Virgin confirm 23 Boeing 737-8 max aircraft ordered
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yer Yer we have all flown different types and have our favorites.
I was only quoting what came from Boeing and that is,Operators have requested to keep the cockpit the same.
I guess between EW and myself we would have about 80 years of operational experience on different types of aircraft including the Lockheed Electra, B727, B747 and B767.
I was only quoting what came from Boeing and that is,Operators have requested to keep the cockpit the same.
I guess between EW and myself we would have about 80 years of operational experience on different types of aircraft including the Lockheed Electra, B727, B747 and B767.
It is simple and it works well. I have never found it lacking, once I shoehorn myself into the seat that is! Serious question.
Given that it was built post 747-400 it would be akin to buying a nice new commodore and sticking a 1980's VL interior and dash in it.
Yeah it is reliable, has high utility, very flexible, awesome range and performance but the cockpit is a horse's arse.
The 777 or the 744 cockpits are what the 737NG SHOULD and COULD have been.
How many times do you need to creak you neck over and back to check stuff? What affect does that have on ones body over 10000 hours+?
Not to mention the windows and noise.....
In the 1970's they weren't building aircraft with designs from the 1940's now were they........................
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they want to keep the same flight deck ie overhead panel, then just automate everything behind the scenes, such APU automatically connected to the busses at engine shutdown and vis versa when engines are started. Same goes for the packs during engine start.
Make use of the 5th screen and add the system pages and perhaps an electronic checklist. With these changes at least the flight deck operation would be late 20th century rather than mid 20th century.
The overhead panel has only had minor changes since the 707 and 727 appeared, so when you think about when the Max is half way through it's service life the basic design of the overhead panel would be 100 years old!
Make use of the 5th screen and add the system pages and perhaps an electronic checklist. With these changes at least the flight deck operation would be late 20th century rather than mid 20th century.
The overhead panel has only had minor changes since the 707 and 727 appeared, so when you think about when the Max is half way through it's service life the basic design of the overhead panel would be 100 years old!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That must be why we see so many of them in operation around the traps. I have not flown the MD11 but have heard lots of people talk about its "interesting" handling in the flare and landing.
I know the 73's flight deck is not pretty, but it works, it is safe, and it does the job very well."
I'm sorry unseen, my mistake. I didn't realize when you started a post about the 737 flight deck what we were in fact talking about was the flare and landing characteristics of different aircraft. I apologize, I have this annoying habit of reading what people have actually written, instead of doing what I should of been doing all along. Which is reading their minds.
I have to say in response to your reply that some of the smoothest landings I've ever done were in the MD-11. And I can't recall any bad ones either. Always found it to be a rather effortless aircraft to control (as long as you fly above Vmca). A tail mounted engine to counteract pitch changes as a result of thrust changes, full flight auto throttle and LSAS (Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System) always made for a nice stable approach, unlike the 737 on a gusty day.
And the only reason you don't see 100's of them flying around today is because Boeing killed it of when they bought McDonald Douglas. And the reason, it was to much competition for the 777 (MD-11 didn't have the ETOPS issues the 777 did back then). Ask any operator of the MD-11 if they would of liked more of them and they'll all say yes (as a freighter it's 9% more efficient per kg/mile than the 747-400). The only reason the original production version didn't reach it's full potential was MD ran out of money as a result of some pretty poor management. As a result they had to stick the DC-10 wing and rudder on the MD-11 (hence the Vmca rudder authority issues). Had they been around to make a next generation MD-11 it would of been an absolute cracker of an aircraft I have no doubt.
As for the 737 flight deck being safe. Well it's all a question of degrees really isn't it. You can argue over automation removes the pilot from the information loop, just as you can argue a lack of automation on the flight deck distracts a pilot form their core function, flying the dam plane! I've always felt the later to be true of the 737, and I fear Boeing has let slip another opportunity to correct this with the new 737 max. sure it's going to be a great plane, new leap engines, new tail cone, wing spar box and fancy new wing fences. But it's flight deck is not in keeping with what we know to be best practice.
