As far as I can find, the technology used in the 787 windows are not special or specific to Boeing, it's just "smart glass" of some variety (electrochromic or something else), and is used widely, e.g. in rear view mirrors of cars.

Is there anything that prevents other manufacturers from using this? Or is it really just a matter of choice?

Thanks

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance. Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

Will the 777X feature electrochromic windows? We know that the size is the same as the 787 window.

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance.

I did not know that, thanks. I thought the 777X would have them too?

tonystan wrote:

Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

Or when the cabin crew locks the controls with the post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green filter enabled

seat64k wrote:

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance.

I did not know that, thanks. I thought the 777X would have them too?

tonystan wrote:

Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

Or when the cabin crew locks the controls with the post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green filter enabled

The 777X will have them as an option. Whether it will effectively be standard and airlines can opt to have them removed or whether it is an extra airlines pick I don’t know.

But definitely an option as the windows are even slightly larger than the 787 I think. One thing Boeing does well. The A350 and A380 I’ve been on have small windows and with the plastic inside so looks bigger but makes it a pain to take photos out of without getting the frame in. My least favourite thing about the A350/A380.

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance. Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

I don’t think you are correct in your assessment. From what I understand, the 787 windows are so big that a one piece window shade would not fit in the sidewall. The alternatives are rolled shades or split shades, which actually are maintenance problems

Newbiepilot wrote:

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance. Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

I don’t think you are correct in your assessment. From what I understand, the 787 windows are so big that a one piece window shade would not fit in the sidewall. The alternatives are rolled shades or split shades, which actually are maintenance problems

The 787 windows are just slightly bigger than those on other models, but they are not huge either. I'm pretty sure the space for a shade inside the sidewall would not be a big issue (of course, a different sidewall than the one now equipping the 787 would obviously be needed as it doesn't have the reservation for the shade).

I don't think they are just a gimmick. On the first levels of brightness, I find it quite cool actually to be able to see trough it without letting too much light enter the cabin (I find it cool but have to admit the windows feels hot ).
On the ANA 787 flights I was on, the crew didn't lock the settings. They put them all in the darkest mode at some point in the flight, but after that, you could change your own setting and as long as you kept it reasonably dark, no one would complain to you.
Boeing also marketed this feature as being something more reliable , less maintenance intensive than the mecanical shades. If it turns out to be worse than advertised in the real world, I'm confident that a next gen would work better, based on the experience gained by using it on the 787. I hope we'll see this on other planes.

As a permanent window-seat occupant, I was worried for my freedom as I had heard unsettling anecdotes of total window dictatorship in Dreamliners prior to my first 787 flight a couple of years ago. Since then, I have been on exactly two 787 flights with two different Asian carriers, one on a night-to-day 9-hr flight, and another on a daytime 8-hr flight.

The former had the windows tint-locked and regulated to darkest by the cabin crew for about thirty minutes during the sunrise, and then was shortly free for all to adjust individually for the rest of the flight.

The latter had the windows free for all to adjust for the whole daytime flight. I don’t think the crew ever adjusted them as I remember getting pretty annoyed with the probably nice lady in front of me who did not once bother darkening her tint for the whole flight.. I could not nap.

I did not once feel like I was restricted in my window choices, and the ability to see out anytime (false color and all) was worth the perceived diminished right to ‘control’ my window.

Tl:dr, I like the 787 shade mechanism and wouldn’t be opposed to seeing more aircraft use this ‘gimmick’.

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance. Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

I know opinions as to the dimmable run to both extremes (love or hate), but I've never seen an actual scientific poll taken as to whether passengers prefer the dimmable windows to the manual shades. I've also not heard that the dimmable windows add to the cost of maintenance. Are the electro-chromatic windows reliable and long lived, or do they break frequently requiring repairs?

The dimmable windows allow one to look out without bathing the cabin (and your eyes) with piercing direct sun. Definitely a fan as a passenger.

george77300 wrote:

The 777X will have them as an option. Whether it will effectively be standard and airlines can opt to have them removed or whether it is an extra airlines pick I don’t know.

We will see, I suppose. On the one hand, Airbus doesn't use them so there doesn't seem to be a huge benefit. On the other hand, they do offer them and even made an improved version (darker in the darkest setting) so it must offer some benefit.
Since they offer both versions, I'm gonna assume that they initially offered only one until a customer came and demanded the other.

