Despite being standard equipment on fighters and some military transport aircraft since the 1970s, they seem to only have become standard in airline flying by 787/A350 generation(one exception is the 737NG, though HUD adoption in that wasn't very widespread).

No operational or cost advantage. If it doesn’t add value or reduce costs, airlines don’t buy it. HUD allowed CAT III Ops, so AK bought it. Everyone else used conventional autoland.

HUDs have been available on commercial airliners for at least 15-20 years, but they brought little benefit in terms of performance and/or Airplane capabilities, at a significant cost - therefore hardly any airlines elected to fit them, as their price just wasn’t justified.

The 787 is a game changer, as this is the only airliner where the HUD is a standard fit and is fully integrated into the cockpit. You can’t buy a 787 without one (two, actually).

On the A350, the HUD is an option and from what I see not many airlines buy it.

For a business jet going into smaller airports with less than ideal infrastructure, a HUD with synthetic vision adds a lot of value. For an airliner, not as much. Mostly useful in low vis, but as GalaxyFlyer says, autoland is a thing.

As the price for a HUD and synthetic vision reduces, of course, the equation will change.

P.S. as my Boeing instructor put it on the beginning of the 787 type rating training: “by the end of this course, you will have become a HUD whore”

I have. it’s an amazing piece of kit, I think it will be increasingly popular - though military aviation is again one step ahead with their magic helmet displays. I hope this eventually trickles down to commercial airliners too.

Pilots don't want to wear headsets, so I dont think many pilots would want to wear a helmet in-flight to get those magic helmet displays.

thepinkmachine wrote:

On the A350, the HUD is an option and from what I see not many airlines buy it.

I think it’s standard to be fitted on the A350, pretty sure we looked at not getting them and it was a higher cost because that configuration is non standard.

Only carroer i can think diesnt have them installed is Air Caraibes

They maybe standard also on the A220 and some Ejets.

Woodreau wrote:

Pilots don't want to wear headsets, so I dont think many pilots would want to wear a helmet in-flight to get those magic helmet displays.

Perhaps not a helmet, but some sort of glasses would be pretty easy to implement...

zeke wrote:

I think it’s standard to be fitted on the A350, pretty sure we looked at not getting them and it was a higher cost because that configuration is non standard.

Only carroer i can think diesnt have them installed is Air Caraibes

They maybe standard also on the A220 and some Ejets.

I’m pretty sure CI don’t have the HUD fitted in their A350, as well as SAS and FI. I think I’ve seen LH cockpit videos without it as well. QR do have the HUD, but reportedly disabled them, after a couple of hard landings... At least that’s what my buddy flying there told me.

BA reportedly wanted to order their 787’s without the HUD, but was told ‘no’ by Boeing...

thepinkmachine wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

Pilots don't want to wear headsets, so I dont think many pilots would want to wear a helmet in-flight to get those magic helmet displays.

Perhaps not a helmet, but some sort of glasses would be pretty easy to implement...

zeke wrote:

I think it’s standard to be fitted on the A350, pretty sure we looked at not getting them and it was a higher cost because that configuration is non standard.

Only carroer i can think diesnt have them installed is Air Caraibes

They maybe standard also on the A220 and some Ejets.

I’m pretty sure CI don’t have the HUD fitted in their A350, as well as SAS and FI. I think I’ve seen LH cockpit videos without it as well. QR do have the HUD, but reportedly disabled them, after a couple of hard landings... At least that’s what my buddy flying there told me.

BA reportedly wanted to order their 787’s without the HUD, but was told ‘no’ by Boeing...

Does take some learning and experience with it.

Why wouldn't you just use autoland? Sounds like HUD could encourage a pilot to take unnecessary risks. That's acceptable for fighter aircraft but not civilian. Especially in unforgiving terrain like Alaska.

Because manual CAT III using a HUD is less expensive. A HUD is a safety improvement once learned, especially on night visual landings, landings where touching down precisely is important and where judging precise flight path in needed.

For those not old enough to remember, the Dassault Mercure had a HUD (captain's seat). And this was in the 70s!!! Air Inter, who pioneered cat III / autoland in the late 60s, got converted to the HUD when available and ordered them for their A320 (1988) and A330 (1994).

