Thales unveils Avionics 2020, the Cockpit of the Future

[Gessler]

PARIS AIR SHOW --- On the opening day of the Paris Airshow 2013 Thales, world leader in avionics innovation is proud to unveil the cockpit of the future.

Named Avionics 2020, this cockpit is the natural evolution of the cockpit concept for which Thales has become famous, the ODICIS demonstrator. Unveiled at the last Paris airshow, the ODICIS concept illustrated the technologies and innovations Thales imagines will be need on commercial aircraft in the next 20 years. With the groundbreaking Avionics 2020 cockpit, Thales demonstrates to the world, the technologies and concepts manufacturable now and which can be made flight-ready on commercial aircraft in the next 7 years.

Avionics 2020 incarnates a new-generation cockpit founded on the principles of natural and direct hands-on interaction and human-machine interfaces, designed to serve the pilot through the use of the latest head-up and head-down technologies. Its totally scalable model, can also include bi-chromal head-up displays enabling enhanced collimated piloting data organisation and discrimination, associated with a synthetic representation of the outside environment.

Much like its overall avionics, the human-machine interface of Avionics 2020 can connect to core functions supplied by third parties. Furthermore, it can be personalised so as to merge with the cockpit concept as defined by the customer. Personalisation duties can interchangeably be handled by Thales or by the customer, who may wish to retain control over IP aspects and enjoy greater autonomy in the development and management of changes to their solution. The cockpit’s concept introduces a modern and effective cockpit implementation which integrates a large, secure display area associated with several reconfigurable means of control. This user-friendly organisation of the cockpit incorporates multi-touchscreen capabilities, offering pilots an intuitive interaction solution comprising all aircraft systems and functions.

Continuing on from the most important innovations presented on the 2030 concept, Avionics 2020 is centred on enabling pilots to capitalise on their strengths and help them manage their weaknesses. Thales has therefore worked closely for a number of years with researches, scientific institutions and world class experts in the field of human-machine interface, to refine its understanding of this field of development. These efforts, culminated into a cockpit entirely focused on the tasks to be completed by the pilot. It achieves this by merging data from the different avionics and non-avionics systems and present them to the pilot in a transparent manner, making decision instinctive and less reliant on cognitive analysis, thus mimicking the processes which the human brain goes through in order to make a decision, especially under stress.

Perhaps most significantly, this cockpit anticipates the future challenges of the air transport industry, in their continuing efforts to maintain growth trends in air traffic, whilst at the same time reducing carbon emissions, noise pollution and ease congestion in the skies without compromising safety standards. This critical future proofing is accomplished with the integration of SESAR and NextGen capabilities already built into the cockpit so that the pilot can easily and efficiently use the full range of the new functions required by these programmes.

The capabilities built into the cockpit include I4D operations, which consist of giving the pilot a time constraint at metering point to each aircraft converging to this point, in order to better sequence traffic. Furthermore D-Taxi (Digital-Taxi) functionalities will be included in the cockpit. D-Taxi is a real-time uplink of the cleared taxi route via CPDLC (Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications) and representation of the taxi path in the cockpit systems. In addition, ASAS (Airborne Separation Assistance Systems) will also be displayed.

ASAS spacing helps create a regular traffic flow by ensuring an aircraft adjusts its speed so that it can keep its spacing relative to another aircraft, and therefore merges according to the requirement set by the controller. And finally the ground-breaking Thales concept of ECO Take-Off, will be available on the Avionics 2020. ECO Take-Off is an optimised take-off and climb profile in order to define the trade-off between CO2 emissions and noise reductions.

Commenting on this seminal moment for the Thales civil aerospace business, Denis Bonnet, Head of Innovation for the Cockpit Competence Center said: “In this exercise we took a leaf from the Automotive industry. The ever popular ‘concept car’ exercise employed by successful auto makers is an invaluable process, which over the years, has allowed them to find the innovations and new implementations that have given us the most successful car models ever made. By using this same thought process, we designed ODICIS to think of the far future, and used this exercise to give us the inspiration to come up with all the practical applications we are outlining in the 2020 cockpit here at the Paris Air Show".

