737 Max cockpit upgrades

[CW247]

Reading into the 737 Max "Upgrade" I don't see a lot of things that will provide comfort or ease of operation to the flight crew. The 737 has always been an ergonomic disaster as far as the cockpit goes with the positioning of switches and gauges being an after thought in most cases. The original cockpit layout is almost 50 years old. I understand and appreciate the desire to maintain cockpit commonality (90% of which can be achieved simply by putting the displays and primary knobs/dials in the same place) but isn't it shocking that Boeing refuse to bring the design into the 21st century as far as ergonomics and comfort go?

I think Monarch flight crew will see it as a massive backwards step when they are doing a 10 hour LGW-SSH-LGW

[Iver]

You can partially blame big Boeing customers with negotiating leverage like Southwest in the States. As an example, SWA evidently lobbied very hard to maintain the overhead panel design, among other things, for years. Like many airlines, SWA continues to operate older 300s as well as newer 800s in the same fleet.

Monarch pilots should appreciate their wider Airbus flight decks and sidesticks while they can... Even the C-Series (CS300) looks to provide a more ergonomic flight deck when compared with the 800/MAX. But when has pilot comfort ever been a consideration in fleet negotiations? Never has and never will.

[FlyingStone]

Boeing has to make compromises in order to maintain a common B737 type rating - which even doesn't include the -200 under EASA.

There is plenty (and I really mean plenty) of room for improvement regarding B737 cockpit ergonomics, such as not getting 10 lights for a simple engine failure, etc., but most of them would probably result in a need for a new type rating endorsment under some authorities.

I honestly hope and believe that given the current Boeing's schedule of pushing B737 generations - every 15 years - that MAX's successor would be designed from scratch (or at least from 787's platform).

[RVF750]

It would be possible to massively improve the 737 just by moving the P6/P18 panels back a foot and making more room. Some carpet would be nice too. The A321 I just looked into the flight deck was a new one granted, but SO much nicer than the 737 I fly.

[ImbracableCrunk]

I'm from Seattle, and my neighbor is in on the redesign. He's pretty excited by some of the changes.

One of the biggest changes is in the cockpit switches. They are replacing the little white rubber knobs with a slightly better white rubber knob.

[RAT 5]

That is if the little white rubber caps stay on. If the don't, as is often the case, then they are no longer nice white rubber switches, but grubby grey ones.

[despegue]

They are white?! I thought they were dirty grey/black and greasy by default...but that must be because our cockpits are never cleaned :sad::\

[captjns]

Too bad... same crappy cockpit and seats designed from the original proof of concept aircraft the Dash 80 some 58 years ago:*.

[Skyjob]

http://db3.stb.s-msn.com/i/C4/DB5FA4C287543BE7F3C1D98DE3C8D_h498_w598_m2.jpg

[Superpilot]

Boeing don't have much of a choice to upgrade the screens (I can imagine a lot of the forward weight reduction comes from the choice of avionics) but that's all they'll be doing (plus a couple of long overdue changes with the engine bleed/pack function). As an A320 driver I have only ever spent a couple of hours in a 737 sim and though I was initially impressed by the level of immersion the cockpit offers a pilot I sure as hell wouldn't like the same feeling continuously for 5 hours with no where to put my feet or rest my head ;)

I wonder what they'd find if they did a study of pilot fatigue B737 vs A320? As stated above, I'm sure cockpit comfort wasn't a major concern for the Monarch party doing the deal.

[Oakape]

From the picture, it seems it still has the crappy 'recall' system! How about EICAS guys? :{

[ahramin]

Forget it. The MAX will be the same pathetic 50 year old cockpit the rest of them have. You're still going to be running fuel pumps as if you're flying some badly put together homebuilt.

"Does that say overheat? Or overhead? What's the smegging problem?

[nitpicker330]

Ahhh that's funny, the number of times we've had to cycle fuel pump switches, Prims, Secs, Trim tank transfer failures, outer to inner transfer failures requiring manual transfer, Trim Tank manual fwd transfer blah blah blah on our A330's brand new from the factory is amazing.
For an Aircraft that is supposed to be so automatic it's a joke.


Don't lecture us on the good ol 737. I remember the old girl well.

Looks like a really nice flight deck for the Max to me.

Pay me the same and I know which one I'd prefer to fly.

Idiots.

[737 CL]

Hi,
Anybody knows If the overhead panel is going to be the same that 737 Ng?

