cockpit while the plane landed using instruments be fired?
Re: Failsafe? (Score:5, Funny)
aha you hit the nail on the head.... the plane is windowless so you the passenger cannot see that there is NO PILOT
(adjust my tin foil hat slightly)
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't mean the autopilot lands, although it is possible. He means that the pilots land "blind", using instruments only.
When you learn to fly aircraft you start off on Visual Flight Rules (VFR). You have to be able to see outside at all times, so no flying at night or in fog or in clouds. You then move on to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), and can basically fly through anything the aircraft can handle without the need to ever look out the window.
Re: Failsafe? (Score:4, Interesting)
An unusual set of circumstances but airplane accidents almost always are
Re: (Score:3)
There are numerous reasons pilots can't see out real windows. Things like clouds, fog and night.
Pilots can still see out the windows while in the clouds, in fog, and at night. Clouds and fog reduce visibility, but not always to zero, and the difference is, of course, that once a pilot flies out of the clouds or fog the windows are still perfectly good. A broken/disabled electronic display would still be broken/disabled.
As for "night", you have no idea what flying a plane is like, do you? "Night" doesn't disable a window, it just means the sun is down. Pilots can still see other planes, lights on the
Re: (Score:3)
"How would you feel if your loved ones were on a plane, it crashed, and they were killed or mutilated and maimed for life, because some twit thought windows were a bad thing to have in an airplane?"
How would you feel if your loved ones were on a plane, it crashed, and they were killed or mutilated and maimed for life, because some twit thought parachutes were a bad thing to have in an airplane?
Re: (Score:3)
Copilot tells a funny joke, captain spews hot coffee over the monitor, whoops, left "window" now unusable.
Advanced technology is good, but this is overreliance on advanced technology.
Re: Failsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
The worse thing that could happen to a view screen is that it gets so smashed up
Well, no, the worst thing is that it falls out, and so does the pilot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Failsafe? (Score:4, Interesting)
The worse thing that could happen to a view screen is that it gets so smashed up you can't resolve fine details through all the cracks (actually, the absolutely worse thing that could happen is that it ceases to exist, but at that point you've got other problems). But the fine details are hardly necessary for flying and landing.
Not so, This 747 went through a ash cloud from a vulcano and got their windscreen sandblasted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
As Flight 9 approached Jakarta, the crew found it difficult to see anything through the windscreen, and made the approach almost entirely on instruments, despite reports of good visibility. The crew decided to fly the Instrument Landing System (ILS); however, the vertical guidance system was inoperative, so they were forced to fly with only the lateral guidance as the first officer monitored the airport's Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). He then called out how high they should be at each DME step along the final approach to the runway, creating a virtual glide slope for them to follow. It was, in Moody's words, "a bit like negotiating one's way up a badger's arse."[1] Although the runway lights could be made out through a small strip of the windscreen, the landing lights on the aircraft seemed to be inoperable. After landing, the flight crew found it impossible to taxi, due to glare from apron floodlights which made the already sandblasted windscreen opaque.
As you see, they didn't eject. They landed the plane flying blind.
Re: (Score:3)
You never want to make landing harder than it needed to be. Sure, you can land completely blind, but it's more dangerous than when you can see the runway. Like any other cockpit automation, this is a cool idea that should replace (not merely augment) the existing systems after a couple of decades of data on how reliable it actually is.
Re: (Score:3)
If it works. If it works. That's just it, this isn't a phone app, and there's no reason to believe it's reliable until it's been in service for many years and has proven that it's reliable. During that time, you make sure the old way is still there.
Re: Failsafe? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
nice work (Score:5, Insightful)
You probably did more analytical thinking when you formulated the following paragraph than the entire design team who made this crap & the people who funded and approved the project:
the 'black layer' could be the hydrostatic glass that can be darkened when electric current is applied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
see, the way business works today, they will put Million$ into projects based on some dumb idea (or supply chain order for a contractor) before they even know how it would actually work
one last thing, i was disappointed by the pedantic "point/counterpoint" conversations on this thread up till I found TWX's comment...
YES...it is ALWAYS STUPID to not have an analog back up
in aviation, and life, you should always have an analog back up whenever possible
Re:nice work (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a student about a dozen years ago. GPS was all shiny and new in the civilian world, and he was an ex Army Ranger. I thought he'd be really gung-ho about GPS, but he said he preferred a paper map. When I asked him his reasons, he said "A GPS unit with a bullet hole through it is a door stop. A map with a bullet hole through it is still a map."