Outlining his thoughts on the importance for the industry, he added: “This is indeed a seminal moment for us and the industry. We are showing the world that a cockpit designed around more seamless interaction between the pilot and the electronics is no longer a purely intellectual concept, but a viable commercial application which, as more and more functionalities and tasks are added to a pilot’s workload, will become essential for the future of air transport. In that, we can safely say that Thales’s HMI centric concepts such as Avionics 2020 will be new meter of comparison for commercial aviation in the XXI Century. Avionics 2020 is, the cockpit of the future”.

Thales unveils Avionics 2020, the Cockpit of the Future | Thales Group

 

[SQ8]

Not to rain on Thales Parade, but at the end of the day.. this is very doable with today's tech and should technically be the cockpit of today. What is needed is reliability in terms of the touch displays otherwise they are quite capable of replacing all physical buttons within a cockpit.

 

[Jango]

Well a fair few of it is already incorporated in modern jets. A380 is the prime example, 8 MFD's and 2 screens for the laptop/FMS.

All the engine parameters, navigation, attitude indicator, flight markers, everything is displayed on those 8 MFD's, and then the new camera feature.

But this Thales concept is a dream much distant than 2020.

You need a physical indicator in a airplane by law, the flight attitude indicator, airspeed, direction and some other important instruments are a feature of modern glass cockpits as well. As a backup.

Then the numerous switches and all, although they might become less in the future, but you can't transform switches into a touch screen! This way the roof of the cockpit would be a giant screen!

 

[SQ8]

You need a physical indicator in a airplane by law, the flight attitude indicator, airspeed, direction and some other important instruments are a feature of modern glass cockpits as well. As a backup.

Then the numerous switches and all, although they might become less in the future, but you can't transform switches into a touch screen! This way the roof of the cockpit would be a giant screen!

And it probably could be, because most of the systems related switches reside there.
But if you look at the cockpits of two aircraft spaced years apart.. even the number of switches is being reduced since most procedures are now sequenced automatically.

This is the B737-200 overhead panel.

..
has some basic necessities but cluttered all over...in contrast here is the overhead for the 787 and you can see that even though it is a much larger aircraft.. the number of switches has gone down except for those which are absolutely necessary.

Eventually , as LCD's become more reliable so will the replacement of these traditional switches.

 

[Thorough Pro]

I think the only question is how practical a full touch screen cockpit would be for an adrenaline pumped fighter pilot engaged in high G maneuvers.

Physical switches provide some form of safety as the switches need to be flipped intentionally, on the touch screen accidental touch may result in serious problems.

Not to rain on Thales Parade, but at the end of the day.. this is very doable with today's tech and should technically be the cockpit of today. What is needed is reliability in terms of the touch displays otherwise they are quite capable of replacing all physical buttons within a cockpit.

 

[Jango]

And it probably could be, because most of the systems related switches reside there.
But if you look at the cockpits of two aircraft spaced years apart.. even the number of switches is being reduced since most procedures are now sequenced automatically.

This is the B737-200 overhead panel.

has some basic necessities but cluttered all over...in contrast here is the overhead for the 787 and you can see that even though it is a much larger aircraft.. the number of switches has gone down except for those which are absolutely necessary.


Eventually , as LCD's become more reliable so will the replacement of these traditional switches.

As you can clearly see,the biggest difference is that there are no dials on the 787 overhead. They are incorporated in the MFD's.

Secondly, I don't think the replacement of switches depends upon reliability or something of the LCD, rather on the computer power. It was the advances in computer that enabled the Flight engineer to be pulled out. The 787 has less switches because the FMS manages the stuff.

Now a days, the avionics even decide that which warning to show to the pilot and which not!

 

[SQ8]

As you can clearly see,the biggest difference is that there are no dials on the 787 overhead. They are incorporated in the MFD's.

Secondly, I don't think the replacement of switches depends upon reliability or something of the LCD, rather on the computer power. It was the advances in computer that enabled the Flight engineer to be pulled out. The 787 has less switches because the FMS manages the stuff.

Now a days, the avionics even decide that which warning to show to the pilot and which not!