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

Pilots don't want to wear headsets, so I dont think many pilots would want to wear a helmet in-flight to get those magic helmet displays.

Perhaps not a helmet, but some sort of glasses would be pretty easy to implement...

zeke wrote:

I think it’s standard to be fitted on the A350, pretty sure we looked at not getting them and it was a higher cost because that configuration is non standard.

Only carroer i can think diesnt have them installed is Air Caraibes

They maybe standard also on the A220 and some Ejets.

I’m pretty sure CI don’t have the HUD fitted in their A350, as well as SAS and FI. I think I’ve seen LH cockpit videos without it as well. QR do have the HUD, but reportedly disabled them, after a couple of hard landings... At least that’s what my buddy flying there told me.

BA reportedly wanted to order their 787’s without the HUD, but was told ‘no’ by Boeing...

Does take some learning and experience with it.

My first landing with the HUD (in the sim) shook the simulator building.

Heard from the instructor, "Don't worry. You're not the first guy on course to pancake this thing..."

The tricky part is that the HUD draws your attention and you forget to look through it to the end of the runway, and so you can't gauge the flare. Once you learn to look through the HUD, it's all good. Initially the A350 HUD was also too bright at night even on minimum setting. This was modded by Airbus so now you can get it properly dim.


Looking at this YouTube clip, it does indeed look like SAS does not have the HUD. https://youtu.be/QLq0wUqJHA4

zeke wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

On the A350, the HUD is an option and from what I see not many airlines buy it.

I think it’s standard to be fitted on the A350, pretty sure we looked at not getting them and it was a higher cost because that configuration is non standard.

Only carroer i can think diesnt have them installed is Air Caraibes

It is an chargeable option and its not cheap at all. AFs A350s have it installed and i think they are the only operator in europe using it in their SOP. They had it on the A380 as well.
Most of the chinese airlines have it installed, because of the upcoming mandate. Ethiopian as well. If you use it more than once a year it has lots of awareness benefits to the pilot. Until SVS will be available there is not much benefit for the company and they dont like to pay just for a pilot toy. So not very popular for the beancounters.

What i heard is that LH wanted have it deinstalled in their upcoming 787 deliveries and 777X as well. Dont know if it worked out for them.

Is it standard on the 777X? I could imagine. I think its going to be standard for new developed commercial aircraft in the future.

Agent wrote:

What i heard is that LH wanted have it deinstalled in their upcoming 787 deliveries and 777X as well. Dont know if it worked out for them.

Is it standard on the 777X? I could imagine. I think its going to be standard for new developed commercial aircraft in the future.

As far as I know, the HUD is optional on the 777X. That’s quite surprising, considering that the 777X cockpit is almost identical to the 787.

I guess though, that Boeing gave in to customers’ requests, as most don’t want to pay extra for the HUD. I also suspect it might have to do with fleet commonality with the classic 777

ITMercure wrote:

For those not old enough to remember, the Dassault Mercure had a HUD (captain's seat). And this was in the 70s!!! Air Inter, who pioneered cat III / autoland in the late 60s, got converted to the HUD when available and ordered them for their A320 (1988) and A330 (1994).

Indeed!...credit where credit is due...


Faro

thepinkmachine wrote:

Agent wrote:

What i heard is that LH wanted have it deinstalled in their upcoming 787 deliveries and 777X as well. Dont know if it worked out for them.

Is it standard on the 777X? I could imagine. I think its going to be standard for new developed commercial aircraft in the future.

As far as I know, the HUD is optional on the 777X. That’s quite surprising, considering that the 777X cockpit is almost identical to the 787.

I guess though, that Boeing gave in to customers’ requests, as most don’t want to pay extra for the HUD. I also suspect it might have to do with fleet commonality with the classic 777

Is the 787 the first airliner to have a HUD for both captain and FO?

zeke wrote:

They maybe standard also on the A220 and some Ejets.

No, its an option on the A220. DL and B6 are not having the HUD's fitted which is interesting considering B6 has dual HUD's on the E190's.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Is the 787 the first airliner to have a HUD for both captain and FO?

The large ERJ's, 170, 175, 190 etc have dual HUD's.

