

UK developer working on replacing heavy aircraft windows with smartscreen panels - denzil_correa
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/26/innovations-windowless-plane?CMP=twt_gu

======
DigitalSea
Seems to me a saving of 0.75% in fuel is hardly worth striking fear into the
hearts of nervous travellers like me. I am nervous enough as it is. At least
currently I can choose not to look out the window, but being in a plane that
uses HD panels that look like you can see through the plane will cause me to
have a panic attack.

Somewhat cool idea, but I can not see this ever being a thing on this scale.
Panels will introduce new challenges like providing adequate power and what
about the cost of replacing them? How often do airplane windows need to be
replaced in comparison to an OLED screen?

And then there are the security implications. Have you ever wondered why you
are asked to raise the window shade for takeoff and landing? It is part
procedure and part security. It allows on the ground personnel to assess a
dangerous situation or see into the plane for other reasons.

My hands are sweating just thinking about it.

~~~
nether
>My hands are sweating just thinking about it.

You have a phobia of flying. The solution isn't aircraft manufacturers
accommodating that, but you seeking the right mental health services to treat
your mental illness.

~~~
DigitalSea
I have a phobia of flying, but I do not have a mental illness. That is a
little rough. The rudeness was uncalled for there, Nether. Please be a bit
more respectful next time, thanks.

In-fact, I am currently in Seattle and travelled from Australia, 13 hours on a
plane to LA and then 2.5 hours on a plane from LA to Seattle (with rough
turbulence).

A few months ago I travelled from Australia to San Francisco on a 13.5 hour
plane ride, on the way back it was close to 15 hours.

Last Christmas I took about 9 plane rides, connecting flights and a couple
long distance flights. Australia to South Korea, South Korea to London, London
to Paris, Paris to Rome, Rome to Poland, Poland to Germany , Germany back to
London and then London back to South Korea, and South Korea back to Australia.

The reason I can fly even though I have a fear of flying is because I can
choose to not see outside. A plane of panelled walls that makes it appear see
through would not only freak me out, but what about others with actual mental
illnesses? I think it is a foolish idea. I know people who are not afraid of
flying who would be freaked out by this.

------
brc
I love staring out plane windows. On a flight over interesting areas, I can
spend a lot of time watching the ground scroll past. I love watching sunrises
and sunsets, and observing different cloud patterns. Anything that reduced
that experience would be bad, if you ask me.

Plus, as has already been mentioned, they are an important security measure
for passenger flights, especially in emergency situations. That's why they ask
you to lift the blinds for takeoff/landing. Fire crews are able to see inside
the plane and look for smoke/flames/trapped people.

------
Ankaios
I wonder if they even tested it out at small scale yet. Screens will give the
wrong parallax–it won't look like the view out a window. (It might be fine for
a view displayed on a distant forward bulkhead or maybe even on seat backs,
but the large views on walls they portrayed would look quite odd.)

Also, even if they got it to work decently, I wonder how long it would take
for the screens to be covered by ads or sitcom reruns.

------
weego
I appreciate that it's an artists impression and thus over-selling the
possible reality, but I can't help but imagine most people, myself included,
would not feel very comfortable flying in something that, from the inside,
barely felt like it had any kind of solid structure.

People have an expectation of a certain robustness around them, and I don't
believe it would be easily overcome.

~~~
Sharlin
Without some currently-nonexisting 3D technology, a 2D display trivially can't
give you a view remotely similar to what a window offers, so you'd just see a
flat wall with pixels in it.

~~~
JamesArgo
With head tracking it can look quite good. Though that only works for one
person.

------
femto
Who gets to control the "window"?

Digitised systems are amenable to networking, which increases the number of
options for who or what controls them. The answer is increasingly "not the
user", or a gilded cage which gives the impression of user control.

