787's Cockpit : Advantages/disadvantages

Cactus1549 · Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:58 pm

Hi everyone!

The Dreamliner has just resumed his flight tests and I think it's interesting to see what this future airliner looks like inside especially in the flight deck.
Check this picture out and explain what do you think about this cockpit? Do you like those large screens, those colors, those panels?

Boeing 787's Flight Deck

chuchoteur · Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:49 pm

Interesting that the trim wheels are gone - big debate was had on that topic on the A380...

Although extremely practical and intuitive, never liked the esthetics of the glare shield control panel on Boeing aircraft...
Big LCD displays are nice, as is the "mousepad" on the central pedestal.

The HUD shape is nice.

To be fair, a very practical cockpit layout, does the job, the rest is really down to personal taste/preference... at least, that's my opinion. You don't find too many bad cockpit layouts on new aircraft these days

*and the cockpit colour scheme looks much nicer than the previous Boeing brown.

777236ER · Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:01 pm

Compared to the competition:

Seems that Airbus has a much more integrated EFB and high levels of commonality with the A380. How common is the 787 to the 777?

tdscanuck · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:26 pm

Quoting cactus1549 (Thread starter):
Do you like those large screens, those colors, those panels?

Love 'em. Tons of display area, very clean center panel, simple colours. Although I'd certainly like to see enhanced vision system (biz jets always get the good toys first).

The overhead is stock Boeing...if you know any Boeing-heritage overhead, this one falls right in line nicely. It's a lot cleaner though, presumably due to higher automation and the removal of some systems.

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 1):
Interesting that the trim wheels are gone -

I think those disappeared with the 757, didn't they?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 2):
Seems that Airbus has a much more integrated EFB and high levels of commonality with the A380.

Agreed, although it looks like the A350 actually has slightly less total display area...I see four primary displays + 2 EFB's, where the 787 is five primarys plus 2 EFB's. Or can you use the A350 EFB space as a primary display?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 2):
How common is the 787 to the 777?

This is an old article, but the intention is to have a common type rating with the 777:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-pilot-training-programme-and.html

Tom.

777236ER · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:31 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
This is an old article, but the intention is to have a common type rating with the 777:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

Seems like it's mixed fleet flying (similar to A320/A330/A340/A380) rather than a common type rating (757/767).

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...rticles/qtr_1_08/article_02_2.html

Cactus1549 · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:55 pm

Note that now the landing gear lever and the autobrake button are in the middle for the dreamliner.

Max Q · Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 am

considering it's long haul mission i think it looks very cramped.

Mir · Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:28 am

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 1):
Interesting that the trim wheels are gone - big debate was had on that topic on the A380...

IIRC, the 747-400 doesn't have trim wheels either.

-Mir

Faro · Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:17 pm

Don't think it's a real hindrance to (minimum, regulatory) visibility but cockpit windshield posts are getting increasingly thicker. On the A380, 787 and A350 the trend is confirmed. Bit of a bother though, no?

Faro

Okie · Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:44 pm

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 1):
Interesting that the trim wheels are gone

At least by the time you work yourself to the left seat you will still have all ten digits intact.

Okie

tdscanuck · Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:37 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 8):
Don't think it's a real hindrance to (minimum, regulatory) visibility but cockpit windshield posts are getting increasingly thicker. On the A380, 787 and A350 the trend is confirmed. Bit of a bother though, no?

It's a side effect of bigger windows...the A380/787/A350 have all increased the amount of glass available to the pilots, significantly increasing overall visibility and situational awareness. But there is a price to be paid...bigger windows mean more pressurization loads, which mean bigger support posts. The overall gain is positive, apparently.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
considering it's long haul mission i think it looks very cramped.

I've actually heard exactly the opposite from everyone I've ever spoken with that's been on the flight deck. For the aircraft size, it's a fat fuselage (i.e. wide flight deck), and the removal of all the circuit breaker panels really seems to open things up.

Tom.

travelavnut · Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:16 pm

When I, a Star Trek nerd/fan, look at the picture in the OP I can only think NCC-787

kanban · Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:23 pm

where's the bloody cup holder? I'm not going unless the pilot can put down his cup of coffee and take over, (or do they share the cup and throw it behind the seat.. ?

Faro · Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:29 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
. But there is a price to be paid...bigger windows mean more pressurization loads, which mean bigger support posts. The overall gain is positive, apparently.

'Apparently' is quite the term, yes. To be given more overall window area but then have strips of it taken out of your direct forward and lateral lines of sight is a curious way to improve visibility...