[ga_trojan]

And how about a window you can see out of in anything other than a light shower of rain...........or alternatively bring back the rain repellant.:ok:

How the current situation is certifiable is beyond me..........:mad:

[lear999wa]

Concerning the 737 overhead panel. time and time again I have heard if they change that panel it's going to require a new type rating. But frankly I think that excuse is a load of hog wash. If the b717 can maintain a common type rating with the dc9 why the hell can't the 737 do the same. In my opinion it comes down to SWA forcing boeing to keep the legacy panel in-place to maintain SWA fleet commonality.

[nitpicker330]

The only Aircraft I've flown with decent wipers that actually worked was the 744. 737 A330 and 777 all have crap wipers.....

Not just the 737...

The worst would have to be the A330.

[ga_trojan]

The only Aircraft I've flown with decent wipers that actually worked was the 744. 737 A330 and 777 all have crap wipers....

I don't think it's a wiper issue it's to do with the vertical windows and all the water flowing down them. The newer gen aircraft all have sloping windows which would assist with rain removal.

[AfricanSkies]

No, it's probably due to them sourcing the windscreen wipers from a 1969 VW Beetle.

Things I'd like to see changed on tthe 737:

1. Give us an electric panel where you can tell what generator is online without having to think what blue light on/off where means ..
2. Get the damn engine anti ice system to do things on its own
3. If you're gonna take valves off a small trawler to operate the bleed air can it please be a more modern trawler?
4. After 40 years its about time Boeing had the inspiration to make a tiiiny bit of room for things like a bottle of water and/or a Jepp manual/EFB
5. AC plug sockets on both sides of the cockpit please

yeah and whilst i'm dreaming, how about a lil broadband so i can get on with my life:E

[joe falchetto 64]

If the b717 can maintain a common type rating with the dc9

It is not true at list with EASA license: dc9/md80 and b717 are different type ratings.

[Facelookbovvered]

I guess Boeing are between a rock & hard place in terms of what they'd like to do and what the authorities will allow for a common type rating and its the latter that drives what the airlines want/will pay for. The NG is a significant improvement on the CL but the MAX will have a transatlantic range and it would be a lot less fatiguing if the cockpit was quieter and the central pedestal lost some girth.

I believe that the overhead panel simply mimics the CL switch gear and it could just as easily be push button black panel technology, but for the need of a common rating?

Whilst the 'RECAL' system is from the ark it does work provided you understand the logic of dual systems and resist the temptation to dismiss any light as a nuisance warning !!!

But lower fuel burn, more payload/range will be the driver, not the comfort of the driver....

[Al Murdoch]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pressurisation panel. You could not come up with a system more likely to lead to accidents than they did with that - ergonomic disaster doesn't even come close.
In my view they need to move on from the entire flight deck, it's a mess.

[flyingchanges]

Push buttons have a short life span, those pesky switches last forever.

[FlyingStone]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pressurisation panel. You could not come up with a system more likely to lead to accidents than they did with that - ergonomic disaster doesn't even come close.

What's wrong with it? As long as you remember the C-flow and use a hair of common sense and systems understanding, you shouldn't have any problems. Although I do hear that some companies require the bleeds off takeoff procedure to be done from supplementary procedures.

[captjns]

Al Murdoch says
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pressurisation panel. You could not come up with a system more likely to lead to accidents than they did with that - ergonomic disaster doesn't even come close.

In my view they need to move on from the entire flight deck, it's a mess.

The cockpit has been working fine since its inception. May not be the best... but its not the worst either.

The problem lie with pilots that have not or may not follow company SOPs and visually verify switch positions as appropriate.

[BARKINGMAD]

WINSCREEN WIPERS?!!?

FORWARDS VISIBILITY?!?

Does this mean some B73 crews have the spare capacity to actually LOOKOUT, instead of scanning their screens and proclaiming to the CVR:

"What's it doing now?"-indicating a new 'Bus pilot

"Oh, it's doing that again!" - indicating an experienced 'Bus pilot

Careful folks, if this keeps up, we'll see the word "airmanship" creeping back into the manuals and that will never do!

Anyway, it was fun searching the cramped flight deck for those grubby little rubber switch caps. Better than the F/O retiring into his/her hand-held info pad and gawping at motorcycles/gliders/high-heeled shoes etc..........