As it is, a manual window provides the passenger with some control of their
environment. If the airline seizes control of the window, won't this feed into
a feeling of lack of control and increased anxiety in passengers?

~~~
saryant
> As it is, a manual window provides the passenger with some control of their
> environment. If the airline seizes control of the window, won't this feed
> into a feeling of lack of control and increased anxiety in passengers?

The 787 already allows this. Flight attendants can change the window "shades"
of the entire plane from a single control.

------
smiler
Considering that people like to sleep on planes and the flight attendants /
cabin crew will get people to close the blinds / dim the cabin lights as
quickly as they can, this will never take off.

------
hereonbusiness
A big problem with OLED displays is the lifespan of the blue leds that are
used (~10k hours to half brightness). When you're in the skies there's a lot
of blue you need to show.

------
nnain
But this is not a new news! I've been hearing about such 'concept' ideas by
aircraft manufacturers for months, if not for years now.

What I take issue with is the wording of the sub-heading of this story, "UK
developer working on replacing heavy aircraft windows with uber-light
smartscreen panels to cut fuel consumption and slash air fares".

How is the inception of this idea related to some artist/developer sitting in
UK? With all due credit to the UK peoples for contribution to the field of
engineering, this sub-heading is a mis-representation of facts and it seems
like theguardian is simply trying to push some sort of agenda to the rest of
the world.

~~~
billforsternz
It's not at all clear to me what your objection is. You don't like that the
developer is in the UK ? Doesn't seem very rational. You think there are lots
of development teams working on this, not just one in the UK ? Okay but the
article is about the one in the UK.

~~~
nnain
The article tends to suggest as if some uber-cool team mentioned in this
article came up with this idea; while that is clearly not the case. It's media
coverage for some random company without any attempt to identify who started
this first.

~~~
billforsternz
Thanks, makes more sense now.

------
joosters
Just wait until you're sitting on a ten hour flight next to one of those
screens. How many hours of advertising do you reckon it'll broadcast to you?

~~~
drhodes
btw, adblocker-AR for the occulus reality browser blocks those.

------
stavrianos
Why do we need the screens? If window weight is a problem, why not just remove
them and be done.

~~~
rogerbinns
Note that windows do serve an important safety function in the event of a
crash. They allow assessing the conditions outside before opening doors, for
example so that passengers don't try to evacuate into a fire. They also allow
light inside, which is another reason why window shades are required to be up
during takeoff and landing.

Stats including phase of flight
[http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm](http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm)

------
Htsthbjig
They should add an app for tablets and mobile phones to watch multiple cameras
from outside.

~~~
noir_lord
Occulus Rift slaved to multiple camera's would make the entire plane "vanish"
(much like current military systems allow pilots to look "through" the plane).

Now _that_ I would pay for :)

------
billforsternz
All of the top level comments in this thread dismiss this (intriguing) idea.
What is it about the hacker community that makes us so quick to find fault
with new ideas? My guess: We are people who are struggling with difficult
problems all day, so the first thing we do is spot potential problems.

~~~
colechristensen
It is, plainly, a fairly stupid gimmick.

Hackers, engineers, and those of like mind should (and do) think about things
honestly, not positively. Nearly every breakthrough you read about in the news
is simply bunk.

If you didn't have this attitude, you'd be fairly disappointed because dozens
of times every year cancer is cured, batteries increase capacity by 50%, cheap
fusion is almost here, somebody's figured out a free-energy machine... on and
on and on.

The world is full of scams, gimmicks, and overexcited news outlets (and self
promoting individuals) touting breakthroughs in every field. If you get
excited about each one you start to look foolish really quickly.

Some truly exciting things _do_ happen from time to time, but we're
pessimistic (nay, realistic) about so many things because that's just how the
world is.

~~~
billforsternz
I agree that healthy skepticism is sensible, but it's easy to let that drift
into a "things are going to stay pretty much as they are" bias. Things aren't,
not in the medium to long term. Yet I perceive evidence of that bias on Hacker
News.

In this particular case, I'd judge some disruption in this area is at least
plausible. Adding windows is really difficult from a material science
perspective, it creates structural weaknesses that must be compensated for,
and making sure those windows never blow out to some 9 sigma safety threshold
must be a nightmare. In short the windows impose enormous complications and
costs. Last week I flew in an Emirates A380, equipped with a variety of
outboard cameras. I got by far the most interesting and beautiful views I've
ever seen from an airliner, via both a big screen and the seatback screen. Not
by peering out a tiny, awkwardly angled window. It's not implausible to me
that this might signal a possible trend for future development.

