Should the 737 be banned?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the 737 be banned?
New topic
In the light of the many recent 737 incidents, should the certification of all aircraft (for manufacture) run out after 30 years? In other words, should the 737 be compelled to conform to modern certification requirements, and thus be redesigned from radome to empennage?
Kiwi
In the light of the many recent 737 incidents, should the certification of all aircraft (for manufacture) run out after 30 years? In other words, should the 737 be compelled to conform to modern certification requirements, and thus be redesigned from radome to empennage?
Kiwi
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROFL 
You know how many aircraft from civilian to commercial to military would fall under that same requirement? You would have them bankrupt the entire world that reliese on aircraft to get things done.
I suggest you rethink your proposal.
You know how many aircraft from civilian to commercial to military would fall under that same requirement? You would have them bankrupt the entire world that reliese on aircraft to get things done.
I suggest you rethink your proposal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No joke
I jest not. Is it wise that an aircraft is being produced in the twentyfirst century, that has systems and ergonomics which were designed in the early '50s for the 707?
In automobile terms, would we want '50s and '60s cars, which would not conform to any modern regulations, to be in production today? Would anyone on this forum prefer the infamous Ford Pinto to a modern Volvo S80?
My proposal is simply that an aircraft design should be re-certified every 30 years. If the design passes, all well and good, but if it fails then perhaps the failing system or component in question should be redesigned. I only refer to the 737 because it is unlikely that any of the systems on this old bus would pass any modern certification, whereas most if not all of the equivalent A320's probably would. The question is, is public safety being best served by allowing a design to be manufactured that cannot pass a 21st century safety certificate?
Kiwi
In automobile terms, would we want '50s and '60s cars, which would not conform to any modern regulations, to be in production today? Would anyone on this forum prefer the infamous Ford Pinto to a modern Volvo S80?
My proposal is simply that an aircraft design should be re-certified every 30 years. If the design passes, all well and good, but if it fails then perhaps the failing system or component in question should be redesigned. I only refer to the 737 because it is unlikely that any of the systems on this old bus would pass any modern certification, whereas most if not all of the equivalent A320's probably would. The question is, is public safety being best served by allowing a design to be manufactured that cannot pass a 21st century safety certificate?
Kiwi
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary. The 737 conforms to RVSM, RNP-5 and a whole host of modern certification requirements. In fact the -800 etc were only farly recently certified themselves (ie not 30 years ago).
The proof of the pudding is it is not raining 737's any more than any other type of aircraft when you take into account they are the most common commercial aircraft of all time.
Many accidents are not type specific.
Where do you get your idea of "recent incidents". Why should the fuselage be redesigned - if it withstands cabin pressure and doesn't fall to bits - what could you possibly improve upon (except weight) that would make it safer?
The proof of the pudding is it is not raining 737's any more than any other type of aircraft when you take into account they are the most common commercial aircraft of all time.
Many accidents are not type specific.
Where do you get your idea of "recent incidents". Why should the fuselage be redesigned - if it withstands cabin pressure and doesn't fall to bits - what could you possibly improve upon (except weight) that would make it safer?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I partially agree with Kiwi. After all the 737-300's getting to old for this modern world. One thing that I'm not catching is that you [Kiwi] make it sound like you want all the 737's to go. I'd say that the 737-600s and upwards have very similar flight dynamics and probably the same technologies as the 320's do. According to todays standards the new 737's are more than adequate enough to keep flying for the next twenty years.
Another thing, Kiwi brought this topic up because I think he like many other people realised that it's all the obsolete aircraft that are biting the dust.
Another thing, Kiwi brought this topic up because I think he like many other people realised that it's all the obsolete aircraft that are biting the dust.
Last edited by smooth landing; 19th Sep 2005 at 22:30.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are they too old for the modern world? They don't drop out of the sky, they can navigate well enough and they safely carry passengers every day. What exactly is up with them?
OK, they may not be as spangly as new bits of kit - but why upgrade your phone each year when the old one still does what you want it to?
There is too much use of technology for technology's sake these days, and I speak as a fan of good technology.
