Wired behind the curve

[jtin 0]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/10/who-needs-a-win.html

 

Hmmm... the question begs to be asked:

 

If a pilot can fly the plane using a HDTV without being able to look outside, then why even have the pilot? Why not use a UAV?

 

Although spatial awarness comes into play here... though my point is that this isn't much of a new idea.

[gbnavy61 1]

The only time you need to see outside is landing (maybe takeoff). Otherwise, it'd be like flying on instruments in the goo the whole time. Of course, in a normal aircraft, if the instruments go bad you still have the option of getting to a hole in the clouds and looking outside. I'm not sure what you'd do if the camera went bad on one of these.

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

Pfffft, lindberg did it without seeing, lol

[FastCargo 412]

The only time you need to see outside is landing (maybe takeoff).

 

Are you farking kidding me?

 

In a word (from a military and civilian pilot) .... hell ****ing no!

 

And another note, this concept isn't new. Boeing/NASA investigated the same possibility when they explored the HSCT concept back 10+ years ago. The idea was building 'synthetic vision' systems, using the same idea...you look out a 'window' that was in reality, a large HDTV screen.

 

It's a dumbass idea. You're fooling yourself if you think all the systems we have in place to avoid unintended aircraft proximity incidents are actually 100% percent reliable. I will say this ONE MORE TIME (and I haven't had an engineer disagree with me yet)..."No engineer has EVER anticipated every failure possibilty of an aircraft." You don't want to be the guy writing the manual 'on the fly' because no one had ever seen this kind of emergency situation before.

 

Vision enhancement systems, hey I'm all for that. We've started installing those in our MD-11s, and the pilots who've flown with it say it rocks...a HUD in combo with a FLIR allows basically 'seeing through clouds' while still allowing a standard visual lookout...but you can flip it out of the way if it fails. Kind of hard to do that with a TV screen.

 

I will never endorse a system that replaces the Mark I eyeball...supplements, sure...replaces? Nope.

 

FastCargo

[Canadair 16]

Are you farking kidding me?

 

In a word (from a military and civilian pilot) .... hell ****ing no!

 

And another note, this concept isn't new. Boeing/NASA investigated the same possibility when they explored the HSCT concept back 10+ years ago. The idea was building 'synthetic vision' systems, using the same idea...you look out a 'window' that was in reality, a large HDTV screen.

 

It's a dumbass idea. You're fooling yourself if you think all the systems we have in place to avoid unintended aircraft proximity incidents are actually 100% percent reliable. I will say this ONE MORE TIME (and I haven't had an engineer disagree with me yet)..."No engineer has EVER anticipated every failure possibilty of an aircraft." You don't want to be the guy writing the manual 'on the fly' because no one had ever seen this kind of emergency situation before.

 

Vision enhancement systems, hey I'm all for that. We've started installing those in our MD-11s, and the pilots who've flown with it say it rocks...a HUD in combo with a FLIR allows basically 'seeing through clouds' while still allowing a standard visual lookout...but you can flip it out of the way if it fails. Kind of hard to do that with a TV screen.

 

I will never endorse a system that replaces the Mark I eyeball...supplements, sure...replaces? Nope.

 

FastCargo

 

Quotes every word

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yep, no windows, no Buck Rogers.

[DWCAce 19]

I'm 100% with FC.

[JediMaster 451]

Unless your pilot has the Force. Then, well, your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them.

[Salamander67 0]

"Whether passengers will be willing to trust a pilot using only a camera to fly is another question altogether."

That's the main problem. Sure you can build a windowless aircraft, and sure you can make it work 999 time sout of 1 000, but what about the last time???

 

In a military aircraft in wartimes you could perhaps accept that kind of a bet, if the design gave you considerable advantages over the enemy, but a civilian biz-jet? No way!

 

Anybody ever wondered why the military Nimrod was more succesfull than the civilian Comet? Well, part of the answer (only a part, but still), was the design with the engines mounted close to each other and the body. In case of an engine fire (we're talking 1950's jet engines here), the risk for a wing failure was big. Simply put: the idea worked well most of the time, but not always. The Nimrod was developed ten-fifteen years later, and did have modern turbofans.

 

Probably the windowless aircraft idea will go the same way, nothing happens now, because the system is too unsafe for civilian operations, but in a decade or two it might be in limited use in some air force/navy project.