I'd be curious to know what the weight savings is using the dimmable windows vs. having standard pull-down shades. I'm sure it's not huge, but if they decide to go forward with these on the 777X, that's a lot of windows!

I'd love to see them on more aircraft. On my last trip I wanted to look outside to see Northern Canada, whilst all the other shades were closed, I'm pretty sure my fellow pax didn't enjoy me opening my shade and letting in all the sunlight. With this, you can at least see something without pissing off everybody else who just want to sleep or watch a movie.

seat64k wrote:

Or when the cabin crew locks the controls with the post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green filter enabled

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

carlokiii wrote:

The latter had the windows free for all to adjust for the whole daytime flight. I don’t think the crew ever adjusted them as I remember getting pretty annoyed with the probably nice lady in front of me who did not once bother darkening her tint for the whole flight.. I could not nap.

Top tip: Always bring a sleep mask and earplugs on any flight.

If it isn't someone who keeps the shade open when I need to sleep, it is the cabin crew turning the lights off for the breakfast I'm not going to eat, or the person next to me opening up their iPad in the dark.

The earplugs protect your hearing and help you sleep undisturbed. Planes are noisy and hearing loss is cumulative. Unless I'm in the cockpit, I wear earplugs almost all the time from initial climb to approach..

JAAlbert wrote:

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance. Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

I know opinions as to the dimmable run to both extremes (love or hate), but I've never seen an actual scientific poll taken as to whether passengers prefer the dimmable windows to the manual shades. I've also not heard that the dimmable windows add to the cost of maintenance. Are the electro-chromatic windows reliable and long lived, or do they break frequently requiring repairs?

You could do a poll, but I don't think it would be accurate since you'd have to explain to the average passenger how the things work first.

This is the kind of topic that the enthusiast knows about and cares about. The average passenger really just wants to get from A to B and has no idea about the quirks of a particular aircraft.

george77300 wrote:

seat64k wrote:

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance.

I did not know that, thanks. I thought the 777X would have them too?

tonystan wrote:

Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

Or when the cabin crew locks the controls with the post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green filter enabled

The 777X will have them as an option. Whether it will effectively be standard and airlines can opt to have them removed or whether it is an extra airlines pick I don’t know.

But definitely an option as the windows are even slightly larger than the 787 I think. One thing Boeing does well. The A350 and A380 I’ve been on have small windows and with the plastic inside so looks bigger but makes it a pain to take photos out of without getting the frame in. My least favourite thing about the A350/A380.

AFAIK, the A350 windows are significantly larger than the A380 ones. Not quite as large as Boeing's windows however. Again, this is something the average passenger doesn't know nor care about.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

I wouldn't say the aircraft is worth avoiding over this. As far as the windows go, I've only had three flights in a 787, and only had this problem on one of them (VS). On a return flight with JL, the tint was black, and other than locking it open during take-off/landing, the crew left us alone with it. And even if they had locked it, with the black tint the view outside still looks normal during the day (not sure about night time).

The major reason I choose away from the 787 when I have a choice is the cramped economy seats. Boeing's marketing claims of "unparalleled passenger comfort" is clearly based on the 8-abreast seating, if it refers to economy at all. 9-abreast is awfully tight. With 8-abreast seating (like JL has) it's feels much more like an A340 or 9-abreast 777 in terms of width, but much quieter. My flights with JL were great, and I wouldn't hesitate flying 787 with them again.

Starlionblue wrote:

carlokiii wrote:

The latter had the windows free for all to adjust for the whole daytime flight. I don’t think the crew ever adjusted them as I remember getting pretty annoyed with the probably nice lady in front of me who did not once bother darkening her tint for the whole flight.. I could not nap.

Top tip: Always bring a sleep mask and earplugs on any flight.

This. An aircraft is not a hotel, and you can't expect the person sitting in the window seat (who most likely paid extra to have that seat) to act according to your will. I find the person next to me having the AVOD switch on much more disturbing than the window open, yet expecting someone to turn off their movie so that I can sleep seems completely unreasonable to me.

seat64k wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

I wouldn't say the aircraft is worth avoiding over this. As far as the windows go, I've only had three flights in a 787, and only had this problem on one of them (VS). On a return flight with JL, the tint was black, and other than locking it open during take-off/landing, the crew left us alone with it. And even if they had locked it, with the black tint the view outside still looks normal during the day (not sure about night time).