There was someone on telly during the Olympics asking why there wasn't some flashy electronic device to judge overstepping on the long jump. The answer? Plasticene works every time, never fails and leaves an imprint, it also cost next to nothing. In short it is the best thing to use. An electronic gismo might look flashy, but it adds no value and costs more in both cash and errors. Whats the point?
OK, they may not be as spangly as new bits of kit - but why upgrade your phone each year when the old one still does what you want it to?
There is too much use of technology for technology's sake these days, and I speak as a fan of good technology.
There was someone on telly during the Olympics asking why there wasn't some flashy electronic device to judge overstepping on the long jump. The answer? Plasticene works every time, never fails and leaves an imprint, it also cost next to nothing. In short it is the best thing to use. An electronic gismo might look flashy, but it adds no value and costs more in both cash and errors. Whats the point?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't drop out of the sky, they can navigate well enough.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mostly hotels
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how can you say that, yes it doesnt have the stall protection features that a 320 has. but even if the aircraft runs out of fuel and
the battery gets depleted , it still has manual back up which though stiff will allow the pilot enough controls to put the airplane on the ground.
navigation on a -200 was a problem but the latter models are spot on. regarding the production , i think only the NGs are being made. i have flown all the variants and i can tell you that its a very competent airplane to have, very versatile and safe.
the battery gets depleted , it still has manual back up which though stiff will allow the pilot enough controls to put the airplane on the ground.
navigation on a -200 was a problem but the latter models are spot on. regarding the production , i think only the NGs are being made. i have flown all the variants and i can tell you that its a very competent airplane to have, very versatile and safe.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kiwi,regarding safety you may have a look at this site : http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
The 737 is one of the safest planes on the market,having also the most number of flights from going into service.
It did evolved over the years,and you can look to a 737-200 ,300 or NG to see that.The 200 is still flying ,by the way.
The NG compared to clasic differes not only by systems,but also by aerodinamics,design.From your question I doubt you even know about the NG 737's.(the -800 ,or even -900XR)
Why not stop also the 747,being an old plane like the 737,right?
What do you mean by 'design' ?
As jetstream rider told you,the 737 was certified for all the modern day requirements.It has all you get on any other plane. EGPWS,RNP-5,RVSM,CAT III ,etc.....
Yes ,it hasn't got a joystick....this is what you mean by design?
Finally,the 737 is not an 'old bus' .Maybe a old bird,or an old airplane but not a bus. The A300 is an old bus....
The 737 is one of the safest planes on the market,having also the most number of flights from going into service.
It did evolved over the years,and you can look to a 737-200 ,300 or NG to see that.The 200 is still flying ,by the way.
The NG compared to clasic differes not only by systems,but also by aerodinamics,design.From your question I doubt you even know about the NG 737's.(the -800 ,or even -900XR)
Why not stop also the 747,being an old plane like the 737,right?
What do you mean by 'design' ?
As jetstream rider told you,the 737 was certified for all the modern day requirements.It has all you get on any other plane. EGPWS,RNP-5,RVSM,CAT III ,etc.....
Yes ,it hasn't got a joystick....this is what you mean by design?
Finally,the 737 is not an 'old bus' .Maybe a old bird,or an old airplane but not a bus. The A300 is an old bus....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hotel
Age: 43
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
merely posting something of this nature is proof that this topic is moot and should be closed.
Ban a 737, why? maybe we should ban toyota camry's since they use the wheel(stone age technology)
Ban a 737, why? maybe we should ban toyota camry's since they use the wheel(stone age technology)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh???
<<......that has systems and ergonomics which were designed in the early '50s for the 707? >>
And, I might ask, what exactly was wrong with the design of the B707?
If you are old enough to have actually flown one (as opposed to ride in one as a pax) you would surely know that it was one fine aeroplane....especially the later versions.
And, I might ask, what exactly was wrong with the design of the B707?
If you are old enough to have actually flown one (as opposed to ride in one as a pax) you would surely know that it was one fine aeroplane....especially the later versions.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So kiwibird, you suggest banning the aircraft that exists in greater numbers in airline service today than any other. That should have a pretty profound impact upon the world airline industry. All of this on the basis that, at least for the older versions, older technology is used.
Older technology still in service = Proven Reliability.