[flying apple]

one thing they could change that would be a big improvement for me is the possibility to tune a VOR and ILS at the same time and still both get the loc and gp indication on the pfd

(if this is possible i'm sorry than it's just my company that doesn't want to pay for it)

[Al Murdoch]

The gauges alone are appallingly designed for a start - if your aircraft is not pressurising at 10,000ft the needles are in exactly the opposite sense to where they should be - a quick glance in a busy environment and it looks like everything is fine.
The cabin altitude horn is the SAME SOUND as the configuration alarm. Seriously?? Boeing have had to add warning lights to distinguish between the two because of the original poor design that contributed to the Helios accident.
Lots of people do and should notice that immediately, but guess what - people make mistakes and the easier you make it to do so, the more they'll do it.

[Dualbleed]

What about replacing the antiquated Edison light bulbs with LED ones, at least we don't have to change one every day.

[Tee Emm]

Things I'd like to see changed on the 737 Boeing IMHO made a fatal mistake some years back in changing the items on the original B737 after take off checklist. The original checklist first item was "Air Conditioning and Pressurisation......Set." Amplification was contained in the FCOM. It included checking the two pressurisation instruments of cabin altitude and cabin rate of climb.

Instead, Boeing changed that to: "Engine Bleeds....On and Packs.....Auto.

From personal observation of many after take off checklists I believe very few crews bother to verify the correct operation of the two vital pressurisation instruments of cabin altitude and cabin rate of climb and that is simply because it is not written in a checklist.

Random scanning in flight by either pilot of various overhead switches and instruments is not a checklist item and that is fair enough. Yet sound airmanship would dictate it is prudent to do so; especially the two instruments of the pressurisation system.

And another gripe. Having the PM challenge and reply to his own actions during the after take off checklist and with no input from the PF, is a real human factors trap, since more often than not, it results in the PF failing to cross check the PM's check list verbal enunciation/ actions. The PF can doubtless hear the self challenge and response by the PM, but does he look across and confirm for himself that all is done correctly? Maybe - maybe not. I am all for bringing back the tried and trusted challenge by one pilot and respond by the other pilot. And that is for all normal checklists. At least it is a proper double check.

The fatal accident to the Helios Airline B737 that took off in the manual pressurisation mode and outflow valve open, may not have happened if the crew had used the original Boeing 737 after take off checklist of "Air Conditioning and Pressurisation...Set" where part of that check was to observe the cabin altitude and cabin rate of climb as directed in the amplified section of the FCOM. Clearly neither pilot did this otherwise they would have seen an abnormal cabin rate of climb and be alerted to a pressurisation problem.

On that occasion it is presumed the PM did indeed challenge and respond to himself that he had "Set or verified" that the engine bleeds and air conditioning packs were operating as the first items on the published after take off checklist. But yet the aircraft took off unpressurised.

Right now, the Boeing 737 after take off checklist, which is started after flap retraction is complete (typically by 3000 feet), includes nothing about checking the cabin altitude or cabin rate of climb. As a result, these two vital pressurisation instruments are often missed by both pilots in the after take off scan.

[oceancrosser]

Hi,
Anybody knows If the overhead panel is going to be the same that 737 Ng?

The picture posted of the MAX cockpit very intentionally omits the overhead panel. There will be minimum changes to its appearance, even if the systems change somewhat. Awful antiquated design that is way past its sell-by date.

And the lovely :mad: grinder wheel is still there, "clunk, clunk".

That's so 1960s...

[Dogma]

Write to Boeing or tweet about it, there is a bit of work to be done.

Move all the CBs to the E&E bay and make it more like the 787.

[Iver]

Sorry chaps, great points but you will have to get all proposed changes approved by Southwest Airlines first... They have Boeing by the sack.

[AfricanSkies]

Ha I laughed reading some of these!

Tee Em I completely agree with you regarding the checklists challenge.

What's with the finishing of the before takeoff checklist after cabin secure nowadays? There's still items to be done now after its completion ie. Strobes, transponder, lights.. and if you fly 300 400 and 800 these items are all in different places.. :uhoh:

[A and C]

The manufacturers of the B737 warning lights do produce an LED direct replacement............... All your boss has to do is buy them!

http://www.esterline.com/controlsystems/KORRY/OtherSwitchesIndicators/434Indicator.aspx

[flyingchanges]

And the lovely :mad: grinder wheel is still there, "clunk, clunk".That is one of the best features, that and the throttles that actually move. Both provide ample warning of impending doom.

[BARKINGMAD]

Al Murdoch, if you are a current 73 driver, a little thinking outside the TRIs box and the cabin alt/diff guage is soooh easy to interpret!

It reads like a clock, 12 o'clock on the ground at sea level airports.

By the time the after T/O checklist is actioned, the "clock" reads 1210 to 1215 with the "minute hand" ALWAYS leading the "hour hand", just like any normal analogue watch/clock.