Faro

akiss20 · Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:24 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
where's the bloody cup holder?

To the left of the EFB

DocLightning · Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:54 pm

I once heard one of B's interior designers saying that they chose brown in their cockpits because it seems to lead to better focus and because it hides dirt.

Odd that the A350 has a brown/tan scheme and the 787 is gray.

tdscanuck · Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:25 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
where's the bloody cup holder?

Besides the one beside the EFB that AKiss20 mentioned, there's another set aft of that in the sidwall, and another pair on the pedestal between the 1st and 2nd observers seats.

Quoting faro (Reply 13):
Apparently' is quite the term, yes. To be given more overall window area but then have strips of it taken out of your direct forward and lateral lines of sight is a curious way to improve visibility...

Except they're not in your direct forward or lateral lines of sight...the whole point of that particular post arrangement is to keep them out of the most important lines of sight. A frankly ridiculous amount of effort goes into planning the viewable area in flight decks (governed by some of the most specific FAR's and AC's out there)...they don't do anything lightly.

Tom.

alwaysontherun · Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:23 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
and the removal of all the circuit breaker panels really seems to open things up.

How does that work?
Where do you "pop" your breaker back in if one goes haywire?
Is it all electronically done………touch screen?

###"I´m always on the Run"####

Starlionblue · Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:30 am

What's that dial thingy in front of the yoke pedestal (under the PFD)?

kanban · Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:25 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Besides the one beside the EFB that AKiss20 mentioned, there's another set aft of that in the sidwall, and another pair on the pedestal between the 1st and 2nd observers seats.

Good... don't want the crew falling asleep... three cups each should hold them... then their bladder will keep them awake for another hour...

Mir · Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:34 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):
What's that dial thingy in front of the yoke pedestal (under the PFD)?

Adjustment knob for the rudder pedals, perhaps?

-Mir

tdscanuck · Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:47 am

Quoting alwaysontherun (Reply 17):
How does that work?
Where do you "pop" your breaker back in if one goes haywire?

Electronic circuit breakers...manipulated through the cursor control device ("the trackpad") and a screen on the multi-function displays.

Quoting alwaysontherun (Reply 17):
Is it all electronically done………touch screen?

Yes electronic, no touchscreen. The EFB's are touchscreens, the primary displays are not.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):
What's that dial thingy in front of the yoke pedestal (under the PFD)?

Mir got it right:

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):

Adjustment knob for the rudder pedals, perhaps?

Adjusts fore/aft placement of the rudder pedals so that your feet are in a comfortable position when your eyes are at the reference point.

Tom.

PGNCS · Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:57 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Quoting cactus1549 (Thread starter):
Do you like those large screens, those colors, those panels?

Love 'em. Tons of display area, very clean center panel, simple colours. Although I'd certainly like to see enhanced vision system (biz jets always get the good toys first).

The displays do look nice, though I haven't flown them of course. I actually like the brown of the 757/767 better, but that may be because I associate the gray with the 727/737 which are my all-time least favorite airliners that I have flown. (I don't mind the gray in the A-320, so I'm guessing that's it, anyway.) I agree with you about EVS, Tom, and the HUD would be nice, though it's not a deal-breaker for me. I do appreciate that the FO finally gets one!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
considering it's long haul mission i think it looks very cramped.

I haven't been in the cockpit firsthand, so I can only base my opinion on photographs, but that was my thinking as well. Of course the 747 cockpit is more cramped up by the pilot seats than an L-1011 or DC-10; given the heritage of the aircraft, I am guessing the actual useable volume is pretty reasonable in the cockpit, but hopefully the ergonomics are greatly improved over previous Boeing models for storage. The 767 has a lot of room up there relatively speaking, but the cubbyholes and stowage compartments are extremely poorly designed for actually putting things we need to stow away in, though it's easy to stow a trombone, for instance, in the closet of the 762.

I have flown lots of variants of the 767 over the years and there were many permutations of cockpit stowage configurations, all of them puzzlingly bad. After Boeing's legendary struggle designing the perfect cup holder for the 777, I'm hoping they finally have cockpit stowage with useful dimensions.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
considering it's long haul mission i think it looks very cramped.

I've actually heard exactly the opposite from everyone I've ever spoken with that's been on the flight deck. For the aircraft size, it's a fat fuselage (i.e. wide flight deck), and the removal of all the circuit breaker panels really seems to open things up.

I defer to your knowledge, Tom, but I agree with Max Q that it does look cramped in photographs.