Which is exactly what I am pointing to. As technology gets more and more reliable.. there will be a lesser need for switches in the cockpit.Basically, what the newer switches do is that they start sequences that were needed to be done manually... eventually these switches may themselves be replaced by LCD's that might show all that sequencing and information in one display. There will probably always be switches for systems such as Fire and backup.. just as you will always need an ejection handle

 

[Jango]

Which is exactly what I am pointing to. As technology gets more and more reliable.. there will be a lesser need for switches in the cockpit.Basically, what the newer switches do is that they start sequences that were needed to be done manually... eventually these switches may themselves be replaced by LCD's that might show all that sequencing and information in one display. There will probably always be switches for systems such as Fire and backup.. just as you will always need an ejection handle

So then what's the need for replacing a switch with an LCD? That would even be more maintenance intensive IMO.

If the sequences get done automatically, or anti-ice command is done in another way, or fuel jettison is done in another way, or PA announcement is done in another way, then there won't be a need for the switch or a LCD, that place should be empty. If there would be a lesser need for switches, then you would remove the switch totally, not replace it with an LCD.

Replacing a switch with an LCD doesn't appeal to me, that looks and sounds stupid to me personally.

BTW, why the boing with the ejection handle!? Looks like you are excited!!!

 

[gambit]

If it is about information, then a 'glass' panel is preferable. Take GPS for example. I do not need GPS to fly and even when I do have GPS, it would not matter if changing the GPS modes uses a mechanical switch or a touch gesture. On the other hand, raising/lowering the landing gear is crucial to my taking flight and coming home. I want the hard reassurance of a mechanical handle that actually move things.

 

[SQ8]

@nuclearpak

Apparently they agree with me about the Overhead panel.

 

[Jango]

@nuclearpak

Apparently they agree with me about the Overhead panel.

Definitely innovative...The F-35 and A380 and A350 already incorporate some of the features...but as gambit said, you can't really fill a cockpit completely with the screens. He mentioned the landing gears, same is the case with the flaps, air brakes, reverse thrust etc.

Then the overhead panel was mentioned briefly and the guy said that you can slide the screens like you do in your Iphone...but that seems pretty awkward IMO.

All in all, something might really come out of this, but by 2020...I don't think so. If I was a pilot, this wouldn't be on my favorite cockpits list.

Most importantly, what are the redundancy features? What if your Engine fails and also the APU, or something else happens and your whole cockpit goes black? Right now, you have analogue instruments of important parameters...this cockpit doesn't seem to have them.

 

[imiakhtar]

Right now, you have analogue instruments of important parameters

That's no longer the case. Digital standby instruments have been around for 3-4 years.

http://www.thales.co.uk/Portfolio/Documents/fiche_iesi_en_pdf/

https://www1.online.thalesgroup.com/custom/img/helicopter/IESI.jpg

http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/general/2012/L3-GH-3900-0412a.jpg

Thales, L3, Rockwell Collins, Honeywell to name just a few, have all developed them.

 

[gambit]

Definitely innovative...The F-35 and A380 and A350 already incorporate some of the features...but as gambit said, you can't really fill a cockpit completely with the screens. He mentioned the landing gears, same is the case with the flaps, air brakes, reverse thrust etc.

Then the overhead panel was mentioned briefly and the guy said that you can slide the screens like you do in your Iphone...but that seems pretty awkward IMO.

All in all, something might really come out of this, but by 2020...I don't think so. If I was a pilot, this wouldn't be on my favorite cockpits list.

Most importantly, what are the redundancy features? What if your Engine fails and also the APU, or something else happens and your whole cockpit goes black? Right now, you have analogue instruments of important parameters...this cockpit doesn't seem to have them.

Instrument engineering and cockpit engineering are not the same, although they may work very closely together in giving us a functional and safe aircraft.

Flight Instruments

Take a look at the most basics of flight instruments in the above source. If we want any more coarse, we will need to resort to simple exposed vanes and dials. But coarseness is exactly the problem with instrument engineering as aircraft performance increases.

Look at precision is this way:

.01 .001 .0001 .00001 volts.

10 20 30 40 50 60 teeth for a 3 in diameter gear.