Ever since then I've operated in the belief that robust technologies trump cool technologies.
Re: Failsafe? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: Failsafe? (Score:5, Informative)
Last time I checked passenger planes could glide about as well as a brick.
You should read about an incident that has become known as the Gimli Glider [wikipedia.org]. That was a 767 (passenger plane) that was piloted with no working engines to a safe landing with only minor injuries during the evacuation.
The glide ratio reported there was 12:1, which is actually better than the Cessna 172 (9:1) or 182 (10:1). Those numbers are approximations since they depend upon the best glide speed, which depends on aircraft weight and condition. In any case, much better than "a brick".
Re: (Score:3)
The altitude (10 km) and distance to the final airport (120 km) when the second engine flamed out also point to a 12:1 glide ratio. Slightly better in fact as the pilot had to execute a 360 and
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And when the video feed dies... (Score:4, Informative)
They fly via instrument flight rules.
Re:And when the video feed dies... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And when the video feed dies... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
your thinking is incorrect, multiple non-dependent systems exist with backup systems. The windows in the cockpit happen to be one of those
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming CATIIIc zero visibility operations will be approved, a lack of windows should be fine for normal taxi and flight. The pilots are already relying on operating entirely by instruments.
That said, there could be emergencies where real outside visibility would be nice - water ditching, etc. Those may be rare enough though that it isn't a significant extra risk.
Will sure may flying airliners even less interesting than it is now.
Re:And when the video feed dies... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
You have to understand the complex mathematics of Airbus' futuristic engineering:
!pilot = !pilot-salary
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Is there really no room for any other sort of reaction, in between blind faith and knee-jerk opposition?
From time to time, technology fails. This is a simple fact of life, and normally, the people making the technology will be the first to tell you this (the people selling the technology, not so much, which is a source of tension between the two). It doesn't take a Luddite to see that one needs to have failsafes in place. This is, in fact, what the word "failsafe" means.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't even think about that.
Radar cameras could easily see through the fog/rain/snow. Fewer 'controlled flight into terrain' accidents.
If they can see the leading edges of the wings, perhaps fewer icing incidents as well.
This should actually improve flight safety by eliminating the shortcomings that windows have.
Re: (Score:2)
What then?
Alt+F4 - it always closes the window and gets it out of the way.
Re:And when the video feed dies... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Believe it or not, most pilots are trained to perform instrument-only landings. I believe any commercial airliner (and most military) even has a system on-board specifically designed to facilitate this [wikipedia.org].
I've personally see even amateur pilots take off, fly around and successfully land a simulator that did not have a working visual system, relying on instruments alone. Not something you'd like them doing regularly with actual lives at stake, I'll grant you. However, it is trained for. In event of emergency,
blue screen of death (Score:5, Funny)
has never been more literally applied
Prior art (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
oh you fly with no front windows .... how cute... (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but there could be quite a difference between breaking the windshield and breaking one or two of the potentially dozens of cameras that could be distributed around the airframe. It's a lot easier to design in redundant cameras than redundant cockpits.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's very worth it, it lets you move the cockpit so it doesn't interfere with aerodynamics. It will most likely result in an improved view (they can put cameras on the bottom so they can actually see crew on the tarmac when taxing). And removing the windows will help aerodynamics and save fuel. Considering the plane is already fly by wire, it's not a significant complexity addition.
In addition I wonder how this patent is even valid, the Virginia class submarine already does this, they have a photonics [wikipedia.org]
In Soviet America... (Score:2)
>> 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.
NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Rather fewer than the number that will die if you keep letting half evolved monkeys mess with the controls.
Depth perception? (Score:2)
that's gotta suck when the TV goes out (Score:2)
"tower, ByNight 666, help, we're flying blind."
"666, only until you're out of fuel, over."
Easier for Illuminati (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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")?
Pointless (Score:2)
Failure modes (Score:2)
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.
Entrusting our lives to complex software (Score:4, Insightful)
Autonomous cars, and now this. I have to say I'm not so eager to entrust my life to complex software. Working in software I've seen countless times that complex systems show behaviors the designers didn't intend. At a minimum I'd want to know what dead-simple failsafe mechanisms have been engineered in to recognize and handle unknown states.
Re: (Score:3)
Software already flies your airplane for 95% or more of your journey.