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):
What's that dial thingy in front of the yoke pedestal (under the PFD)?

Adjustment knob for the rudder pedals, perhaps?

If it's like many other Boeing product, that is a very good guess. You only have to crank it about 300 times to get them to move from stop to stop. (I exaggerate. A little.)

BoeEngr · Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:52 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
considering it's long haul mission i think it looks very cramped.

Funny thing...these pictures. You're absolutely correct that in the photos, it looks small. The reality is it's comparable in size to the 777 Flight Deck. I find it reasonably roomy.

Quoting faro (Reply 13):
To be given more overall window area but then have strips of it taken out of your direct forward and lateral lines of sight is a curious way to improve visibility...

Visibility is not improved nor reduced from the 777. It's very comparable.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Besides the one beside the EFB that AKiss20 mentioned, there's another set aft of that in the sidwall, and another pair on the pedestal between the 1st and 2nd observers seats.

Not to mention water bottle storage in the side consoles as well.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
The EFB's are touchscreens, the primary displays are not.

Are you sure about that? I didn't realize the EFBs were touchscreens. I'll have to go play with them some more...

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 22):
I don't mind the gray in the A-320, so I'm guessing that's it, anyway

Isn't the A320 Flight Deck blue?

tdscanuck · Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:57 am

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 23):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
The EFB's are touchscreens, the primary displays are not.

Are you sure about that? I didn't realize the EFBs were touchscreens. I'll have to go play with them some more...

Absolutely positive. Go play with 'em...it's fun.

What's not fun is cleaning the !#@%!% fingerprints off the primary displays because people think they're touchscreens too.

Tom.

Mir · Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:16 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 24):
What's not fun is cleaning the !#@%!% fingerprints off the primary displays because people think they're touchscreens too.

Same thing with screens in G1000 planes also, actually.

-Mir

BoeEngr · Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:51 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 24):
Absolutely positive. Go play with 'em...it's fun.

Will do! It's been a while. I can't believe I forgot that they're touchscreens.

travelavnut · Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:57 am

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 23):
Are you sure about that? I didn't realize the EFBs were touchscreens. I'll have to go play with them some more...

*insert jealousy induced snarky comments here*

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 24):
What's not fun is cleaning the !#@%!% fingerprints off the primary displays because people think they're touchscreens too.

LOL

rwessel · Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:43 am

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 22):
The 767 has a lot of room up there relatively speaking, but the cubbyholes and stowage compartments are extremely poorly designed for actually putting things we need to stow away in, though it's easy to stow a trombone, for instance, in the closet of the 762.

And just when I thought the FFDO program couldn't get weirder....

7673mech · Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:09 am

Trim wheels?

Most modern Boeing aircraft don't have them - to include the 757, 767, 777, 747.
The 737 NG retains them.

[Edited 2010-12-30 02:28:17]

PGNCS · Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:31 pm

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 23):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 22):
I don't mind the gray in the A-320, so I'm guessing that's it, anyway

Isn't the A320 Flight Deck blue?

I think it's gray. If Airbus says it's blue, it's the grayest blue I can imagine!

Quoting rwessel (Reply 28):
And just when I thought the FFDO program couldn't get weirder....

Nice one!

Quoting cactus1549 (Reply 5):
Note that now the landing gear lever and the autobrake button are in the middle for the dreamliner.

Just like the MD-11.

Of course the real ergonomic shortcoming is the yoke. 787 pilots will still have to eat their meals on their laps. How uncouth!

akiss20 · Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:51 pm

Does anyone know what that box on top of the glareshield is (the one with a few LCD displays above the autopilot controls)? Is that unique to this test aircraft or is it something more generally installed?

tdscanuck · Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:37 pm

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 31):
Does anyone know what that box on top of the glareshield is (the one with a few LCD displays above the autopilot controls)?

Flight test data system clock.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 31):
Is that unique to this test aircraft or is it something more generally installed?

It's very common on flight test aircraft (the box varies a bit, but the function is always there). It's not present on any production aircraft I've ever seen.

Tom.

rcair1 · Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:19 pm

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 23):
Are you sure about that? I didn't realize the EFBs were touchscreens. I'll have to go play with them some more...

You lucky dawg.

---
Did I mention you are a lucky dawg?

777236ER · Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:32 pm

The Airbus panel colour is R86, G98, B110.