A good example is single engine operations. A hand full at the best of times, but add to this the additional concern of having to remember to manually balance the fuel every 10 minutes or so. And if you don't remember to do this then the only indication you get on the flight deck to alert you to the imbalance is that a tiny amber IMBAL which appears below the low fuel tank indication, and that tanks digits turn amber. No audible warning, no master caution, no illumination of the six packs. Very easy to miss when your attention is on other matters.
Smart flight decks remove these secondary house keeping functions from the pilots and reduce their work load so that they can focus on their core function. Flying the dam plane. To my mind the 737 doesn't do this. So is it safe, yeah safe enough. But the question should be is it as safe and as functional as it could be? And the answer has to be no way!
As for companies asking Boeing to keep the flight deck unchanged so that the rating remains the same, I'm pretty sure that's BS. In the interview the Boeing head of program gave to Australian Aviation a few months back he stated that the flight deck would remain unchanged as they didn't want to risk the delivery schedule slipping like it did with the 787. And that they needed to get it off the production line as quick as possible to offset the ground they had lost to the A320 NEO in terms of orders on the books, and intended delivery dates.
I personally feel Boeing would of been better off putting in the extra money and time and doing a complete redesign of the aircraft. It's clear the 737 airframe as it is now has reached the end of its life span. They can't put bigger engines on it after the max without a complete redesign, where as the A320 can. And the 737 shares no commonality with any other current Boeing models, and Airbus does.
Time will tell who's got it right.
I know the 73's flight deck is not pretty, but it works, it is safe, and it does the job very well."
I'm sorry unseen, my mistake. I didn't realize when you started a post about the 737 flight deck what we were in fact talking about was the flare and landing characteristics of different aircraft. I apologize, I have this annoying habit of reading what people have actually written, instead of doing what I should of been doing all along. Which is reading their minds.
I have to say in response to your reply that some of the smoothest landings I've ever done were in the MD-11. And I can't recall any bad ones either. Always found it to be a rather effortless aircraft to control (as long as you fly above Vmca). A tail mounted engine to counteract pitch changes as a result of thrust changes, full flight auto throttle and LSAS (Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System) always made for a nice stable approach, unlike the 737 on a gusty day.
And the only reason you don't see 100's of them flying around today is because Boeing killed it of when they bought McDonald Douglas. And the reason, it was to much competition for the 777 (MD-11 didn't have the ETOPS issues the 777 did back then). Ask any operator of the MD-11 if they would of liked more of them and they'll all say yes (as a freighter it's 9% more efficient per kg/mile than the 747-400). The only reason the original production version didn't reach it's full potential was MD ran out of money as a result of some pretty poor management. As a result they had to stick the DC-10 wing and rudder on the MD-11 (hence the Vmca rudder authority issues). Had they been around to make a next generation MD-11 it would of been an absolute cracker of an aircraft I have no doubt.
As for the 737 flight deck being safe. Well it's all a question of degrees really isn't it. You can argue over automation removes the pilot from the information loop, just as you can argue a lack of automation on the flight deck distracts a pilot form their core function, flying the dam plane! I've always felt the later to be true of the 737, and I fear Boeing has let slip another opportunity to correct this with the new 737 max. sure it's going to be a great plane, new leap engines, new tail cone, wing spar box and fancy new wing fences. But it's flight deck is not in keeping with what we know to be best practice.
A good example is single engine operations. A hand full at the best of times, but add to this the additional concern of having to remember to manually balance the fuel every 10 minutes or so. And if you don't remember to do this then the only indication you get on the flight deck to alert you to the imbalance is that a tiny amber IMBAL which appears below the low fuel tank indication, and that tanks digits turn amber. No audible warning, no master caution, no illumination of the six packs. Very easy to miss when your attention is on other matters.
Smart flight decks remove these secondary house keeping functions from the pilots and reduce their work load so that they can focus on their core function. Flying the dam plane. To my mind the 737 doesn't do this. So is it safe, yeah safe enough. But the question should be is it as safe and as functional as it could be? And the answer has to be no way!