The major reason I choose away from the 787 when I have a choice is the cramped economy seats. Boeing's marketing claims of "unparalleled passenger comfort" is clearly based on the 8-abreast seating, if it refers to economy at all. 9-abreast is awfully tight. With 8-abreast seating (like JL has) it's feels much more like an A340 or 9-abreast 777 in terms of width, but much quieter. My flights with JL were great, and I wouldn't hesitate flying 787 with them again.

I see your 9-abreast 787 and raise you the 10-abreast 777...

Starlionblue wrote:

I see your 9-abreast 787 and raise you the 10-abreast 777...

I've actually been on one (EK DXB-BKK) but the flight was practically empty, so it didn't feel particularly cramped. I'm sure it's a different story on a full flight!

seat64k wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

I wouldn't say the aircraft is worth avoiding over this. As far as the windows go, I've only had three flights in a 787, and only had this problem on one of them (VS). On a return flight with JL, the tint was black, and other than locking it open during take-off/landing, the crew left us alone with it. And even if they had locked it, with the black tint the view outside still looks normal during the day (not sure about night time).

I beg to differ, looking out the window and enjoying the beauty of both natural and man-made wonders of the world is what I love about flying the most. I've changed my travel dates several times for the sake of a good window seat and always avoid the 787. I wouldn't mind flying it on a transoceanic red-eye though.

seat64k wrote:

This. An aircraft is not a hotel, and you can't expect the person sitting in the window seat (who most likely paid extra to have that seat) to act according to your will. I find the person next to me having the AVOD switch on much more disturbing than the window open, yet expecting someone to turn off their movie so that I can sleep seems completely unreasonable to me.

Well said sir, well said.

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance. Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

It's lighter and has no moving parts and it rarely needs maintenance. Shades need maintenance all the time. It also allows you to see out while keeping the cabin dark and because it's near the outside of the fuselage, it keeps the dust cover from getting so hot.

Could it have been better executed? Yes. There are systems that can opaque completely and do so much more quickly (milliseconds) than the 787 system does.

Also, it's not a gimmick. Given the height of the 787 windows, where would a shade have gone when slid upwards? It was actually necessary.

seat64k wrote:

The major reason I choose away from the 787 when I have a choice is the cramped economy seats. Boeing's marketing claims of "unparalleled passenger comfort" is clearly based on the 8-abreast seating, if it refers to economy at all. 9-abreast is awfully tight.

I was just on my first 9-abreast 787 two weeks ago and I was quite surprised that it was fine.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

As opposed to an FA instructing you to close your window so you can't see anything at all?

When I was on a 788 from HND to SFO, we took off at midnight. I fell asleep. Three hours later, I woke up to see that we were flying through a moonlit night and the cabin was dark, except the moon was just a little difficult to look at. In a moment of comprehension, I realized that the "moon" was actually the sun and that the windows had been dimmed. I could see out and enjoy the view. The interior dust cover was just slightly warm not burning hot like it is when it's a window shade.

That was when I was sold on this new technology. If you like your view, then you'll love the 787's windows.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

seat64k wrote:

Or when the cabin crew locks the controls with the post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green filter enabled

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

Not the best option for those who'd like to take photos from the air...

To Starlionblue's eyemask and earplugs, I add saline nasal solution. On longhaul, I drench my nasal passages every 3 hours or so, and have not contracted a cabinitis in the years since I began the practice. If you don't flush the critters out, they get a head start on ruining the next 7 to 10 days of your life.

WPvsMW wrote:

To Starlionblue's eyemask and earplugs, I add saline nasal solution. On longhaul, I drench my nasal passages every 3 hours or so, and have not contracted a cabinitis in the years since I began the practice. If you don't flush the critters out, they get a head start on ruining the next 7 to 10 days of your life.

That's a great idea. I don't quite get 7-10 days of ruin, but I do get up to 12 hours of congestion after a long haul, depending on the level of humidity at the destination. Bless places where I can open the hotel room window instead of being blasted with dry air from the AC...

Starlionblue wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

To Starlionblue's eyemask and earplugs, I add saline nasal solution. On longhaul, I drench my nasal passages every 3 hours or so, and have not contracted a cabinitis in the years since I began the practice. If you don't flush the critters out, they get a head start on ruining the next 7 to 10 days of your life.

That's a great idea. I don't quite get 7-10 days of ruin, but I do get up to 12 hours of congestion after a long haul, depending on the level of humidity at the destination. Bless places where I can open the hotel room window instead of being blasted with dry air from the AC...