The finer (higher) the count of teeth in the gear, the less it move and therefore the more precise whatever indicator it is tasked to do, similar to going from .01 to .001 volt. But there is a physical limit on how many teeth we can put on a finite diameter, else the teeth would be too fine to withstand the physical stresses of forces acting upon them and will be rapidly at that. The internal views of the most basic of mechanical flight instruments in the above source is illustrative of this limit. Plus there is the weight penalty. The larger the mechanical components in order to have more precise the mechanical indicators, the larger the instruments, and therefore the heavier the instruments. The upside to mechanical instruments is reliability, meaning it will take a lot physical punishments in order to render it inoperable. That is inoperable, not imprecise. In other words, it is better to be imprecise than inoperable.

Pilots as a whole and more so than 'regular' folks do not like to put all their trusts in any single source of information. They want more precise indication of flight data, especially if the speed is Mach, altitude is in the 5 digits range, roll rate is vomit inducing, etc. They realize that voltage ranges are preferable over the number of teeth on a gear. However, the major difference between mechanical instruments and digital instruments is the number of processing layers of inputs before the information is displayed. With digital instruments, the number one requirement is: electricity. Of course. For mechanical instruments, electricity is used for lighting purposes. As long as the mechanical components are under physical pressure, pitot or static, they will move. With digital instruments, without electricity, they will be inoperable. Worse than imprecise. Other layers of data processing are resistors, capacitors, chips, conductor board tracings, etc. Each layer lies a potential for contributing to imprecision. That is why digital instruments costs more than all mechanical instruments -- manufacturing integrity.

Because pilots prefers to spread out their trusts, in a manner of speaking, over a range of data displays, mechanical instruments have always had a place in the cockpit. More sophisticated mechanical components -- yes. But mechanical and therefore less precise than digital versions nevertheless. What a pilot will do is occasionally compares the fine data against the coarse and make sure that despite the less precise mechanically sourced data, as long as both indicators are within a known good range, he is assured that his aircraft is giving him the flight conditions he needs.

Ultimately, the final source is the outside world. If the pitot tube is suddenly blocked in flight, both data indicators, digital and mechanical, will indicate that absence. Here is the crucial difference that non-pilots and non-avionics people often do not understand: in instrumentation engineering, a zero (0) is not always a failure. Zero airspeed is not the same as failure to indicate airspeed. That failure could come from a true mechanical breakdown of the bellows, or a gear out of place, or a capacitor overheated and leaked. And if the aircraft is just sitting on the flightline, airspeed must be zero. So if the pilot suddenly received from both coarse and fine indicators that he has zero airspeed and altitude, he is assured that the absence of these flight data came from a more systemic source -- wholesale and not retail. On the other hand, if fine instrument indicate the aircraft is 300 kts but coarse shows 200 kts, it now falls back on his understanding of his aircraft. If he know his aircraft is equipped with less than desirable mechanical instruments, at least now he has a margin of error he is comfortable with before declaring an in-flight emergency (IFE).

Some flight data have completely independent sources: attitude. The digital attitude indicator in the form of a nice LCD with an electronically drawn horizon and symbolic aircraft will have its own gyro and that component may be in an avionics bay. The back up attitude indicator (ADI) will have its own self contained gyro inside the instrument itself. The aircraft is the wholesale data source in its maneuvers. The instruments are (discrete) retail components. As the pilot is in control of the aircraft's attitude, if there is any discrepancy between fine and coarse attitude indicators, the pilot will be able to dismiss the wholesale source as cause of the discrepancy.

This is just touching the surface of the complexity of instrumentation engineering, cockpit engineering, and the integration of both. Not even counting in ergonomics. Look at it this way, professionals and even amateurs can still fall back on map and compass should their sophisticated GPS-assisted INS failed. I do not see pilots willing to give up redundancies and mechanical instruments in my lifetime.

 

[That Guy]

Holy poop, that looks cool O.O

 

[Cat12345]

That's a pretty new/nice cockpit. Now following up to the future of new cockpits already, what about the future of the airliner airframe? There has to be a new airframe fitting the next gen cockpit.

But like the cockpit, now a iPad touch cockpit/avionics.