By 10,000 ft, it reads 1225, by 20,000 ft it reads 1235 and at 30,000 ft it reads 1340ish.

If it doesn't, it is blindingly obvious, especially when the little hand moves faster/further than the big hand.

The same obvious trend, with slightly different "times", will be obvious after takeoff from non-sealevel fields.

In various companies I tried to get the TRIs to try this as a method for teaching new to type trainees, but alas the not-invented-here syndrome ensured this easy unambiguous way of interpreting the 2 pointer instrument was never adopted.

S'not rocket science.

Tee Emm, this is a similar reason for your observations on the lack of pressn checks in the climb. The responsibility rests with the hallowed profession of TRE/TRI/LTC. Why are they not teaching the check and appropriately debriefing their candidates?

[flyingchanges]

5,000' 2PSI, 10,000' 4PSI, FL180 6PSI...

This is not rocket science, and should be part of your scan after clean up and passing through altitude benchmarks.

Just the noise level change with the exhaust valve closing is part of the routine.

[Centaurus]

Boeing IMHO made a fatal mistake some years back in changing the items on the original B737 after take off checklist. The original checklist first item was "Air Conditioning and Pressurisation......Set." Amplification was contained in the FCOM. It included checking the two pressurisation instruments of cabin altitude and cabin rate of climb.

Instead, Boeing changed that to: "Engine Bleeds....On and Packs.....Auto.


Flight International 15-21 July 2014 has just published extracts from a an Irish investigation into a Ryan Air 737-800 pressurisation problem where the aircraft was incorrectly configured for take off and which was missed by the crew conducting the after take off checklist. According to the FI article, the crew also missed subsequent checks of the pressurisation at 3000 ft and 10,000 ft and the oversight was not discovered until 18,000 ft. Inquiries by the Ireland Air Accidents Investigation Unit found that during the after start checklist, the captain responded "packs off" when the first officer called the after start checklist.

While the before start checklist requires the air conditioning packs to be off, the after start checklist demands a "Packs Auto." The first officer did not query the error. In response, Ryan Air has introduced a procedural change following the incident, requiring the PM to verbalise cabin pressure gauge readings rather than simply call "check" during the climb. The inquiry is recommending that this change be introduced by all carriers.

In the actual AAIU report there is a interesting comment concerning an obvious flat cockpit gradient. That presumably referred to the habit of the first officer addressing the captain as "Mate" on several occasions during the pressurisation problem and taking precipitate actions without apparently first coordinating with the captain

Talk about re-inventing the wheel. The check of the cabin pressurisation instruments was always part of the after take off checklist scan from the introduction of the first Boeing 737-100 in 1968 until Boeing saw fit to change it a few years ago. See Tee Emm's earlier comments at Post 30.

[BARKINGMAD]

At the rate of climb of the NG over that altitude increase, I'm surprised the trapped wind pressure and possible escape plus the popping of the eustacion tubes didn't alert these 2?

I'm not advocating flying by the seat of the pants but occasionally this can indicate a systems malfunction or mis-setting..........

I refer the readers to my previous posting, a practice which I attribute to the dead science of "airmanship/common sense", written out of the plot in recent amendments of the "How to fly it" series of manuals!!! :confused:

[Fredairstair]

Some really interesting points above, thanks.

My 5p worth.....

There's confusion on the line between the PM scan (the after t/o checks) where the first item is "set/verify engine bleeds and verify ac packs are operating". And the after t/o checklist, that reads Engine Bleeds ON, Packs AUTO, etc.

[FlyingStone]

An operator always has the option to establish their own procedures, which may or may not differ from manufacturer's recommendation. FCOM is not a bible, it's a guideline.

[tdracer]

Push buttons have a short life span, those pesky switches last forever.

We've also had occasional issues with those push button switches unilaterally changing state - a very rare problem with toggle switches.

[STBYRUD]

Meh, is anybody seriously surprised? It would be a mammoth task to fit a central warning computer or whatever Boeing would call it into the 737 to replace the ancient master caution annunciator... If they manage to improve the airflow in the cockpit (I don't need my neck and forehead ventilated, thank you very much), perhaps make it another smidgen quieter and throw in a multiscan radar as standard I'd be happy to go back to the 737 :)

[Skyjob]

Additionally those costs of fitting in a central warning system computer could be voided if properly used and installed Class 2 or 3 EFB would be used.

Checklist applications exist which can sense the aircraft's data bus and act thus similarly to those expensive warning systems and on a much cheaper and flexible scale... We could keep the master caution without a problem and use it properly.