Even making the simplistic assumption that all aircraft are equally safe, with the same accident / incident rate, straight mathematical probability would indicate that the aircraft in the greatest numbers would suffer the highest number of accidents and incidents. So, on this basis, the B737 will certainly suffer a greater number of accidents and incidents. If we replaced every B737 with an A320 tomorrow, the A320 would immediately become the claimant to the highest number of accidents and incidents.
There is another very significant factor. Due to the high availability of used (older) B737s as airlines upgrade to later models, the earlier B737s form the back-bone of the third world airlines. Operating in jungle strips with little more than an NDB approach would make ANY aircraft subject to a fairly high attrition rate. Add to that lower engineering and pilot training standards in these airlines, and the attrition rate becomes higher again. Some years back, the F28 had pride of place as the most crash-likely aircraft, yet it was, and is, a sound aircraft. The F28 was the aircraft of choice by the developing third world operators, and in later times have replaced their F28s with older B737s.
Put the latest technology aircraft, A380, B777-300ER (you name it) in the hands of a third world airline operating with poor maintenance, operate them into poor standard airports with crude approach facilities, and throw in poor load control for good measure, and pretty soon these aircraft will be adding to the casualty list.
The B737 will be flying long after I'm pushing up daisies, and safely so.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Older technology still in service = Proven Reliability.
Even making the simplistic assumption that all aircraft are equally safe, with the same accident / incident rate, straight mathematical probability would indicate that the aircraft in the greatest numbers would suffer the highest number of accidents and incidents. So, on this basis, the B737 will certainly suffer a greater number of accidents and incidents. If we replaced every B737 with an A320 tomorrow, the A320 would immediately become the claimant to the highest number of accidents and incidents.
There is another very significant factor. Due to the high availability of used (older) B737s as airlines upgrade to later models, the earlier B737s form the back-bone of the third world airlines. Operating in jungle strips with little more than an NDB approach would make ANY aircraft subject to a fairly high attrition rate. Add to that lower engineering and pilot training standards in these airlines, and the attrition rate becomes higher again. Some years back, the F28 had pride of place as the most crash-likely aircraft, yet it was, and is, a sound aircraft. The F28 was the aircraft of choice by the developing third world operators, and in later times have replaced their F28s with older B737s.
Put the latest technology aircraft, A380, B777-300ER (you name it) in the hands of a third world airline operating with poor maintenance, operate them into poor standard airports with crude approach facilities, and throw in poor load control for good measure, and pretty soon these aircraft will be adding to the casualty list.
The B737 will be flying long after I'm pushing up daisies, and safely so.
Regards,
Old Smokey
By contrast, if the very highest levels of civilian transport automation, to some, equal the highest level of safety, let's highlight examples of what was previously stated,or implied.
How about the type of fatal accidents on A-320s?: LH in Warsaw (the First Officer was killed; software re-designed after the hydroplaning accident. Apparently all ground spoilers, the anti-skid and maybe the thrust reversers, were all to be active after by a pre-determined amount of main wheel spin-up; why not ground shift as a back-up?), airshow fly-by at Habsheim, a line flight somewhere else in the hills of eastern France (Mulhouse?), the demonstration flight of the A-330 at the Airbus factory in Toulouse, in the Emirates or Dubai, and India.
Ok, the B-757 crashed in the Andes, due to problems with crew decisions and being in a hurry (Honeywells' database dual identifiers for Tulua, were also faulted), but this plane has a much lower level of technology than the A-319 through 340. The B-757 has suffered a few major accidents (once, the static ports were taped over, and the mechanics plus a pilot failed to notice) I hear puzzling (to me) comments about landing in crosswinds. Apparently, the pilot is not quite allowed to fully control the airplane, in terms of previously-designed flight control systems. One day it will pose a technological challenge for me, and after learning how to make it comply with ATC's requirements, safety and the crew's personal limits (Civet: no, not that arrival- just avoid LAX), and it might seem like the best airplane ever built.
There are lots of reliable ancient DC-9s flying around these days, but experienced mechanics are required to maintain them. These have no automation, only altitude hold. YOU navigate from charts, YOU always set the power, YOU move various switches and levers, trying to make a last-minute crossing restriction with anti-ice on, but the cabin is climbing, fast, and you might be landing with just a little over Reserve Fuel: no progress page to show various landing fuel totals
, but alas.they require pilots with some old-fashioned "multi-tasking" experience, common for decades (read up on flying old planes with complex, round radial engines, hydraulics, electrics etc and flight instruments from the 40s or 50s), before the Xers invented that chic new expression.