I know with QX, the Q400 does not have an autoland, so they have HUDs equipped for the Captain to allow CAT III ops. Their E175s are CAT III autoland equipped, and aren't equipped with HUDs.

Been a staple in the military aircraft and trainers for many many years. The transition to introducing the tech to civil use is predominantly cost related vs number of users that are willing to pay for the option so that costs can be recovered.

zeke wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

On the A350, the HUD is an option and from what I see not many airlines buy it.

I think it’s standard to be fitted on the A350, pretty sure we looked at not getting them and it was a higher cost because that configuration is non standard.

Only carroer i can think diesnt have them installed is Air Caraibes

They maybe standard also on the A220 and some Ejets.

None of the four SAA A350's (2x Hainan spec & 2x Air Mauritius spec) had HUD.

Why pay extra to install a HUD so the pilots can handfly almost as precisely as the autopilot does for free?

The boffins at Boeing figured that the presence and use of a HUD on the global 787 fleet would prevent at least 1 frame loss over the type's service and therefore would pay for itself.

SteelChair wrote:

Why pay extra to install a HUD so the pilots can handfly almost as precisely as the autopilot does for free?

The 737ng autoland was relatively poor in the first few years of service and took a lot of refining from what I was told. Not sure if that was still the case when Alaska ordered theirs.

With a HUD, the hand-flying pilot can easily fly as or more precisely as the autopilot. It’s an order of magnitude more precise than heads down. And, it simplifies visual flight, makes night visual “dark hole” approaches a piece of cake, and the transition from cloud to visual reference automatic. Much safer.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

With a HUD, the hand-flying pilot can easily fly as or more precisely as the autopilot. It’s an order of magnitude more precise than heads down. And, it simplifies visual flight, makes night visual “dark hole” approaches a piece of cake, and the transition from cloud to visual reference automatic. Much safer.

What makes a HUD much more effective to hand-fly than a flight director on a PFD? Sure, it's projected onto the cockpit window so you can also see the outside while following it, but does it matter in CATIII conditions, since you won't be seeing anything either way?

Trimeresurus wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

With a HUD, the hand-flying pilot can easily fly as or more precisely as the autopilot. It’s an order of magnitude more precise than heads down. And, it simplifies visual flight, makes night visual “dark hole” approaches a piece of cake, and the transition from cloud to visual reference automatic. Much safer.

What makes a HUD much more effective to hand-fly than a flight director on a PFD? Sure, it's projected onto the cockpit window so you can also see the outside while following it, but does it matter in CATIII conditions, since you won't be seeing anything either way?

It will matter in low visibility since you can handfly the approach instead of having to use autoland.

With autoland in low viz, the airport needs to go to low visibility procedures, meaning protecting the beam, increased separation and so on. This means everything slows down.

Trimeresurus wrote:

What makes a HUD much more effective to hand-fly than a flight director on a PFD? Sure, it's projected onto the cockpit window so you can also see the outside while following it, but does it matter in CATIII conditions, since you won't be seeing anything either way?

Some airports also publish lower minima for aircraft equipped with huds.

Trimeresurus wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

With a HUD, the hand-flying pilot can easily fly as or more precisely as the autopilot. It’s an order of magnitude more precise than heads down. And, it simplifies visual flight, makes night visual “dark hole” approaches a piece of cake, and the transition from cloud to visual reference automatic. Much safer.

What makes a HUD much more effective to hand-fly than a flight director on a PFD? Sure, it's projected onto the cockpit window so you can also see the outside while following it, but does it matter in CATIII conditions, since you won't be seeing anything either way?

For night visuals, there’s a 3* flight path line, put that on the touchdown point, maneuver the plane to put the FOV on the line AND on the runway, you’re on a perfect glide path without any ILS or LPV. Less interpretation of the PFD and it’s all projected on the earth. It’s not on the windscreen, it’s projected on the combiner glass. For low viz, there’s no heads down to heads up transition.

SteelChair wrote:

Why pay extra to install a HUD so the pilots can handfly almost as precisely as the autopilot does for free?

A good hand flown approach will be more precise than an autopilot approach. A good hand flown landing will always be better than an autoland. There's a reason HUD flown approaches have become the norm in the US.