As for companies asking Boeing to keep the flight deck unchanged so that the rating remains the same, I'm pretty sure that's BS. In the interview the Boeing head of program gave to Australian Aviation a few months back he stated that the flight deck would remain unchanged as they didn't want to risk the delivery schedule slipping like it did with the 787. And that they needed to get it off the production line as quick as possible to offset the ground they had lost to the A320 NEO in terms of orders on the books, and intended delivery dates.
I personally feel Boeing would of been better off putting in the extra money and time and doing a complete redesign of the aircraft. It's clear the 737 airframe as it is now has reached the end of its life span. They can't put bigger engines on it after the max without a complete redesign, where as the A320 can. And the 737 shares no commonality with any other current Boeing models, and Airbus does.
Time will tell who's got it right.
The NG is a great jet and fun to fly. Not as good to land as the 300-400 series but fun none the less. It has great technology (RNP-AR, GLS etc HGS) yet the systems display (not the systems themselves) are rubbish. It should have EICAS (it is has the ability) it should have a better a more user friendly overhead panel. It should basically be a scaled down version of the 777. How long would a differences course last. (We aren't talking going from classic to 777 style here, NG to 777 style.)
I am led to believe that SW originally demanded that the overhead panel reflect the classic as the FAA said they would need a type course instead of differences course. They really should move it forward from an ergonomic perspective. The six pack is a joke to be honest. When you have flown something else (EICAS/ECAM) you can see the silliness of it. It works but it is far from a ideal system. Hands up who has struggled to work out what exact checklist you need to call for (not the system but the exact checklist heading) at some stage on the 737. I know I have. Whereas EICAS/ECAM free up that brain space and allow you to get the problem solving underway more quickly.
I loved flying it but it is in need of a upgrade. That is not to say Virgin shouldn't buy it. Good decision in my opinion.
I am led to believe that SW originally demanded that the overhead panel reflect the classic as the FAA said they would need a type course instead of differences course. They really should move it forward from an ergonomic perspective. The six pack is a joke to be honest. When you have flown something else (EICAS/ECAM) you can see the silliness of it. It works but it is far from a ideal system. Hands up who has struggled to work out what exact checklist you need to call for (not the system but the exact checklist heading) at some stage on the 737. I know I have. Whereas EICAS/ECAM free up that brain space and allow you to get the problem solving underway more quickly.
I loved flying it but it is in need of a upgrade. That is not to say Virgin shouldn't buy it. Good decision in my opinion.
Last edited by Capt_SNAFU; 8th Jul 2012 at 23:12. Reason: typo
Join Date: May 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with the above, love flying the 73. Disappointed that boeing don't want to change the flight deck. Even if they kept the 6 pack for commonality and still utilised the space on the upper DU for the eicas, lower DU for systems pages (schematics), that would be an improvement. They could automate things like Anti ice. Have an option for those operators who wish to use a push button overhead panel, more 777 style. I would have thought Boeing would have learnt from past mistakes re SW & the NG. Companies don't buy aeroplanes for pilots to like, whatever will work for them best as far as bottom line goes. Having said all that I still look forward to flying it.
Southwest still operate all aircraft with EHSI/EADI config (even the NG's)
Not really ones to sign up for the latest technology
Photos: Boeing 737-7H4 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Not really ones to sign up for the latest technology
Photos: Boeing 737-7H4 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Last edited by Buckshot; 9th Jul 2012 at 06:23.
It is sad isn't it. 
A tragedy to use good displays in this fashion. I remember seeing a similar photo years ago. It may have been a transitional thing as there are more recent photo's showing better use of the displays.
A tragedy to use good displays in this fashion. I remember seeing a similar photo years ago. It may have been a transitional thing as there are more recent photo's showing better use of the displays.
Last edited by Capt_SNAFU; 9th Jul 2012 at 09:25. Reason: Error