[Edited 2011-01-01 09:45:17]

A342 · Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:51 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Agreed, although it looks like the A350 actually has slightly less total display area...I see four primary displays + 2 EFB's, where the 787 is five primarys plus 2 EFB's. Or can you use the A350 EFB space as a primary display?

It seems the outer displays on the A350 have multifunctional capability (in contrast to the A380):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-be-an-evolution-of-the-a380s.html

Thales has recently been selected over Honeywell and Rockwell-Collins to supply the six identical 15in (38cm) rectangular screens and the keyboard cursor control unit (KCCU) flight management system interface.

The XWB's flightdeck configuration has two central displays mounted one above the other (the lower one on the centre console in front of the thrust levers), and a single primary flight/navigation display in front of each pilot with an on-board information system screen adjacent to it.

"On the A380, the external displays are purely for the OIS, where as on the A350 they are integrated," says Chandler. "This allows us to display the OIS in the centre screen for briefings from a chart, for example. And in case of failure we can reconfigure using the external displays as well, which we can't do on the A380."

(...)

"The advantage of having common screens allows us to use the KCCU to interface with the OIS. There will still be a keyboard in each pilot's table, but the KCCU is very well adapted for a much of what you do with OIS," says Chandler.

777236ER · Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:17 pm

One interesting novelty of the A350 is its EFB.

On the 777, A380 and 787, the EFB is class 3, which is fully integrated into the aircraft. On the A350, Airbus has moved away from full integration and created the 'class 2+' EFB. The flight crew use connect their own laptops to the aircraft. The laptops contain the processing power and the applications, and are inserted into a dock in the flight deck. The laptop applications then integrate seemlessly with the on board systems, and the applications are controlled via the flight deck screens and the KCCU on the pedestal, or the tray keyboard.

It seems like quite an interesting idea: the airlines can give all pilots a laptop, or they can keep the laptops on board and only remove them for updates. Where the class 3 solution greatly restricts hardware updates and doesn't allow for transportability, class 2+ gives a lot more flexibility.

It also ensures that the most up to date hardware and software is available for the EFB, as it is created and certified off aircraft. With the class 3 solution, in ten years time the aircraft must go through an expensive re-certification to add new hardware. With the A350 solution, all the airline does is plug in the new laptop, complete with new hardware and software. The interfaces stay the same.

I wonder if Boeing looked at a class 2 solution with the 787. If so, does anyone know why they rejected it?

tdscanuck · Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:49 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 36):
It also ensures that the most up to date hardware and software is available for the EFB, as it is created and certified off aircraft. With the class 3 solution, in ten years time the aircraft must go through an expensive re-certification to add new hardware. With the A350 solution, all the airline does is plug in the new laptop, complete with new hardware and software. The interfaces stay the same.

If the A380 laptop plugs into the aircraft and pushes applications to the flight deck displays & uses flight deck interfaces, how are the certification requirements any different from a Class 3 EFB?

Tom.

777236ER · Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:59 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 37):
If the A380 laptop plugs into the aircraft and pushes applications to the flight deck displays & uses flight deck interfaces, how are the certification requirements any different from a Class 3 EFB?

A350, not A380. There's no flight crew laptop connected to the aircraft on the A380, it's a true Class 3. On the A350, the laptop can communicate to the EFB (called Fly Smart with Airbus - Next Generation) and interface through an Airbus proprietry interface. Everything upstream of the interface doesn't have to be certified, and there is a strong (physical) firewall between the FSA-NG EFB interface and flight-critical functions, so no certification (beyond normal PED) required.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-flight-bag-offering-for-a350.html

rcair1 · Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:25 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 38):
On the A350, the laptop can communicate to the EFB (called Fly Smart with Airbus - Next Generation) and interface through an Airbus proprietry interface.

Interesting - how long till a A350 specific virus. What OS do they run?

I find this just a bit frightening actually. I think the s/w in the plane should be very controlled and protected. Didn't I hear about a bunch of bru-ha-ha about exposure of the 787 computer systems to stuff because the buss was connected to proposed wifi for inflight? Yes, pilots laptops are probably a little safer than public ones - but hey I dunno.

777236ER · Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:32 pm

There's a physical firewall, and certification standards. Remember, third parties can create software for the 787's EFB solution, leading to some concerns a few years ago:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331088,00.html

rcair1 · Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:08 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 40):

There's a physical firewall,

Are you talking 787 or 350?

Starlionblue · Sun Jan 02, 2011 2:24 am

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 39):
Interesting - how long till a A350 specific virus. What OS do they run?

