Boeing 737 MAX

[siftydog]

Reading the litereature on the 737 MAX so far, we're not going to see one fly for another 5 years, and Boeing have stated there will be no flight deck upgrade to maintain current type rating validity.

Have they bottled it again? Are SWA (launch customer) effectively still sifling the type's development?

[ImbracableCrunk]

First, they came for the cotton gin, and I was silent. Then they came for the PFD/ND and I was silent. Then they came for the 737MAX. . .

(Kinda mixed my allusions, but in a word: YES!)

[misd-agin]

Upgrades we'd like? How about a 777/787, or at least a 757/767, level cockpit?

Flipping packs on and off, openning valves, selecting generators, auto trim(and trim wheel) that goes nuts, etc, etc.

Oh, how about 757 windows and field of view, especially for noise? And moving your kitbag farther forward? There are lots of improvements that slapping a 757 nose/cockpit on the 737 would have helped. It came down to $$$ and SW's foot dragging.

[ImbracableCrunk]

The only upgrade I could wish for, is more room...but that's not possible of course.

Of course it's possible, just improbable.

Now a GEN that comes online by itself? That's just smart. As are switches that you tell are on or off without a dome light.

Speed brakes that stow with added thrust. . .

[oldchina]

Boeing didn't want to do the MAX, they had no choice.

By now they should have delivered a couple of hundred 787s and be using that revenue to develop a plastic 787 MINI to replace the 737.

They f***ed up the game plan royally by thinking they could get the 787 done on the cheap, assembling lego parts made by Italians, Japs etc.

Instead of a BMW MINI all they've got now is an Austin MAXI.

[STBYRUD]

Well, true... The only advantage they have is that they are done with the 787-8 development and can now focus on project Y3 (or whatever the 737 replacement may be called by now), Airbus still has to invest some time into the A350...

[B737NG]

The new B737 should have: More space, less noise, a electronic checklist and a trim wheel that is not as dangerous at the +40 Year old. The switching system similar to the B777/787..... I know, Christmas was last year.

[Denti]

Yup, would have wished for a 787/777 style overhead panel, a real EICAS including modern style electronic checklists (again, 777/787 style), an approach mode that can follow curved approach paths (RNP AR/GLS) or simply a new auto flight system.

And of course more room, but i gave that up a long time ago.

The above commonality move to the newer boeings would have helped marketing a true MFF solution, which airbus for example can. Yes, we have already an approval for 737/787 MFF but that is rather awkward with the huge differences between both types.

[Sciolistes]

I don't understand the term "MFF".

The NG has RNP AR curved approach capability. Is GLS the same as GBAS as described in the FCTM?

For what it is worth, the 737 NG in terms of avionics and capability seems to be very sophisticated. A chat with my 777 buddy suggests some additional features over its bigger brother. It can take off and land pretty much anywhere.

Electronic normal checklists would be a big imovement. But not for non-normals, I would prefer to remain the conductor.

As regards space on the flight deck, I only know the 737. As we are stuck in our seats for the duration and those seats are comfy then no specific complaints so far. Happy in my ignorance!

Flight deck noise and ventilation are the issue they really should deal with. I don't care if it has old fashioned panels of switches and knobs, but I want to spend ten hours in the thing without requiring an ANR headset in the cruise and being able to control the temperature, not to mention those aft FD ducts!

[stilton]

This whole obsession with 'minimum change' is going to cost Boeing down the road.


The Airbus design lends itself to a new engine with no compromise on Fan size.


The A320 itself is still reasonably modern and with these new engines should be, and is a good seller.


It is an interim aircraft but not to the extent of the 'max'


Boeing has made a big mistake here in continuing to 'warm up' the ancient 737.


'Interim Aircraft' have a habit of staying around a lot longer than you might think and while the AB product will keep selling well I think Boeing have shot them selves in the foot by catering mostly to SW.



Perhaps the technology is not there yet for a mini 787 but, at a minimum they should have completely upgraded the cockpit and lengthened the main landing gear to allow for the biggest fan that makes sense.

[Denti]

RNP AR capability is only available in LNAV/VNAV which is a step back as all other approaches are flown in approach mode (IAN). GBAS is the augmentation system needed for GLS approaches and it seems the original FCOM uses the term GBAS instead of GLS. GLS does offer curved approach path capability, however the 737 is unable to fly those approaches, again due to the limitations of its auto flight system.