[STBYRUD]

Thats exactly the problem - there is no central airplane bus! All you have are discretes, dozens and dozens of wires that either have a voltage on them or not...

[A37575]

FCOM is not a bible, it's a guideline

While that may true, nevertheless if you choose to deviate from the manufacturers recommendations published in the FCOM and FCTM, then the pilot and operator leaves himself wide open to searching questioning by the legal fraternity in the event of an incident.

[aa73]

Say what you want, not a day goes by that I don't enjoy flying my "old school cockpit" 737NG that still requires piloting skills. Trim wheel, manual generator engaging, manual reversion, I'll take it any day of the week and twice on Sunday. ;)

Long live the FLUF!

[pudoc]

Please give the cabin crew the ability to control the cabin temperature!! :ugh:

[Potsie Weber]

With the NG having no round ammeters above the bus switching panel, I wonder if the MAX might finally see the scalloping removed.

http://www.b737.org.uk/images/paneloverhead_737-700.jpg

[Alloy]

From a non 737 driver, please tell me the above panel is not from an NG, it looks ancient! Aircraft from 30 years ago looked more organised and modern!

[STBYRUD]

Hahaha, i miss that overhead panel... I can actually do things myself, take readings, switch generators and bleeds regardless of system logic...

Had a chance to fly a few circuits in the old MD80 sim in Rome, now THAT is an oldschool overhead - somebody just threw switches and dials into the air and saw what stuck :D

[aa73]

Indeed, that is an NG overhead and it may be ancient but I love OLD SCHOOL!!

4500hrs on the old Super 80 and that may be one aircraft I like even better than the NG!

[ACMS]

Alloy......too complicated for you bud? Have you taken a look at an Airbus overhead panel compared to the 777?

[misd-agin]

Pressurization check is simple and easy to remember if you are a US pilot and do any home improvement work -

1x3
2x4
4x10

Differential x altitude.

[7Q Off]

Old but very easy to operate.

Old school rules.

[stilton]

'Indeed, that is an NG overhead and it may be ancient but I love OLD SCHOOL!!

4500hrs on the old Super 80 and that may be one aircraft I like even better than the NG! '



Only an American airlines pilot could call the MD80 'super' :confused:

[7Q Off]

The only thing boeing need to change on the max vs ng,efis is to add the extra equipment as standard (extra servos, 3 axis auto pilot, whatever it need) so we can use the AT with one engine inoperative. The rest I dont care.

[Denti]

You can have that on the NG already. Although only during approach below 1500ft and during go around until another lateral mode is selected.

Yup, it is not standard, but apparently it is not a big issue for operators and honestly pilots alike.

[Sky Wave]

Used to fly the 737 and now on the Airbus and would hate to go back to the 737.

Can't understand all you folk that love the tractor, I guess it's a bit like people that drive around in classic cars.

I feel really sorry for the Monarch guys n gals

[7Q Off]

I mean the extra servos so when you use the AT and the AP with one engine you dont need to manually change the rudder trim every time you change your power settings. Trust, adjust rudder, trust, rudder. Its 2014 please. Is the only thing I hate of the 737. Beside that is a wonderfull plane, easy to operate, very good performance (the 700 series).

Regard the overhead panel I am so used to it that I dont care. I flew the 200, the 300, 500, 700 and 800, so is the same to me if they change it.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Used to fly the 737 and now on the Airbus...

On. Not fly.

There you have it.

[Denti]

@7Q: as i said, that is already available. Just not for all phases of flight. It is required for OEI CAT III approaches. I believe full thrust asymmetry compensation is only available on FBW boeings.

[7Q Off]

Not available in my company aircrafts. You still need to apply rudder trim with one engine every time you change power setings. Like the old 200. Fail pasive.

I know what you mean denti, the thing is some airfraft have that feature available for some phases, but some not. Its optional. I mean it should be something standard for all phases for a modern aircraft. Not just for fail op aircraft and not just for some phases.

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

....Whilst we are at it, can anyone remind me the name of those Boeing detachable cockpit lights that were on a flexible coiled chord, and could be swapped from a white to red lens?

The rumour was that Boeing had such a huge store of these lights that they were fitted on every model from the B17 to the 744 ( retired before the 748 ) Have to say, they did have a bit of a 1940s look about them....

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Wander lights....?

[Skyjob]

If he means the wonder light, is he aware that rotating the lens changes colour from white to red? No need to change colour of lens...