The flight control systems run custom real-time operating systems. Very specific to the application, and very good at protecting processes. Not something you could easily write a virus for, and viruses would likely not get very far due to process isolation.

If you are only familiar with Linux and Windows, you get a rather skewed idea of how secure operating systems can really be. There are OS/390 (AKA zOS) mainframes that have been running for years without a second of downtime. IBM will guarantee 99.999% uptime (that's 31½ seconds downtime a year) and in real life they do better. This is on a non-realtime OS that is far more complex than what runs a flight control computer. Flight control software is way way more secure than that.

The proof is in the pudding too. IIRC, in 25 years, no Airbus or Boeing has crashed due to software fault.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 39):
I find this just a bit frightening actually. I think the s/w in the plane should be very controlled and protected. Didn't I hear about a bunch of bru-ha-ha about exposure of the 787 computer systems to stuff because the buss was connected to proposed wifi for inflight? Yes, pilots laptops are probably a little safer than public ones - but hey I dunno.

It is very controlled and protected. It's not like you can just plug in your USB stick and update. The update needs validation etc etc... The 787 brouhaha was a bit overblown.

[Edited 2011-01-01 18:28:19]

Faro · Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:09 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 38):
Everything upstream of the interface doesn't have to be certified, and there is a strong (physical) firewall between the FSA-NG EFB interface and flight-critical functions, so no certification (beyond normal PED) required.

What about non-flight critical functions? What about things like control of the cabin heat, pressurisation, cargo doors, etc. One could conceivably seriously disturb an aircraft fiddling around with these inflight...

Faro

akiss20 · Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:14 am

Quoting faro (Reply 43):

What about non-flight critical functions? What about things like control of the cabin heat, pressurisation, cargo doors, etc. One could conceivably seriously disturb an aircraft fiddling around with these inflight...

Faro

I would consider anything that could compromise the safety of the flight to be "flight-critical" and while cabin heat may potentially not fall under that, pressurization and door operation most certainly do. Helios showed us the former and common sense applies to both.

I would assume anything that has the potential to effect flight safety would be controlled as strictly as the primary avionics software

777236ER · Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:30 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 43):
What about non-flight critical functions? What about things like control of the cabin heat, pressurisation, cargo doors, etc. One could conceivably seriously disturb an aircraft fiddling around with these inflight..

By flight critical I mean all functions that have some safety impact, including the ones you've mentioned.

One question on the 787, there seems to be an expanded ND and a smaller one with engine indications next to it. Is the layout a customer option? Can this layout be changed in flight?

tdscanuck · Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:57 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 45):
One question on the 787, there seems to be an expanded ND and a smaller one with engine indications next to it. Is the layout a customer option?

The availability of the big ND (the "megamap") is standard.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 45):
Can this layout be changed in flight?

Yes. The 787 has five physical displays; they're functionally divided into 8 display spaces. The PFDs use up two physical displays (usually the outer two). The remaining three physical displays are each divided in half, providing the remaining 6 displays spaces. One of these is always devoted to EICAS (usually the inboard half of one of the inboard physical displays), the other five are available as multi-function displays (MFD's) to show whatever the flight crew wants at any time (status page, FMC, ND, communication, maintenance, etc.). You can have the same information displayed on more than one MFD at the same time and you can have any information on any MFD (it's not tied to particular physical displays).

If you happen to put two ND's on two MFD's side-by-side on the same physical display, they'll automatically "merge" to create the megamap you can see in the photo.

Tom.

330guy · Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:49 am

Asthecically its very nice, I wouldnt be too upset if I had to sit there for 8+hrs everyday. Although in saying that while I like the look of it and all the fancy gadgets give me a 727 cockpit anyday over it. Maybe its just me but theres something I love about analogue cockpits that new glass cockpits will never have.

Faro · Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:29 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 45):
Quoting faro (Reply 43):
What about non-flight critical functions? What about things like control of the cabin heat, pressurisation, cargo doors, etc. One could conceivably seriously disturb an aircraft fiddling around with these inflight..

By flight critical I mean all functions that have some safety impact, including the ones you've mentioned.

Then I can't see what functions remain that can be qualified as non-flight critical beyond, say, the IFE system and pax cabin lighting. IMO all other functions have the potential to seriously disturb and/or interrupt a flight.

Faro

777236ER · Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:59 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 48):
Then I can't see what functions remain that can be qualified as non-flight critical beyond, say, the IFE system and pax cabin lighting. IMO all other functions have the potential to seriously disturb and/or interrupt a flight

The data flows in only one direction.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net