Although Alaska frequently gets the credit, it was Morris Air who had the first HUDs installed and it was in 1995 on a 737-300. Two years before the NGs were even delivered. I've been flying with the HUD since 1995 and to be honest, I'm not a fan. They're awesome for what they're designed for (low vis), beyond that I find it a total distraction. In all those years, I've only actually needed the HUD once or twice.

http://www.b737.org.uk/headupdisplay.htm

Funny, I’ve flown them since 2005 and used them every flight and, once trained, hardly ever looked down. They’re perfect for hand flying, make visual approaches especially without electronic or visual aids, a cinch.

thepinkmachine wrote:

P.S. as my Boeing instructor put it on the beginning of the 787 type rating training: “by the end of this course, you will have become a HUD whore”

We call them HUD cripples. But I like your description better and I fully plan to steal it for my own amusement.

bradyj23 wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

P.S. as my Boeing instructor put it on the beginning of the 787 type rating training: “by the end of this course, you will have become a HUD whore”

We call them HUD cripples. But I like your description better and I fully plan to steal it for my own amusement.

I've actually seen guys go into a full on panic when I tell them the HUD is MEL'd. Not good.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Funny, I’ve flown them since 2005 and used them every flight and, once trained, hardly ever looked down. They’re perfect for hand flying, make visual approaches especially without electronic or visual aids, a cinch.

I totally get I'm in the minority. I find the display completely wipes out my depth perception and becomes a brain drain as I focus on the dancing lights to the exclusion of everything else.

barney captain wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Funny, I’ve flown them since 2005 and used them every flight and, once trained, hardly ever looked down. They’re perfect for hand flying, make visual approaches especially without electronic or visual aids, a cinch.

I totally get I'm in the minority. I find the display completely wipes out my depth perception and becomes a brain drain as I focus on the dancing lights to the exclusion of everything else.

You've probably been told this already, but try setting the brightness to the lowest level where you can still see the dancing lights. It helps if the HUD does not wash out the real world. Also, it takes a while to get used to looking "through" it and focusing on the aimpoint or the end of the runway instead of the HUD.

Starlionblue wrote:

barney captain wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Funny, I’ve flown them since 2005 and used them every flight and, once trained, hardly ever looked down. They’re perfect for hand flying, make visual approaches especially without electronic or visual aids, a cinch.

I totally get I'm in the minority. I find the display completely wipes out my depth perception and becomes a brain drain as I focus on the dancing lights to the exclusion of everything else.

You've probably been told this already, but try setting the brightness to the lowest level where you can still see the dancing lights. It helps if the HUD does not wash out the real world. Also, it takes a while to get used to looking "through" it and focusing on the aimpoint or the end of the runway instead of the HUD.

True, it must become part of normal Ops, not just for low viz approaches.

Having never even looked through a real HUD before, and twenty some thousand hours of looking down, it was a pretty steep learning curve for me.

One of our instructors, that's forgotten more about the 737 HUD than I'll ever know said Boeing once stated it takes 500 hours of actually using it, for someone to be really comfortable and proficient with it.

At my shop, we are required to use it (if it's operational) during every takeoff and landing, for tail strike protection. I tend to use it all the time below 10, and often will hand fly to altitude using the HUD. Absolutely love it for visual approaches. I do wish we had EVS to go with it though.

In my 31 years of airline flying I have yet to do an actual CAT III approach to minimums, on any airframe.

EVS with HUD is spectacular. 3am, DEL is reporting something like 500m in smoke and haze—8 miles out, “EVS Visual, runway in sight”. Wet snow,not so much. Those night- time buildups that don’t show on radar—show up great on EVS. Question whether you’ll top that storm, HUD makes it clear you will or you won’t.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No operational or cost advantage. If it doesn’t add value or reduce costs, airlines don’t buy it. HUD allowed CAT III Ops, so AK bought it. Everyone else used conventional autoland.

Exactly - it's a cost vs. value decision.

I remember deadheading from PHX to IAH one morning and IAH was below CAT I minimums, but this was no problem as we (CO) had Cat II and Cat III approval. Such approval and expense (lots of training involved and that had to be repeated annually) wasn't seen as necessessary by HP then. So there were dozens of angry HP passengers who wanted on the CO flights; a few saw my CO badge and asked me how or why we could go, but HP could not. Our loads went from 80-90% to full and I remember a CSA asking me if I'd take the jumpseat to free up another seat in the cabin.