[stilton]

'...Whilst we are at it, can anyone remind me the name of those Boeing detachable cockpit lights that were on a flexible coiled chord, and could be swapped from a white to red lens?'



That's a Grimes light.

[Centaurus]

Things I'd like to see changed on tthe 737:

Get rid of the "Area of Responsibility" concept. It is far too complicated depending who is PF for the leg, whether the aircraft is stopped or moving on the ground etc. Make the captain responsible for starting the engines and not splitting who operates the start levers and who operates the start switch. On the -200 the captain did both and then for some unknown reason Boeing thought that was too complicated for the captain to do both actions and changed the checks to share the starting.

Go back to the original concept of checklist operation. One pilot challenges and the other responds. Not like now where one pilot challenges himself and responds to himself while the other pilot observes. Except on most occasions the observing pilot does not observe because he is too busy fiddling with the FMC or scratching himself under the lap strap while looking out of the window waiting for his turn to respond.

[c100driver]

One reason the FO starting the engines is pecause of the introduction of power push units. This requires that the Captain provides the steering input on the pushback.

[Skyjob]

Centaurus, c100driver is correct about the captain's input.
Furthermore if FO ALWAYS would start engines then captain can concentrate fully on pushback, monitor FO and possibly use hand signals without having hands on engine start levers etc.

Personally, the philosophy of handing over controls in some LCC's is too complicated, handing over control before taxi introduces this. Simply take LHS/RHS responsibilities from before engine start/push back and thus as per Boeing FCOM Master document and it would be a lot easier.

[ManaAdaSystem]

What to change?

The cockpit is way to noisy. Give us the possibility to close the air outlets in the ceiling. The same with the side outlets. The whole nose should be redesigned.

The warning system is simply outdated. The six pack is a jurassic design and half the time one or the other light is not working when it is pressed. You need to press and wiggle the bl...y thing to get the lights to work. Boeing bought MD. Helios would never have happened with a MD 80 warning system.

The overhead panel is embarrasing. It works, but that is all. If SWA is telling Boeing to keep it, tell them to f off. What will they do, buy A 320 and retrain all pilots, or give the pilots a short difference course?

The check list for the aircondition/pressurisation system was changed not after Ryanair got it wrong (more than one time), but after a number of B 737 operators got it wrong. That pretty much stopped after the check list changed. The panel is not easy to read.

Have Boeing modified the spoiler system so it will retract automatically if you advance the throttles?

It don't feel the need to trim, trim, trim every time i move the thrust levers. And don't get me started on that idiotic speed trim system.

The Max does not impress me so far. I hope I don't have to fly it.

[Dogma]

The Max design doesn't impress me and I will have to fly it.

That said I do love flying the current NG over the special needs Jet. Perhaps the continuation of the arcane technology will keep us in piloting jobs for many years to come. But can't understand why they would not replace so many stone age bits

[captplaystation]

c100driver,

Unless my company are doing "non-Boeing" (which I doubt) the FO merely commences the start sequence by selecting the start switch, for the rest of the start the Capt is expected to select start lever/monitor parameters etc. . . & steer the aircraft whilst responding to the driver of the Tana . . . . so, not so clever after all.

Personally, using these tugs I always waited till "Parking Brake Set & Goodbye" before doing anything involving engines. . .but , then again, I never did single engine taxi either (horrified to see Easy Jet doing it all the time on the Bus . . . hate it myself. )

[c100driver]

One would never know if an Airlines FCOM was "Boeing" or "non Boeing" unless you have access to the original Boeing documents for your fleet specification. Almost all airlines customise their FCOM's to how the current Chief Pilot thinks it should be done.

Our entire Boeing Fleet from B737 to B747 (5 different types) the FO starts the engines so the Captain can manage the operation, however we are by no means "Boeing 100%". How far each type is away from "Boeing" I am not aware of but that is how my airline operates.

[LNIDA]

I did read somewhere that the start switches will change to STOP RUN START which makes sense now that the engines are FADEC control and aircraft fitted with the auto function do not require any engine start switch selection change prior to selecting TAI, although cut off will still be manual with fuel lever, not that its needed as such if you have a STOP selection.

[ManaAdaSystem]

And PLEASE modify the aircon system to give the selected temp, not 70 degrees C when the cabin is cold. And I don't want to adjust the temp all the time.
My car does a better job than a 737 NG.

[Capt Pit Bull]

7q

Not available in my company aircrafts. You still need to apply rudder trim with one engine every time you change power setings. Like the old 200. Fail pasive.

Don't move the thrust lever then....

