Airbus pic

Nice panoramic, but it looks a bit drab for megaplane of 21st century, don't you think?. At first I couldn't believe it was inside of A380.

Most low-end BMW's look better than this!

Very suprised.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Not enough cupholders.

John

I see two each for pilot and copilot, and 4, maybe 5 for the network admin

M

On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:41:52 +0100) it happened Martin Griffith wrote in :

It is still a bit primitive, I'd ask for full voice control: 'Computer fly me to LA'.

That will save on pilot salaries too, cabin crew can do it.

I was thinking the same, and what about those two dome things by the engine throttles, shouldn't they be pink?

martin

Two on each side is 'not enough' ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |

| 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

Options..

A380: 251,600,000 EUR Cupholders: 45 EUR Floor mats 275 EUR Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it\'s the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Either that or glow-in-the-dark.

The entire Airbus Engineering Team should watch that new show, Pimp My Airliner.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

th

The pilots in rec.aviation.piloting would scream if they saw that. There is apparently signifcant resistance against-fly-by-wire.

I recently started to get my private pilot's license and I have learned two things:

(1) Most pilots, and even many aero/astro engineers, do not really understand why planes fly.

See

1. If you mention anything about computers being able to overtake some of the critical functions, they start to wail (like flying pigs, heh).

There is *enormous* opportunity for improvement for the control functions of an aircraft using lightweight materials, computers, and tons of commoditized electronics. But it's going to take a revolution to get these changes into general aviation.

What's ironic is that the FAA, from what little I have seen, seem to be the most open-minded of all involved, and actually *want* technological improvments in GA.

The pilots OTOH, the ones who go out and pay $3800 for something that could be made for $100, are the ones who are most resistant. As far as the cost, they claim that number of units is so low, that the cost has to be high to make the endeavor worthwhile, not considering that the average sane-engineer-would-be-pilot might be put off by the price to start with, thus influencing # of units.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Wow, need to learn how to fly right and left handed.

On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:09:48 -0800 (PST)) it happened Le Chaud Lapin wrote in :

Yes, right, when I looked at that cockpit, it was as, very deliberately, a border line was drawn, like 'No machines beyond this point'. We have seen autonomous cars in real traffic in the recent DARPA race, and, although passengers may want a pilot perhaps, I wonder if there would be less accidents with 100% computer flight control. Sure I know cases where where the pilot saved the plane, like for example that guy who glided to some old airstrip when he ran out of fuel, but the reason he ran out of fuel was that he had no working fuel meters, and took of anyway. Many accidents can be assigned to 'daring' behaviour, and those that resulted in a crash due to sudden decompression would 4 sure have been avoided. It would make sense in my view to evaluate the accidents of the past, and see if computer control would, and could, have avoided those. Drunk pilots, sleep starved pilots, the guy who switched off the engines after takeoff, suicide pilots, we have read about it all. Of course flying is cool, nice experience, and many will object to a machine taking over the job, but hey, manual coffee machines MAY taste better, but there is now only a limited amount of users of those left :-)

No ,three options exist..... if you drive on the left (UK), you sit in the left seat........ if you drive on the right( EU/USA), you sit in the right seat. Third option is you sit on each others lap. Is that what is meant by Tri-state?

if

For a pilot's perspective see this article:

Disclaimer: I drove submarines, not those scary things up in the air, but I do enjoy his weekly column.

--
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

if

Yep, thats all I read in the salon, good stuff

martin

I ordered mine with the alloy wheels and the sunroof.

John

Wow, talk about a glass cockpit! I do note that in the captains position once can cleary see the cup holders.

And I note navigation is pretyt much a laptop computer. I hope they dont' run Windows for any of that.

ud

iffi=3D

a

d,

that

on

yway.

lted in

see if

after takeoff,

ine

t there

Actually computers are on board. After all, what precisely does one=20 think an auto-pilot really is but a device that keeps the aircraft on =20 set heading, altitude and speed. They just like to give computers fancy=20 names and acronyms.=20

If you looked at that cockpit you noticed the RADAR screen. I'd make a=20 guess here that the RADAR is tied into the auto-pilot system and that=20 the auto-pilot now has some collision avoidance capabilities.=20

And it used to be that auto-pilot was only used for cruising, not take=20 off or landing. If you look at the recent case of engine failure, the=20 auto-pilot was doing the landing sequence when it called for more thrust=20 and didn't get it.=20

ILS pretty much tells the aircraft how far out it is, what it's=20 glidepath is, and if it is centered on the runway. This is incresingly=20 tied into auto-pilot systems.=20

The key difference I see is that in the recent crash, if the aircraft=20 were flying itself it would have kept requesting more thrust but not=20 known what to do if it didn't get that thrust. The pilot did know what=20 he had to do to minimize the impact of the crash.=20

Not to say that you couldn't teach an auto-pilot to glide the aircraft=20 in too.=20

see if

Oh yeah, nothing a pressure breach and being crushed to death by water.

d ,

that

n

way.

ted in

see if

fter takeoff,

ne

there

-

All true.

There is a popular video of an Airbus A320 crashing, supposedly flown entirely by computer:

First of all, "entirely by computer" is a bit suspect. There are just too many parameters that are incorrect during approach for the pilots to just sit there and let the plane crash.

Anyhow, many pilots are quick to remark:

"See!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See what happens when you let a computer do the work????!!!!"

They forget that it not the computers fault.

Some human told the computer to do what it did. They should be happy that the computer did not embellish when it "knew" that the plane was going to crash.

-Le Chaud Lapin-