Virgin confirm 23 Boeing 737-8 max aircraft ordered
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep....the flight deck design and operating philosophy of the Airbus contributed to the loss of the AF447 airplane, so I continue to stand by my original comments.
Even with that rather silly following comment....
I'm well aware of the differences, that's why!
I'm certainly not alone...
Even with that rather silly following comment....
I'm well aware of the differences, that's why!
I'm certainly not alone...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for continuing with thread drift, but to EW & others, I'm astonished at the ignorance & bias demonstrated towards the Airbus product. I'm currently flying the A330 after a few years on the 737, & it's a great aeroplane. Have you personally had a bad experience on one that has left you so shaken & prejudiced against them? Because I've found that there are plenty of armchair critics out there who love to criticise the aeroplane - when they've never flown one, & don't understand them in the first place. 
The thread is about Virgin selecting the 737 Max, so it stands to reason they decided that over the only other option the A320 neo.
EW73s comments are flawed by the statistical and historical data on the 737 vs A320 argument. The A320 runs at a slightly lower hull loss rate than the 737Ng series and if the -500 series is included (the A320 was introduced against the -300 to -500 model) the 737 moves further behind.
Since 2005 both types have had about the same number of fatal events and numerous hull losses. Both types have suffered from a great number of runway overuns and CFITs in poor weather. In this time 2 possibly 3 737Ng were lost in situations where the main conclusion is crew misshandling/loss of awareness of aircraft state, 1 A320 was lost for similar reason. It could be argued better flight deck design could have improved the crews performance in these scenarios, or better training would have acheived the same. All the other accidents had little to do with cockpit interface/ease of use or aircraft type and more poor crew decisions to land in storms, snow or do things way outside of the rules and normal procedures.
The old arguments of Airbus vs Boeing safety died years ago in a real sense, both provide a viable safe product. Choose the one that does the job for the budget and market.
EW73s comments are flawed by the statistical and historical data on the 737 vs A320 argument. The A320 runs at a slightly lower hull loss rate than the 737Ng series and if the -500 series is included (the A320 was introduced against the -300 to -500 model) the 737 moves further behind.
Since 2005 both types have had about the same number of fatal events and numerous hull losses. Both types have suffered from a great number of runway overuns and CFITs in poor weather. In this time 2 possibly 3 737Ng were lost in situations where the main conclusion is crew misshandling/loss of awareness of aircraft state, 1 A320 was lost for similar reason. It could be argued better flight deck design could have improved the crews performance in these scenarios, or better training would have acheived the same. All the other accidents had little to do with cockpit interface/ease of use or aircraft type and more poor crew decisions to land in storms, snow or do things way outside of the rules and normal procedures.
The old arguments of Airbus vs Boeing safety died years ago in a real sense, both provide a viable safe product. Choose the one that does the job for the budget and market.
If this thread drifts anymore they will be calling in the RAN to save it...and they are a little busy at the moment.
Haven't they deferred a few deliveries too? I would have thought that was more news worthy than deliveries planned for 7 years from now...
Haven't they deferred a few deliveries too? I would have thought that was more news worthy than deliveries planned for 7 years from now...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Shore
Age: 55
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After todays great news from Virgin,News from QF is that the boss will have a good hard Tink over the weekend and try and come back with a plan on monday.
To Be sure
To Be sure
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Wikipedia - B737 MAX
The manufacturer plans no modification in the flight deck as it wants to maintain commonality with the 737 Next Generation family.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: I'veBeenEverywhereMan
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
5 Posts
Not changing the flight deck is just one example of why boeing has lost so much ground to airbus. A new jet coming out in 2020 with what is essentially a 1970 flight deck technology is ridiculous. It should be advanced as the bloody 787. Unbelievable Boeing !
Last edited by SilverSleuth; 7th Jul 2012 at 00:17.
Like spoilt little children crying over toys isn't it. hope these kiddies don't play with heavy machinery!
I sense a mod has taken the kiddies toys away now and sent them to their room!
I sense a mod has taken the kiddies toys away now and sent them to their room!
Last edited by ozbiggles; 7th Jul 2012 at 05:36.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EW QUOTE......I have no faith in the Airbus brand at all, and avoid them whenever I can!
AS with Capt Dart...have a couple of boeing types myself.....been on the Bus series for the last 18 yrs.....actually like both brands...just a matter of your "adaptive" abilities.........
............is this "no-faith"attitude based on experience or the 10-15 tinnies pounded as quickly as possible..........
AS with Capt Dart...have a couple of boeing types myself.....been on the Bus series for the last 18 yrs.....actually like both brands...just a matter of your "adaptive" abilities.........
............is this "no-faith"attitude based on experience or the 10-15 tinnies pounded as quickly as possible..........
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would a major change that makes it a separate type rating male it safer or more efficient at the job it does most of the time - high frequency shorthaul ops.
It is simple and it works well. I have never found it lacking, once I shoehorn myself into the seat that is!
Serious question.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PERTH,AUSTRALIA
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, it's the only commercial Jet still in manufacture that can be landed with a complete loss of hydraulics. Don't know about former Soviet era aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's not Boeing I'm not going! The 737 is the last of the 'real' airliners where you can still take physical control without a computer in between.
Similar argument to Ford and Holden, we all have a preference for our own reasons but both sides are undoubtedly good.
Parts commonality, endorsement costs all come into play. Introducing an entirely new type (IE replacing B737s with A320s) would be a massive undertaking! New manuals, endorsements, sims etc.
Yeah the old overhead panel on the 73 is archaic but it works, is simple and gives us something to do. After all we're paid to push buttons apparently! She's like the bigger version of a Metro, solid, functional and makes money.