7-10 days of ruin means real illness, e.g., cold, flu, other infection contracted from airborne microbes in cabin air that lodge in nasal passages, "cabinitis" (my neologism). The respiratory infection risk is real, and very few crew take precautions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29876609
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/14/3623

Is flight deck air now (A359, B787) separately filtered (e.g, higher HEPA grade filter) from cabin air? I know it was not in older models. Flight deck air should be an union issue.

WPvsMW wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

To Starlionblue's eyemask and earplugs, I add saline nasal solution. On longhaul, I drench my nasal passages every 3 hours or so, and have not contracted a cabinitis in the years since I began the practice. If you don't flush the critters out, they get a head start on ruining the next 7 to 10 days of your life.

That's a great idea. I don't quite get 7-10 days of ruin, but I do get up to 12 hours of congestion after a long haul, depending on the level of humidity at the destination. Bless places where I can open the hotel room window instead of being blasted with dry air from the AC...

7-10 days of ruin means real illness, e.g., cold, flu, other infection contracted from airborne microbes in cabin air that lodge in nasal passages, "cabinitis" (my neologism). The respiratory infection risk is real, and very few crew take precautions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29876609
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/14/3623

Is flight deck air now (A359, B787) separately filtered (e.g, higher HEPA grade filter) from cabin air? I know it was not in older models. Flight deck air should be an union issue.

Flight deck air is from the packs only. None of it comes from recycled air. So this isn't really an issue. How old are the "older models" you reference? The A330 is 25 year old tech and works the same way.

The B727s we had only used fresh air... no recirculation (but the usual bleed air, heat exchangers, etc.). Starting with B737s, 50% of cabin air was recirculated through filters. IIRC, the HEPA grade of the recirc filters was enough to remove all but 0.3% of common microbes. Although the flight deck was a separate zone in the HVAC system, it did not have separate filters. Thus my question, whether more modern designs insert an additional filter for the flight deck zone.

WPvsMW wrote:

The B727s we had only used fresh air... no recirculation (but the usual bleed air, heat exchangers, etc.). Starting with B737s, 50% of cabin air was recirculated through filters. IIRC, the HEPA grade of the recirc filters was enough to remove all but 0.3% of common microbes. Although the flight deck was a separate zone in the HVAC system, it did not have separate filters. Thus my question, whether more modern designs insert an additional filter for the flight deck zone.

As I mentioned, cockpit air is 100% directly from the packs. None of it comes from recirculation. Wouldn't HEPA filters be pointless in this scenario? The air has been heated to 180+ degrees so any microbes would be toast.

Thanks. In the B737s, even the air from the packs was 50% recirculated. It sounds like your type's flight deck has a feed from the packs that is exhausted rather than returned to the recirculating fans. BTW, the microbes in a flight of 100% non-infected pax and crew are from microbes on interior surfaces, esp. tray tables, than become airborne... or so I've read.

WPvsMW wrote:

Thanks. In the B737s, even the air from the packs was 50% recirculated. It sounds like your type's flight deck has a feed from the packs that is exhausted rather than returned to the recirculating fans. BTW, the microbes in a flight of 100% non-infected pax and crew are from microbes on interior surfaces, esp. tray tables, than become airborne... or so I've read.

AFAIK, recirculated air goes to the mixing unit/manifold on the 737, not to the packs. Like on any other airliner. There's no point recirculating air into the packs since that air is already at more or less the right temperature and pressure.

To be clear, flight deck air is subsequently recirculated. It's just never recirculated to the flight deck.


737. You can see the direct "To Flight Deck" conduit at the top.




Generic diagram:

Thanks for the diagrams... it's been years since I have I've looked at those, or ones like them.

If I understand the generic diagram correctly, it does look like the cockpit air and cabin air are recirc and fresh air from the mix manifold (mixer unit). The light blue is fresh air and recirc air and the dark blue is recirc air only. The light blue and dark blue are both supplied to the cockpit.

As was pointed out, I see in the top diagram where only fresh air is supplied to the cockpit. Do the 737 classics not have recirc fans and ducting? It's been many many years since I have worked the 737's to any great degree. If my old worn out memory is correct, they didn't.

The generic diagram is for illustration only. I would take it with a grain of salt.