So CO thought it was a good investment; HP did not.

Chaostheory wrote:

The boffins at Boeing figured that the presence and use of a HUD on the global 787 fleet would prevent at least 1 frame loss over the type's service and therefore would pay for itself.

SteelChair wrote:

Why pay extra to install a HUD so the pilots can handfly almost as precisely as the autopilot does for free?

The 737ng autoland was relatively poor in the first few years of service and took a lot of refining from what I was told. Not sure if that was still the case when Alaska ordered theirs.

Having flown the 737NGs from the early NG era, I don't remember any issue with the autoland feature on the NGs. That was a time when I did 5 autolands in 6 weeks - all came at the end of domestic red-eye flights and in below CAT I minimums.

Eastern v. Delta in the old days had similar rivalry. We had autoland on our 727-200A models and they’re be times KATL was CAT III wand we’d be getting in and DL diverting. Long time ago.

TTailedTiger wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

Agent wrote:

What i heard is that LH wanted have it deinstalled in their upcoming 787 deliveries and 777X as well. Dont know if it worked out for them.

Is it standard on the 777X? I could imagine. I think its going to be standard for new developed commercial aircraft in the future.

As far as I know, the HUD is optional on the 777X. That’s quite surprising, considering that the 777X cockpit is almost identical to the 787.

I guess though, that Boeing gave in to customers’ requests, as most don’t want to pay extra for the HUD. I also suspect it might have to do with fleet commonality with the classic 777

Is the 787 the first airliner to have a HUD for both captain and FO?

No, the Dassault Mercure had them as standard both sides.

edina wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

No, the Dassault Mercure had them as standard both sides.

Interesting, and supports my claim that while the HUD can an effective tool, it can also be a hinderance. Having a bunch of "stuff" in your field of view at the wrong time can absolutely be a bad thing.

In refrence to FlyDubai 981 -

While a main advantage of a HUD is the ability to observe the outside environment while being able to monitor primary flight parameters, under some circumstances, such as a night or IMC go-around or upset, seeing outside is not of value. If the HUD brightness is high or the pilot is overly focused on clouds and fog outside the airplane, he may become disoriented. A second concern is how well the pilot maintains his head posture relative to the HUD. In extreme conditions, such as turbulence or negative G, a portion of the HUD picture may go out of the pilot’s vision field. A third concern is whether the pilot is able to recognize the HUD depiction when in an extreme nose-down attitude.

Further -

While investigators could not unequivocally determine that the HUD contributed to the pilot’s disorientation, they felt there was enough concern that further testing of the HUD during different segments of flight should be done.

https://aviationweek.com/business-aviat ... erformance

Considering the number of HUD installations in transport aircraft and its universal use in tactical aircraft, I don’t see the hindrance of the HUD. Not familiar with the B737 HUD, but I do have lots of time using R-C HUDs and the HUD symbology is identical to the conventional PFD and transitioning back and forth is seamless.

By happenstance, I spoke with a WN captain at funeral yesterday and has thousands hours of time in 737 and wouldn’t be without the HUD. In my experience, it makes low visibility approaches much easier, unusual attitudes are easier, too, but you need to use the HUD all the time. It can’t be used just sometimes. I have about 2,500 in the Global with both the Thales and R-C HUDs, it was always “down” and my primary reference.

bradyj23 wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

P.S. as my Boeing instructor put it on the beginning of the 787 type rating training: “by the end of this course, you will have become a HUD whore”

We call them HUD cripples. But I your description better and I fully plan to steal it for my own amusement.

First time I heard that, a -18 guy was bitching to Paddles saying "I was 'no-HUD.'" The LSO was like, "talk to the Hummer dudes, they are 'no-HUD' every day and aren't HUD cripples."
'

I was in F-100 RTU, one of IPs had moved over to the A-7. After a couple of transition flights, they had an training square “no HUD” landing including a couple of low goes. He was mystified as to why “no HUD” required training, the Hun never had one and he 2,000 hours in it.