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

....Thanks, Stilton. That saved me from trawling through old manuals buried in the attic. I remember as a co-pilot on detachment with Americans over 40 years ago, someone who flew B17s from England during WW2 said our 707 grimes lights seemed identical. Wonder if the 787 still has them......

[stilton]

You're welcome, don't know about the 787 but we have them on our 75 and 767's.



They are handy I agree, I could use one in my car :)



We had them on our B727's as well and I wouldn't doubt they were in the B17..

[repulo]

Any news in the grapevine about the flight deck? I couldn't find any info about the overhead panel or the mighty circuit breaker racks nobody needs. Would be nice to receive some more data about the actual development status.

[ImbracableCrunk]

They are getting rid of the RAM DOOR OPEN lights. There ya go. That's the big change.

The reason you didn't find any info, is because there almost no change.:{

[Derfred]

Fascinating reading this thread along side the "Single Pilot" and "Pilotless" airliner threads...

[stator vane]

No amount of lights and warnings so-called improvements will help unless the pilot actually knows how the airplane and its systems work and actually pays attention to what they are doing and to the aircraft and what its gauges are telling him/her.

And any checklists are much the same. Brain must be on first. The main thing I find annoying in the QRH is its size had quadrupled due to poorly thought out attempted remedies to accommodate pilots who do not know the machine and how the systems work. Now it is a clumsy bulky 'airplane for idiots' book.

[JT8D-17]

Is there any official documentation on the Max cockpit upgrades? There is a nice picture on the Boeing website but it is very small.

Randy's Journal (http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/)

Is the HUD going to be a standard fit or option?

:ok:

[neville_nobody]

Fascinating reading this thread along side the "Single Pilot" and "Pilotless" airliner threads...

My thoughts exactly. Given that both the A320Neo and 737Max will still be flying for airlines in 2035-2040's using 80's and 60's technology I think that pilot jobs are pretty safe for the next couple of generations.

What other industry in 2040 will be using designs and technology from the 1960s??!! Goes to show how backward aviation really is! It's 2030 and you are still flying around with no EICAS!

On a serious note it is going to provide a training challenge into the future.

[porch monkey]

Airlines that have orders in for the Max have access to a powerpoint show and tell regarding the cockpit "updates". At least ours does, anyway.

[B-HKD]

You can thank Southwest for that.

They had Boeing install "INOP" labelled metal plates on the MCP to prevent VNAV and A/T from being used on their 737NG fleet up to 2009.

When they opted to take advantage of RNP approaches, they had to re-train crews and enabled A/T and VNAV. This alone achieved millions of $$$ in savings within the first month.

Still, they want to keep commonality for good reason ($$$) and have a lot of say in the MAX development. Since the -200 fleet, the goal has been to keep the next generation of 737 derivative as close as possible to the previous one.

[underfire]

You can thank Southwest for that.

They had Boeing install "INOP" labelled metal plates on the MCP to prevent VNAV and A/T from being used on their 737NG fleet up to 2009.


Not to mention the FO had nothing... It wasnt like everyone didnt figure out you could use a paperclip though that pinhole in that plate to engage VNAV...

Is the HUD going to be a standard fit or option?

That was funny! :}

[ManaAdaSystem]

And what exactly is Southwest going to do if Boeing decides to upgrade the jurassic overhead panel?
Scrap all their 737 aircraft and buy Airbus? Weeks of transition training?
Or give the pilots a days training on the new panel?

This is Boeings decision. Saves money.

[B737SFP]

Sorry, but...

Anyone care to explain what was the Southwest deal regarding A/T and VNAV stated above ?

:}

[B-HKD]

The -200 had no A/T and VNAV so the -300/500 were operated without either as were the -700. Southwest also pushed Boeing to design the "classic" configuration of the display units (resembling the non-glass configuration of the -300/500 they operated). Thankfully Boeing made this a customer option.

Some other operators also made use of this, such as Continental/United until the classics were retired (simple software pin change to switch to the regular display set up).

http://www.avionic-online.com/img/737NGX_PMDG18.jpg

And yes ManaAdaSystem, Boeing could indeed force the change, and Southwest could do little about it. Ultimately they value the customers longstanding loyalty, and to the extent that Southwest gets a full tank of gas on all their -700/800 deliveries out of KBFI, to this day.

I'm sure ure most other big NG operators dont want any major changes either. Pilots excluded of course

[brandy1]

So WN's order for 200 MAX's trumped the desires of the remaining 2600 orders from other airlines?

No way.

That argument may have been valid for the NG, but not the MAX.