MFF means mixed fleet flying, flying two different types intermixed without the need for OPCs on each type every six months. For example on our airbus fleet the pilots fly both the A320 family and A330s. Each check is done on a different type so it is basically A320l, next one A330, and back again to the small one. That is quite different to the common type rating boeing uses for 757 and 767 or 777 and 787.

[Sciolistes]

RNP AR capability is only available in LNAV/VNAV which is a step back as all other approaches are flown in approach mode (IAN).
Excuse my ack of knowledge in this area. Why is RNAV/RNP with LNAV/VNAV a step back? What should it be?

I am unconvinced by IAN. Sort of like an ILS but isn't with different constraints, limitations and annunciations. Making something like but not quite and requiring extra knwledge and procedures is not KISS in my book, because you still need to proficient with VS and NVAV approaches too!

[MrHorgy]

I thought one of the main issues they wanted to address was redesigning the landing gear, as the next gen engines that save all the $$$ won't fit underneath the wing!

Other than that, put the CB panels on the fuselage walls behind the FO and Capt, to create the space, and make it quieter! And redesign that stupid locker on the FO's side so I don't catch my fingers in it when it springs shut!

Horgy

[Al Murdoch]

I'd like:
Proper sun blinds (can't be that difficult)
About 50% of the noise
Ventilation as good as it is in my car (i.e. dual zone and not governed by the Antichrist)
Wipers as good as they are on my car
Ditto seats
Rationalisation of the instrument lighting controls (how many do you really need?)
Stowages for the Ships Library that I can reach from my seat without giving myself a slipped disc
An EFB
Electronic course selectors built into the FMC, like on the 747 Nav Rad page
A redesigned electrical panel
A strobe/steady switch that doesn't go the wrong way
Circuit-breakers that are not scattered to the four winds, but in one place.

As for everything else - quite like it really.

[Denti]

@Sciolistes the restriction is not IAN in itself, it is the approach mode. The restriction applies to all approaches that use a curved approach path, no matter if precision or non precision.

For the last 6 years or so we fly every instrument approach exclusively in approach mode, no matter if non precision or precision. It is in so far easier as the same steps, indications and procedures are used completely independent of approach type. Of course pilots have to know the restrictions, but that is nothing new in itself, we had to do know that before as well. LNAV/VNAV was only used as a backup mode and in reality if IAN wasn't available LNAV/VNAV wasn't either so the real backup mode was V/S and basic modes. Never had to use that in the real world for the last 12 years though, only every three years in the simulator.

For those RNP (AR) approaches we use (all of them have a curved approach path) we now have to use a procedure which is uncommon and rarely used, which needs additional steps to make it work or constant FMC inputs (not all planes have SPD intervention) and all in all is just an additional hassle. Curved precision approach paths can not be used at all since the auto flight system is not capable of doing so. Although all our 737 come GLS equipped at no extra cost we can only use half the capability.

Just would like to see an approach mode that can use curved approach paths, APV capability would be nice as well.

[FlightPathOBN]

Denti,

Interesting observations to say the least, some of which have certainly prevented the widespread use of RNP AR, especially with ATC. Your comments relate to a common , albeit very common, misunderstanding of the coding of the procedure. (can you send me a PM on this issue)

Note: the SPD issue can be resolved in the coding of the procedure...

Currently, the GBAS system signal is capable of broadcasting curved paths, but is not certified to date.

[keesje]

In 2010 I sketched a more radical 737 upgrade, with lenghtened gears, a 787 style cockpit for fun.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Radical4Bill737Upgrade737-900XG.jpg

Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade? — Tech Ops Forum | Airliners.net (http://www2.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/285819)

Boeing doubted not for months but for yrs. If they had taken a decision in 2008, when Airbus was already mulling a re-engining. (warned them in 2006:
Proposing the A320 enhanced performance — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2724857/) )

However the reality of the 787 developments together with 747-8 problems, plus the blind faith the 737 would be just fine, pushed Boeing into a position where John Leahy (Airbus) kind of launched the MAX..

[kwateow]

With the 707 cabin width and cables to move the control surfaces it has as much chance of flying as the dead specimen on the page.

[porch monkey]

All things CAN be done, and probably would be done, but the kicker is the taller gear. That much modification, coupled with the inevitability of the full recertification which would be required, means we will get the minimal upgrade version, a la MAX........ Of course, since it won't be recertified, boeing can keep the old systems panels, thereby catering for their biggest single customer.... Just like last time!!!!