Newbiepilot wrote:

tonystan wrote:

It was just a gimmick used by Boeing. I doubt we will see it in anything new again as it’s not really very popular and adds to the cost of maintenance. Plus it’s a real pain in he proverbial when the system fails and passengers are unable to control them on night to day flights.

I don’t think you are correct in your assessment. From what I understand the 787 windows are so big that a one piece window shade would not fit in the sidewall. The alternatives are rolled shades or split shades, which actually are maintenance problems

'
That you can bet on. you have to remove the sidewall panel which cannot be done during a regular turn s it has to wait for an overnight visit. I've personally never seen the B787 up close as I'm retired but I did see the specs and the window before I retired as it was a good discussion about the dimming system and the troubleshooting in Maintenance control where I worked. The Boeing reps gave us the overview on it and the troubleshooting tips on the dimming system. The window is Huge, and it is heavy for structural integrity... whether it gets used on any other model? We'll just have gto wait and see.

Starlionblue wrote:

The generic diagram is for illustration only. I would take it with a grain of salt.

Of course. Just a thumb nail view for very basic familiarization. If you look at an approved detailed AMM diagram of the ECS and the bleed systems they are quit mind boggling.

I like to elaborate on things because it helps me understand how things works and uncovers my assumptions.

strfyr51 wrote:

'
That you can bet on. you have to remove the sidewall panel which cannot be done during a regular turn s it has to wait for an overnight visit. I've personally never seen the B787 up close as I'm retired but I did see the specs and the window before I retired as it was a good discussion about the dimming system and the troubleshooting in Maintenance control where I worked. The Boeing reps gave us the overview on it and the troubleshooting tips on the dimming system. The window is Huge, and it is heavy for structural integrity... whether it gets used on any other model? We'll just have gto wait and see.

No, actually you don't have to remove the sidewall. You use a release tool and the reveal and dimming window comes out on the cabin side of the sidewall. IIRC. you don't even have to bust loose a seat. So the dimming window could be changed out easily during a turn around, but would an airline do it? IDK.

The window that is heavy is the outer pane which is what mounts into the window frame and is what holds cabin pressure. The dimming window is the inner pane which carries no pressurization loads and is actually fairly thin and light.

Not exactly like the 787, but close. The reveal/dimmable window is on the left of the illustration.

Wow, this thread has turned out far better than I expected! Thanks everyone

stratclub wrote:

You use a release tool and the reveal and dimming window comes out on the cabin side of the sidewall. IIRC. you don't even have to bust loose a seat. So the dimming window could be changed out easily during a turn around, but would an airline do it? IDK.

Does replacing the dimming window leave the cabin sealing in tact? I imagine for pressurisation it's better to have everything fitted from the inside, but it looks like the outer window is fitted from the outside?

No, changing the dimming window has nothing to do with the outer pane which is not disturbed. The outer pane is fitted from the cabin side (inside) of the of the fuselage with 10 metal clips. Pressurization pushes the outer pane against the window frame which helps to keep the pressure vessel intact. Mostly, what the metal clips do is keep the outer panes from falling out when the aircraft is not pressurized of if there is a negative pressure in the cabin if the aircraft dives quickly. Also, there is a negative pressure relief valve that will prevent negative pressure from ever damaging the aircraft or popping the outer panes into the cabin.

Not the best picture and is of a 737 and is showing an improperly installed window. The 737 outer pane is very similar to a 787 outer pane, but you can see the 10 clips that hold the outer pane in place. In the pic 4 of the clips are orange and 6 of the clips are white. Just so you know, any time an outer pane is removed and replace, it is mandatory that the aircraft is pressurized to check for leaks.


Negative Pressure Relief Valve
Prevents vacuum damage (negative pressure) to aircraft during a rapid descent. It is a spring loaded flapper valve that opens inwards.You can check this on a walkaround by pressing it in like a letterbox. The lettering says negative pressure relief valve.

Thank you, this is very interesting.

stratclub wrote:

Just so you know, any time an outer pane is removed and replace, it is mandatory that the aircraft is pressurized to check for leaks.

This is what I imagined. Is replacing an outer pane common?

Not real common. In service they do get scratched and hazy over time though because they are plastic. During an HMV (Heavy Maintenance Check) a few might be replaced.

stratclub wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

'
That you can bet on. you have to remove the sidewall panel which cannot be done during a regular turn s it has to wait for an overnight visit. I've personally never seen the B787 up close as I'm retired but I did see the specs and the window before I retired as it was a good discussion about the dimming system and the troubleshooting in Maintenance control where I worked. The Boeing reps gave us the overview on it and the troubleshooting tips on the dimming system. The window is Huge, and it is heavy for structural integrity... whether it gets used on any other model? We'll just have gto wait and see.