Re: Entrusting our lives to complex software (Score:3)
What could possibly go wrong here? (Score:4, Funny)
After all, Windows is so old school ...
Why would you do that? (Score:3)
Could we have some actual licensed experienced pilots please join this conversation? I'd like to know what you think about this, please.
strong objections (Score:4, Interesting)
What if the electricity fails? What if the camera breaks? What if this, what if that? People had the same kind of very strong objections to fly-by-wire systems, and we've had planes for decades with no physical links between the controls in the cockpit and the control surfaces that move the plane. The number of accidents caused by failure of a fly-by-wire system? None. There are so many redundancies in these systems, it makes it very unlikely to fail.
Next... seeing outside isn't particularly important. Pilots don't really need to look out the window on these planes for flying. Especially when the plane is in fog or clouds, looking out the window can be actually confusing and disorienting and it's much safer to to look a the instruments. When coming in for a landing, the runway has a guidance system that guides the plane right onto the runway (ILS).
Plus, you can actually get a much better view of the outside using cameras and screens.
This being said, this is not an invention and it's not patent-worthy. As others mentioned, NCC-1701 had a viewscreen instead of a window... almost half a century ago.
Missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm actually less worried about the view-screen failing than most are; given how robust the systems on these planes are, it is unlikely that is going to be a significant problem. If it gets to the point where the viewscreen itself no longer works, the pilots probably will probably have other much more important problems to deal with, like catastrophic hull damage or engine failure (having said that, I'm all for the addition of a periscope or small viewport that can be used in emergencies).
What does concern me is the image that is going to be projected onto these screens. It is going to be a mixed feed of camera images and sensors into one panoramic display. This raises flags for two reasons. First, cameras have fixed viewing angles, and windows do not. A pilot can lean a bit to the side while looking out a window to see just slightly more to the left or right; he won't be able to do so with a fixed TV image. Secondly, having worked with how computers merge panoramic images, I wonder how much lag there will be between the time the camera SEES its image and the time it actually is displayed on the screen; even a tenth of a second delay could be dangerous. I also wonder what information will be culled because the programs cannot make a seamless match between the different camera images otherwise. Programs that merge images can make some stupid assumptions sometimes and a detail at the border between two or more images is sometimes lost due to the algorithm.
A better initial use for this technology than completely replacing the cockpit windows, I think, would be to replace the PASSENGER windows. Those are far less critical to the plane. Giving each PASSENGER a small OLED screen in place of a window would greatly increase structural integrity and decrease fuel use while also allowing the technology to better mature before replacing the much more important viewports in the cockpit.
What about on the ground? (Score:5, Interesting)
Removes an important failsafe (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
One word: pinball wizard. Wait that's two words, or is it three?
Re: (Score:2)
One word: pinball wizard.
Not sure if a deaf, dumb, and blind kid could pass the FAA check-out exam... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's much of an issue, you can put cameras on board that are much better than what you can normally see (like a couple IR cameras), and identify actual objects (like other planes) in the monitor. It results in a much more interesting display. Not to mention at cruising altitude there isn't all that much to look at anyways.
Airbus want this probably because they can move the cockpit, it no longer needs to protrude out the nose (and impact aerodynamics), it can save lots of fuel that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the screens could be a lot larger than the windows, AND the cameras could see through fog/rain/snow, I'd guess the pilots would prefer the screens.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Well, this is just a quicker way to increase passenger space by letting the pilots fly your plane from the comfort of their ipad at home.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
In a highly redundant system it should be enough to have multiple monitors inside, with multiple cameras outside whose field of view significantly overlaps. Camera fails? Well the other camera can still see the same thing. Monitor fails, well you can pull up that camera on another monitor. All cameras are cross connected via multiple display computers, and display computers are powered via separate power busses. So a display computer failing does nothing, a power surge only affects half the system, and half
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
I believe flight MH370 actually "watered" instead of "landed".
Re: (Score:3)
Funny you should say that.
A bunch of years ago I was involved in the airline industry.
The people who did the aircraft maintenance used to howl at the notion of the "water landing" -- because until those guys did it a few years ago in the Hudson, no commercial plane had ever done it and remained intact. Which makes what they did all the more impressive.
Those seat cushions under your chair in case of a water landing? Well, let's just say within the aviation ind
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Sure we do: badly.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
>> Submarines have been doing just fine for years
Ever seen one dock?