As for a previous post, again, why would the E-Jets be not counted in the stats??
Similar argument to Ford and Holden, we all have a preference for our own reasons but both sides are undoubtedly good.
Parts commonality, endorsement costs all come into play. Introducing an entirely new type (IE replacing B737s with A320s) would be a massive undertaking! New manuals, endorsements, sims etc.
Yeah the old overhead panel on the 73 is archaic but it works, is simple and gives us something to do. After all we're paid to push buttons apparently! She's like the bigger version of a Metro, solid, functional and makes money.
As for a previous post, again, why would the E-Jets be not counted in the stats??
Last edited by SW3; 7th Jul 2012 at 12:44.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What is wrong with the flight deck of the 737NG?"
Seriously unseen. You fly one and you have to ask this question!!!
I can only assume from your post that the 737 is the first and only jet you've flown. Don't get me wrong I like the 737. It's very good at doing what it's designed to do. But it's flight deck is an insult to logic, technology, efficiency, ergonomics and common sense.
For one thing there is no reason for all the systems on the overhead panel to be manual. NASA landed a man on the moon in the 60's and Boeing can't design system logic to automatically control cabin pressurization, fuel balancing, air system configuration and cabin zone temperature control. And don't even get me started on not having a parallel electrical system! WTF!
There's no synoptic displays for systems, even thou the lower DU sits there blank for the entire flight. And some genius decided that if the annunciator light for a system was anywhere near being in the pilots scope of vision, then there was no need to have it activate the "six packs" (glare shield annunciator panel for those that don't speak boeing) as the pilots should see it! really!!!! Not that the "six packs" are much better. They've been installed by the finest low wage Mexican's Boeing could employ, and work about as consistently as James Packer exercises.
There's no secondary flight plan function in the FMC, or alternate flight planning fuction. Because no one has ever needed to know their PNR or alternate requirements before. And I just love having to re enter a cruising level every time I level off because the box is to stupid to realise that's what I've done. Profile managment by the FCC is pretty awesome too. Follow that at your peril.
Your right about one thing thou unseen, It is simple.
If you want to see how a real flight deck should look and you ever have the opportunity strap yourself into an MD-11, I highly recommend it. It's almost like someone took the best aspects of Boeing and Airbus and stuck them together into one super sexy awesome 3 holer machine. The automation and system integration of Airbus, with the conventional control system and pilot awareness/logic of Boeing. And it was designed in the early eighties. McDonald Douglas sure knew how to build a plane, so of course they had to be the aircraft manufacturer to go out of business. Great product, lousy management. Now where have I seen that before!
Seriously unseen. You fly one and you have to ask this question!!!
I can only assume from your post that the 737 is the first and only jet you've flown. Don't get me wrong I like the 737. It's very good at doing what it's designed to do. But it's flight deck is an insult to logic, technology, efficiency, ergonomics and common sense.
For one thing there is no reason for all the systems on the overhead panel to be manual. NASA landed a man on the moon in the 60's and Boeing can't design system logic to automatically control cabin pressurization, fuel balancing, air system configuration and cabin zone temperature control. And don't even get me started on not having a parallel electrical system! WTF!
There's no synoptic displays for systems, even thou the lower DU sits there blank for the entire flight. And some genius decided that if the annunciator light for a system was anywhere near being in the pilots scope of vision, then there was no need to have it activate the "six packs" (glare shield annunciator panel for those that don't speak boeing) as the pilots should see it! really!!!! Not that the "six packs" are much better. They've been installed by the finest low wage Mexican's Boeing could employ, and work about as consistently as James Packer exercises.
There's no secondary flight plan function in the FMC, or alternate flight planning fuction. Because no one has ever needed to know their PNR or alternate requirements before. And I just love having to re enter a cruising level every time I level off because the box is to stupid to realise that's what I've done. Profile managment by the FCC is pretty awesome too. Follow that at your peril.
Your right about one thing thou unseen, It is simple.
If you want to see how a real flight deck should look and you ever have the opportunity strap yourself into an MD-11, I highly recommend it. It's almost like someone took the best aspects of Boeing and Airbus and stuck them together into one super sexy awesome 3 holer machine. The automation and system integration of Airbus, with the conventional control system and pilot awareness/logic of Boeing. And it was designed in the early eighties. McDonald Douglas sure knew how to build a plane, so of course they had to be the aircraft manufacturer to go out of business. Great product, lousy management. Now where have I seen that before!
MonsterC01
I take it you haven't flown a Tripler then?
All the stuff you highlighted is there because airlines want it that way, no doubt to keep initial costs down.
Boeing are well capable of designing all the aspects you pointed out and have done just that and more.
The only reason airbus have a more automated flight deck is that they came to the party late and had newer technology at their disposal.
All the stuff you highlighted is there because airlines want it that way, no doubt to keep initial costs down.
Boeing are well capable of designing all the aspects you pointed out and have done just that and more.
The only reason airbus have a more automated flight deck is that they came to the party late and had newer technology at their disposal.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to see how a real flight deck should look and you ever have the opportunity strap yourself into an MD-11, I highly recommend it. It's almost like someone took the best aspects of Boeing and Airbus and stuck them together into one super sexy awesome 3 holer machine. The automation and system integration of Airbus, with the conventional control system and pilot awareness/logic of Boeing. And it was designed in the early eighties. McDonald Douglas sure knew how to build a plane, so of course they had to be the aircraft manufacturer to go out of business. Great product, lousy management. Now where have I seen that before!
I know the 73's flightdeck is not pretty, but it works, it is safe, and it does the job very well.
In short haul, high frequency ops, simple beats complicated.
Don't confuse awesome displays and complicated systems with its ability at doing the job at hand, that's all I am saying!