Max 10
03-31-2022, 01:57 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,732
The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.
03-31-2022, 02:09 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 510
I'm talking about differences and type rating requirements, the whole reason the overhead hasn't changed. So yeah the airlines didn't want to pay for the training required by the FAA.
03-31-2022, 03:59 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 655
The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.
Boeing has done flight deck changes before so not sure how it’s on the FAA to blame for further inaction on Boeing’s part. Boeing, through the airlines desire for cheaper purchase prices, has chosen to do or not do changes, while in compliance with FAR’s.
They swapped from electromechanical/ round dials on the 737-200 to EFIS screens on the 737-300/500 (plus new engines) to the NG screens. They built a new wing for the NG. See all the airframe changes for the MAX in addition to the new engines.
The 767-400 flight deck is different enough from legacy 757/767’s that currency is mandated in order to fly the 767-400.
Plenty of changes that required new certification but that didn’t stop Boeing from designing and building them. But it’s the FAA that is holding up a modern 737 flight deck?
if the Six pack was so great how come other Boeing’s since then weren’t designed with it?
03-31-2022, 04:01 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 112
The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.
03-31-2022, 04:13 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 294
Have there been any accidents specifically attributed to the panel? I flew C130s in the USAF, and yes we had an engineer but the 737 panel really isn’t a big deal. Once you learn it that’s it, I don’t get the issue. The Max 10 not having EICAS should have no bearing on its cert, and the requirement was a classic knee jerk regulation free-for-all in response to untrained pilots not following procedure and crashing the other Max airplanes. In other words, “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!”
if I recall correctly the panel was specifically not updated because the primary customer (SW) requested it be as close to the NG panel as possible, thus making an easier transition and less training required. Either way, the panel not having EICAS is simply not a safety issue, and makes almost no impact once a pilot learns the 737 panel of any type. My opinion obviously.
if I recall correctly the panel was specifically not updated because the primary customer (SW) requested it be as close to the NG panel as possible, thus making an easier transition and less training required. Either way, the panel not having EICAS is simply not a safety issue, and makes almost no impact once a pilot learns the 737 panel of any type. My opinion obviously.
03-31-2022, 04:34 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 510
BS.
Boeing has done flight deck changes before so not sure how it’s on the FAA to blame for further inaction on Boeing’s part. Boeing, through the airlines desire for cheaper purchase prices, has chosen to do or not do changes, while in compliance with FAR’s.
They swapped from electromechanical/ round dials on the 737-200 to EFIS screens on the 737-300/500 (plus new engines) to the NG screens.
Boeing has done flight deck changes before so not sure how it’s on the FAA to blame for further inaction on Boeing’s part. Boeing, through the airlines desire for cheaper purchase prices, has chosen to do or not do changes, while in compliance with FAR’s.
They swapped from electromechanical/ round dials on the 737-200 to EFIS screens on the 737-300/500 (plus new engines) to the NG screens.
They built a new wing for the NG. See all the airframe changes for the MAX in addition to the new engines.
The 767-400 flight deck is different enough from legacy 757/767’s that currency is mandated in order to fly the 767-400.
That is the whole reason the 757/767 have identical cockpits, for commonality and minimal training expense. Modernize it (like the 400) and all the sudden you throw a wrench in it and now you have all new training complexities. You proved my whole point.
04-01-2022, 01:10 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 655
My point being about the NG wing was it required certification and that it was not too big of a hurdle for Boeing to do.
Boeing chose not to do a new flight deck beyond the screens, not because it was too difficult per the FAA rules.
Boeing chose not to do a new flight deck beyond the screens, not because it was too difficult per the FAA rules.
04-01-2022, 02:30 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2021
Posts: 59
untrained pilots crashing the Max. Pretty big balls statement considering the facts don't confirm your theory. Boeing made a massive and I would say criminal act by hiding the MCAS system from operators. I suggest you watch the Netflix show about this very issue. Unless you enjoy playing the role of a fool.
04-02-2022, 12:06 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 510
What you are missing is that the difficulty in doing an upgrade itself was not the problem, it was the training costs the airlines would incur due to having two different cockpits (much like the 764). It would have caused problems for the customers. Boeing does not want to willy nilly change things that will just create more problems for the customer, because Boeing knows that they will balk (as SWA did). They can't make changes in a vacuum.
04-02-2022, 08:42 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,171
You seem to forget. The discussion isn't A321XLR's v 737-10 Max. The XLR's were bought to replace the 757's. Despite the improved economics of both planes, neither can do what the 757 can. Heavy, short fields, while full. Granted this isn't the majority of the 757 missions, but the 15% remaining that won't be able to be done until Boeing designs the new narrow body. Not another stretched guppy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