No, actually you don't have to remove the sidewall. You use a release tool and the reveal and dimming window comes out on the cabin side of the sidewall. IIRC. you don't even have to bust loose a seat. So the dimming window could be changed out easily during a turn around, but would an airline do it? IDK.

The window that is heavy is the outer pane which is what mounts into the window frame and is what holds cabin pressure. The dimming window is the inner pane which carries no pressurization loads and is actually fairly thin and light.

Not exactly like the 787, but close. The reveal/dimmable window is on the left of the illustration.

I think he was referring to removing sidewalls to fix split shades or rolled shades. Those shades are attached to the sidewall panel. The dimmable window shades on a 787 can be removed in just a few minutes. The dimmable shades are actually easier to replace than many plastic shades.

Newbiepilot wrote:

stratclub wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

'
That you can bet on. you have to remove the sidewall panel which cannot be done during a regular turn s it has to wait for an overnight visit. I've personally never seen the B787 up close as I'm retired but I did see the specs and the window before I retired as it was a good discussion about the dimming system and the troubleshooting in Maintenance control where I worked. The Boeing reps gave us the overview on it and the troubleshooting tips on the dimming system. The window is Huge, and it is heavy for structural integrity... whether it gets used on any other model? We'll just have gto wait and see.

No, actually you don't have to remove the sidewall. You use a release tool and the reveal and dimming window comes out on the cabin side of the sidewall. IIRC. you don't even have to bust loose a seat. So the dimming window could be changed out easily during a turn around, but would an airline do it? IDK.

The window that is heavy is the outer pane which is what mounts into the window frame and is what holds cabin pressure. The dimming window is the inner pane which carries no pressurization loads and is actually fairly thin and light.

Not exactly like the 787, but close. The reveal/dimmable window is on the left of the illustration.

I think he was referring to removing sidewalls to fix split shades or rolled shades. Those shades are attached to the sidewall panel. The dimmable window shades on a 787 can be removed in just a few minutes. The dimmable shades are actually easier to replace than many plastic shades.

As near as I can tell, the discussion was about 787 aircraft. They are plastic windows. As you said, very easy to remove. Release them at the top with the release tool, lay the window towards you and remove it and unplug the dimming controller. Done. 15 to 30 seconds maybe?

One of the design criteria as specified by airlines customers with the 787 is that most everything in the cabin can be removed with 1 tool or no tools for quicker maintenance. As an example you need no tools to remove the ceiling panels in the non galley or monument areas.

Newbiepilot wrote:

From what I understand, the 787 windows are so big that a one piece window shade would not fit in the sidewall. The alternatives are rolled shades or split shades, which actually are maintenance problems

The 787 windows are considerably smaller than the DC-8, which with 1950s technology managed to use sliding blinds. Respective areas are about 220 and 350 square inches.

DocLightning wrote:

tonystan wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

As opposed to an FA instructing you to close your window so you can't see anything at all?

When I was on a 788 from HND to SFO, we took off at midnight. I fell asleep. Three hours later, I woke up to see that we were flying through a moonlit night and the cabin was dark, except the moon was just a little difficult to look at. In a moment of comprehension, I realized that the "moon" was actually the sun and that the windows had been dimmed. I could see out and enjoy the view. The interior dust cover was just slightly warm not burning hot like it is when it's a window shade.

That was when I was sold on this new technology. If you like your view, then you'll love the 787's windows.

I only close my window when necessary, there's absolutely no reason to close your window in the middle of the day, especially on westbound flights. I'll love the 787's windows if and only if the crew-override feature is axed, something that will never happen unfortunately.

Erebus wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

seat64k wrote:

Or when the cabin crew locks the controls with the post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green filter enabled

That's exactly the reason why I absolutely hate them, the crew override feature makes them the worst thing to happen to air travel in my opinion. I've been lucky enough to avoid the 787 so far but everyone I know who flew it had their windows dimmed and locked by the crew at least once.

Not the best option for those who'd like to take photos from the air...

That's another reason why I hate them, some of the most spectacular photos here are window views. I bet professional photographers would rather be on any airplane but the 787.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

That's another reason why I hate them, some of the most spectacular photos here are window views. I bet professional photographers would rather be on any airplane but the 787.

