4 ms·

>> Augmented reality vision system: Two nose-mounted cameras, digitally augmented with attitude and flight path indications, feed a high resolution pilot displa

>> Augmented reality vision system: Two nose-mounted cameras, digitally augmented with attitude and flight path indications, feed a high resolution pilot display enabling excellent runway visibility. This system enables improved aerodynamic efficiency without the weight and complexity of a movable nose. (Cough) Don't tell the passengers it is all because the pilot literally cannot see the runway during landing.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> because the pilot literally cannot see the runway during landing ILS solved this problem for airline transport pilots [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system
- Gare 3y ago
  To be fair, they do need an alternate with a better visibility. But if the computers are not working, you're not in for a good time in a modern airliner anyway.
  - 9659 3y ago
    Maybe not a 'good time', but a safe one. Commercial airliners have standby instruments and a VHF radio that works on a battery. Which is all you need to get it on the ground in one piece.
    - Gare 3y ago
      You cannot operate fly-by-wire aircraft without computers, that's what I meant. Redundancy is name of the game, I see no problem in using cameras if they're made redundant.
- potatolicious 3y ago
  ILS generally still requires manual visual approaches from the minimum altitude to the ground. Only ILS Cat III-C is a true autoland that can take the aircraft down all the way to the ground. Even then, aircraft certification requirements even for Cat III-C capable aircraft requires that pilots be able to conduct a visual approach because the ILS system can fail. An aircraft that has literally no recourse when ILS Cat III-C capability goes down (either on the aircraft side or the airfield side) does not seem like a good idea, especially because in this case large categories of emergencies are positively correlated with avionics failure. For example an engine failure may cause power loss to avionics, so your fancy AR webcam feed is more likely to go down in that situation just when you need to make an emergency landing. Not impossible to overcome of course - you certainly can ensure your avionics have its own isolated (and multiply redundant) power source so that it does stay up in the event of many kinds of emergencies, but personally I'd need to really see the homework on that before I'd feel safe flying in that kind of setup.
  - wkipling 3y ago
    The category of of ILS does not dictate its autoland status. You can do an Autoland on nearly any ILS provided the FAC is aligned with the RWY. A CAT IIIB ILS will permit in most states a landing with a radio altitude of 0.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      But whether or not it can do an ‘Autoland’ currently is irrelevant because as the parent said: > Even then, aircraft certification requirements even for Cat III-C capable aircraft requires that pilots be able to conduct a visual approach because the ILS system can fail. Whether or not it can do an ‘Autoland without the pilot being able to check’ while satisfying the regulator’s inevitably vastly more stringent rules is what matters.
philwelch 3y ago
Didn’t the Concorde have a droop snoot for the same reason?
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Yes and no. Line of sight was one reason, but aerodynamics was another. Pointing the nose into the wind (ie slightly down) is more efficient during landing and takeoff. Boom is avoiding the concept because it would cost tens of millions to develop and test such a configuration.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Large moving parts on an airframe seem to be avoided in general these days. There’s a similar story with swing wings (which I think Boom also considered before ultimately rejecting).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> because the pilot literally cannot see the runway during landing ILS solved this problem for airline transport pilots [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system

Gare 3y ago
To be fair, they do need an alternate with a better visibility. But if the computers are not working, you're not in for a good time in a modern airliner anyway.
- 9659 3y ago
  Maybe not a 'good time', but a safe one. Commercial airliners have standby instruments and a VHF radio that works on a battery. Which is all you need to get it on the ground in one piece.
  - Gare 3y ago
    You cannot operate fly-by-wire aircraft without computers, that's what I meant. Redundancy is name of the game, I see no problem in using cameras if they're made redundant.
potatolicious 3y ago
ILS generally still requires manual visual approaches from the minimum altitude to the ground. Only ILS Cat III-C is a true autoland that can take the aircraft down all the way to the ground. Even then, aircraft certification requirements even for Cat III-C capable aircraft requires that pilots be able to conduct a visual approach because the ILS system can fail. An aircraft that has literally no recourse when ILS Cat III-C capability goes down (either on the aircraft side or the airfield side) does not seem like a good idea, especially because in this case large categories of emergencies are positively correlated with avionics failure. For example an engine failure may cause power loss to avionics, so your fancy AR webcam feed is more likely to go down in that situation just when you need to make an emergency landing. Not impossible to overcome of course - you certainly can ensure your avionics have its own isolated (and multiply redundant) power source so that it does stay up in the event of many kinds of emergencies, but personally I'd need to really see the homework on that before I'd feel safe flying in that kind of setup.
- wkipling 3y ago
  The category of of ILS does not dictate its autoland status. You can do an Autoland on nearly any ILS provided the FAC is aligned with the RWY. A CAT IIIB ILS will permit in most states a landing with a radio altitude of 0.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    But whether or not it can do an ‘Autoland’ currently is irrelevant because as the parent said: > Even then, aircraft certification requirements even for Cat III-C capable aircraft requires that pilots be able to conduct a visual approach because the ILS system can fail. Whether or not it can do an ‘Autoland without the pilot being able to check’ while satisfying the regulator’s inevitably vastly more stringent rules is what matters.

philwelch 3y ago

Didn’t the Concorde have a droop snoot for the same reason?

sandworm101 3y ago
Yes and no. Line of sight was one reason, but aerodynamics was another. Pointing the nose into the wind (ie slightly down) is more efficient during landing and takeoff. Boom is avoiding the concept because it would cost tens of millions to develop and test such a configuration.
- philwelch 3y ago
  Large moving parts on an airframe seem to be avoided in general these days. There’s a similar story with swing wings (which I think Boom also considered before ultimately rejecting).