The MAX was destined for minimal change due to market pressure. The NEO is a year ahead of it, and Boeing needed to get something to market asap.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/news/new-flight-deck-displays.page

[7478ti]

Perhaps notwithstanding some of the "less than complementary" comments elsewhere in this thread, ...the B737NG, and particularly the Max still rule the world of NAV, with excellent fleet leading RNP ops capability (e.g., just try to fly procedures like at NZQN, PAJN, CYLW, or even KDCA with tight RNP, to the same reliable capability in ANY other transport or corporate jet) ...and also GLS (e.g., especially with RNP matched with EDFCS and LAND 3 monitored by the HUD AIII). The B737 is as good or better than any other current or planned narrow-body or wide body jet produced globally... The B737 remains the fleet leader for much of NAV capability, and likely will remain so for at least the next decade or more (and that includes all current offerings from both sides of the Atlantic).

[Denti]

It is certainly a good product for NAV capability. And yes, IAN is in my opinion better implemented than the managed variant, although it has a breach in procedure with the inability to fly curved approaches in APProach mode, unlike the managed thing.

However, GLS is available on equipment from both OEMs, airbii are certified for RNP 0.10 approaches as well as boeings are.

But i believe the comments were not about the NAV capability. It was about the more than questionable flight deck ergonomics, the missing EICAS and the ancient overhead panel.

[FlyingStone]

The B737 is as good or better than any other current or planned narrow-body or wide body jet produced globally...

Even navigation wise, not really. As Denti says, no curved approaches with IAN, it won't tune an ILS for you automatically (something Boeing introduced on the 747-400 in the 80's), no autotuning of appropriate VOR/NDBs en-route for position check, etc. Plus, you can't do a single-engine Cat 3A autoland with single AC source - unless you have an HUD.

No doubt 737 is a very nice airplane, just not a very modern one.

[7478ti]

Reference NAV, ...it is the RNP and GLS "CAPABILITY" that matters...

Note: not all RNP .1 is even equal. To actually fly real RNP based procedures (like the ones referenced),... The NG and Max are superior to any current european or south american offering, ...and the NG/Max are even equal to or superior to any other north american offering for actual path performance and capability. Yes, it is true that secondary features like some aspects of tuning could be updated, but that doesn't affect its excellent performance.

Reference IAN, ... IAN was never designed to address flying RF legs. That's why you simply use RNP capability with LNAV and VNAV for all those kinds of key beneficial procedures. IAN was originally invented simply to provide a better way to use the AP and various (e.g., EGPWS) protections, and use common flight deck procedures and annunciations, ...with a more sensible (straight-in) lateral and vertical path, typically when needing to fly classic straight-in based SIAP approaches.

[ImbracableCrunk]

no autotuning of appropriate VOR/NDBs en-route for position check, etc.

No doubt 737 is a very nice airplane, just not a very modern one.

The FMC/MMR does autotuning, it's just transparent. Why not let the ANP do its job or watch the appropriate page in the FMC?

[Capt.123]

Hello there... i am planning to go for B737 NG type rating, can any one suggest what to study before we go for rating.. some help will be appreciated...

Thanks

[aa73]

'Indeed, that is an NG overhead and it may be ancient but I love OLD SCHOOL!!

4500hrs on the old Super 80 and that may be one aircraft I like even better than the NG! '



Only an American airlines pilot could call the MD80 'super' :confused:
"Super 80" is not an AA thing, it's a Mcdonell Douglas marketing thing that they used when they named the MD-80 the "DC-9 Super 80."

And yes it was super in every way! Old school to the last nut & bolt, I greatly enjoyed flying it and it made me one heck of a sharp pilot. I even preferred it over the 75/76 in many ways...

[kjmorris2023]

Guys and Gals,

Why not just make a lot of the overhead switches mostly dummy switches. For instance in the pressurization system. It knows where your going and where your at. Just put the same panel up and let them do their normal stuff. Kind of like the temperature control in an office building.

Also would it kill them to give them both the lights and the EICAS display. What about an electronic checklist along with the manual one. Hell we had the ECL deferred last month on one jet and we could do the paper checklist just fine.

How about going a step further and replacing some of the white knobs with a switch light (L1011 design--early 70's only 45 years old).

But I agree with one participant about cockpit size. It's not only a 60 year old design (extremely reliable yes) but back when the 737-100 flew the stage lengths were much much shorter. Also the cockpit wasn't a hardened security threat. Give us a couple more feet before the bulkhead Boeing!

Ken Morris
Typed in 737 current 787.