You mention photography. During daytime it's not much of an issue, but when the cabin lights are on, both 787 and A350 have a lot of reflections between the two window panes. On many of these aircraft, when turning off the cabin lights at night, there is still this low light along the ceiling, usually coloured. Makes night time photography pretty difficult.

seat64k wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

That's another reason why I hate them, some of the most spectacular photos here are window views. I bet professional photographers would rather be on any airplane but the 787.

You mention photography. During daytime it's not much of an issue, but when the cabin lights are on, both 787 and A350 have a lot of reflections between the two window panes. On many of these aircraft, when turning off the cabin lights at night, there is still this low light along the ceiling, usually coloured. Makes night time photography pretty difficult.

It's a problem day or night, you described the view out of the dimmed window as a "post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green", the photos will be just as terrible as in real life if not worse, and when completely dimmed you'd barely be able to see anything let alone take a picture! As for the reflections, it's not a problem unique to the 787 & A350, you'll encounter it on other airplanes and even in buildings especially those with double pane windows, if you stick the lens to the pane you can usually get rid of most if not all reflections.

mxaxai wrote:

george77300 wrote:

The 777X will have them as an option. Whether it will effectively be standard and airlines can opt to have them removed or whether it is an extra airlines pick I don’t know.

We will see, I suppose. On the one hand, Airbus doesn't use them so there doesn't seem to be a huge benefit. On the other hand, they do offer them and even made an improved version (darker in the darkest setting) so it must offer some benefit.
Since they offer both versions, I'm gonna assume that they initially offered only one until a customer came and demanded the other.

Airbus doesn't use them because they didn't KNOW about them. UNTIL Boeing used them!!

What lead Boeing to offer a version that get's darker was because JAL or ANA (Can't remember) was very much displeased with version 1.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

It's a problem day or night, you described the view out of the dimmed window as a "post-nuclear-apocaplyse-green", the photos will be just as terrible as in real life if not worse, and when completely dimmed you'd barely be able to see anything let alone take a picture! As for the reflections, it's not a problem unique to the 787 & A350, you'll encounter it on other airplanes and even in buildings especially those with double pane windows, if you stick the lens to the pane you can usually get rid of most if not all reflections.

Oh I don't disagree - the coloured tint is awful. I agree that reflections have always been an issue, but it seems to be much worse on the newer aircraft. Maybe it's not the 787 & A350 as much as it is the new style interiors - the coloured mood lighting in particular. I've not been on a 737Max, A320neo, A330neo or 747-8, but I imagine they have the same issue.

strfyr51 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

george77300 wrote:

The 777X will have them as an option. Whether it will effectively be standard and airlines can opt to have them removed or whether it is an extra airlines pick I don’t know.

We will see, I suppose. On the one hand, Airbus doesn't use them so there doesn't seem to be a huge benefit. On the other hand, they do offer them and even made an improved version (darker in the darkest setting) so it must offer some benefit.
Since they offer both versions, I'm gonna assume that they initially offered only one until a customer came and demanded the other.

Airbus doesn't use them because they didn't KNOW about them. UNTIL Boeing used them!!

Not quite.

In October 2008, iShades installed on a Qantas Airbus A380 became the first dimmable windows to fly in the industry’s transport category aircraft. Since then, SPD-Smart iShades have been on every A380 aircraft delivered to Qantas. SPD-Smart iShades were the first dimmable window to be certified under an OEM Type Certificate (TC), and the first to fly on a commercial airline.

http://www.smartglass.com/news/inspectech-introduces-ishade-dimmable-windows-with-new-performance-and-safety-features/

My goodness! I had no idea!

Erebus wrote:

Since then, SPD-Smart iShades have been on every A380 aircraft delivered to Qantas.

Is this throughout the aircraft? The only reference I can find is in the description of First:

https://www.qantas.com/hk/en/about-us/our-company/fleet/qantas-a380.html

First

Enjoy a journey of unsurpassed luxury in First in the spacious surrounds of your individual seat. Everything you need is thoughtfully placed and within easy reach. Recline your seat, adjust the lumbar support or turn on the in-seat massage at the touch of a button. Control your inflight entertainment, adjust the lighting, close the electronic window shades and more all from the control panel next to your seat. The luxurious Sheridan duvet, mattress and pillow menu ensures the most rejuvenating sleep experience.