Airbus: Pilots don't really need windows

[Jesus Malverde]

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.

Without the need for windows, the flight deck could move "to an unused zone of the aircraft, and in particular into a zone difficult to configure for receiving passengers or freight," Airbus wrote. One possibility is the base of the tail, where the flight deck could still have some windows. Another is in part of the cargo hold.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/boeing/article/Airbus-Pilots-don-t-really-need-windows-5596374.php#photo-6548293

[MineralMan]

1. I don't think this will happen.

Pilots are going to reject it completely.

[Dawson Leery]

2. Airbus also has a problem with the tails detaching from the fuselage.

The cause of many crashes.

With that said, Airbus is going to get it from the pilots and safety administrators.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. The cause of one crash, actually.

Still, it's not a very good idea and I doubt it will go anywhere.

[Sheldon Cooper]

3. Suuuure!!! Why not?

Matter of fact, why don't they just put them down in the cargo hold? They're just dead weight which interferes with the full monetization of the cabin anyway.

[Jesus Malverde]

8. They are ahead of you.

[jmowreader]

12. If they were to put a windshield down there, the front of the cargo hold would be a good place

It would make the plane easier to handle on the ground. You'd be able to run passenger seating nose to tail. You could put a crew door in the underbelly and a solid wall between the cockpit and passengers, and end hijacking once and for all. It'd be great.

[Xithras]

4. Aircraft don't really need pilots either.

Aircraft are entirely capable of flying without human intervention. We like to have people on the airplane anyway, in case of "emergency".

Same goes for the cockpit window. They serve no practical purpose on modern aircraft, except in an emergency. If there's an electrical failure that takes out those screens, you're going to want a window to look out of! 99.9% of the time they don't matter at all. That 0.1% of the time when they are needed, they are indispensable.

[Dawgs]

5. No thanks. Wouldn't want driver of car when I'm passenger to be in trunk with laptop for seeing.

Why would I want that in my airplane?

[Auggie]

6. File this under the heading "What Could Go Possibly Wrong?"

[Politicalboi]

7. Is it wise to put pilots and controls

On something that can shear off of the plane. I guess you're pretty much screwed if you lose the tail in any plane. And since we just had a near miss of a collision at an airport, was that pilot able to see out the window to see the plane on the runway and avoided a crash?

[IDemo]

9. I think the pilots will be navigating from an office chair a thousand miles away. n/t

[Anansi1171]

27. My name is Mitt Romney. I just acquired this airline and I will be the captain of your voyage-nt

[liberal N proud]

10. I would think the redundant systems required to do this would surpass the weight of the windows

If you are going to fly by wire, just make the planes drones and then it can be all profit.

[KamaAina]

11. I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!

[Hekate]

13. And...in case of instrument failure? Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

They'd be flying 100% blind. Nice.

[Archae]

14. Why do I think of Star Trek's Enterprise bridge, that didn't have a window?

[Tetris_Iguana]

16. Maybe next century

But not this one. We're just not ready for it yet.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. I don't know about that. 85 years is a very long time in aviation

Look how far we have come in 100 years.

The pilots hardly do any flying as it is now.

[Tetris_Iguana]

23. I agree the tech is near or already here.

It's the people that are the problem.

Several decades of trillions of successful autonomous drones should aid in acceptance of a "blind" cockpit.

[NCjack]

17. I want the pilots operating as far forward as possible so in case of an emergency, they will be

the first to arrive on the scene of the crash. But, I think Airbus will give them remote-control laptops and make them buy tickets in economy class.

[CJCRANE]

18. Pilots don't need to be on the plane.

They could log in from home or an office, or just let the autopilot do all the work.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. IF GOD HAD WANTED AIRPLANES TO LOOK ANY DIFFERENT HE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THEM THE WAY THEY ARE

6000 YEARS AGO

WHY DOES EVERYTHING ALWAYS HAVE TO CHANGE?!??!?! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGRGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NightWatcher]

20. Put a luggage rack on the top and more people can ride Cargo Class

[Xyzse]

21. Nah, they will just train pilots to fly it like a drone

Then, they wouldn't have to have a pilot to deal with, nor could someone try to hijack it that way.

The only way to do it then would be to hack in to the system.

-tongue in cheek-

[edbermac]

24. And engineers said they didn't need windows for Project Mercury either

The astronauts fought that and I'm sure today's pilots are going to fight this as well

[MisterP]

25. Airbus = Windows, Boeing = Apple

Airbus's design theory is very workaday, and its problems are generally with the software
Boeing is stylish but picks up hardware problems (and its devotees would frankly make Kim Jong-un hurl)

[Blue Owl]

26. Just install the Mitt Romney retractable windshield

along with the convenient electric cabin windows...