If the later 737 series have enough changes to avoid the rudder hardover nightmare, and have much in common with the excellent 757 (even with less thrust/weight ratio), then it might just be an excellent machine, and require no computers to control it.
I have nothing against the A-320, but am mystified by the amount of automation and apparent limitations upon the pilots.
Would the later 737 require a bit less training time than an A-320 etc.?
How about the type of fatal accidents on A-320s?: LH in Warsaw (the First Officer was killed; software re-designed after the hydroplaning accident. Apparently all ground spoilers, the anti-skid and maybe the thrust reversers, were all to be active after by a pre-determined amount of main wheel spin-up; why not ground shift as a back-up?), airshow fly-by at Habsheim, a line flight somewhere else in the hills of eastern France (Mulhouse?), the demonstration flight of the A-330 at the Airbus factory in Toulouse, in the Emirates or Dubai, and India.
Ok, the B-757 crashed in the Andes, due to problems with crew decisions and being in a hurry (Honeywells' database dual identifiers for Tulua, were also faulted), but this plane has a much lower level of technology than the A-319 through 340. The B-757 has suffered a few major accidents (once, the static ports were taped over, and the mechanics plus a pilot failed to notice) I hear puzzling (to me) comments about landing in crosswinds. Apparently, the pilot is not quite allowed to fully control the airplane, in terms of previously-designed flight control systems. One day it will pose a technological challenge for me, and after learning how to make it comply with ATC's requirements, safety and the crew's personal limits (Civet: no, not that arrival- just avoid LAX), and it might seem like the best airplane ever built.
There are lots of reliable ancient DC-9s flying around these days, but experienced mechanics are required to maintain them. These have no automation, only altitude hold. YOU navigate from charts, YOU always set the power, YOU move various switches and levers, trying to make a last-minute crossing restriction with anti-ice on, but the cabin is climbing, fast, and you might be landing with just a little over Reserve Fuel: no progress page to show various landing fuel totals
, but alas.they require pilots with some old-fashioned "multi-tasking" experience, common for decades (read up on flying old planes with complex, round radial engines, hydraulics, electrics etc and flight instruments from the 40s or 50s), before the Xers invented that chic new expression.If the later 737 series have enough changes to avoid the rudder hardover nightmare, and have much in common with the excellent 757 (even with less thrust/weight ratio), then it might just be an excellent machine, and require no computers to control it.
I have nothing against the A-320, but am mystified by the amount of automation and apparent limitations upon the pilots.
Would the later 737 require a bit less training time than an A-320 etc.?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 31st Oct 2005 at 05:57.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In automobile terms, would we want '50s and '60s cars, which would not conform to any modern regulations, to be in production today? Would anyone on this forum prefer the infamous Ford Pinto to a modern Volvo S80?
Simple economics will ensure old aircraft are retired eventually; it is uneconomic to demand of them all of today's standards - many however have to be complied with such as TCAS etc.
I am not sure what you suggest as final reports into many recent crashes have neither been published, nor do any preliminary suggestions cetnre upon the age of aircraft. Indeed many were younger than the 30 years you suggest as a cutoff.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you look at structure it is going through some process of recertification , of course not exactly but for every modification or any other kind of change a DER (or its local CAA counterpart) has to accept it and it has to go by the current rules which means that structure does satisfy all the cert req's.
Anyway so many parts are changed that usually you do have a practically new structure. Not new designed but…anyway how many "birds" really have new design/technology?
Everything still relies on nuts and bolts (apart from some composite solutions). When you look at the structure it can last as long as a good MRO is supporting it.
Check the example of B52 which will flight well into this century.
Cheers
Anyway so many parts are changed that usually you do have a practically new structure. Not new designed but…anyway how many "birds" really have new design/technology?
Everything still relies on nuts and bolts (apart from some composite solutions). When you look at the structure it can last as long as a good MRO is supporting it.
Check the example of B52 which will flight well into this century.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Uk
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because it is still called a 737 doesnt mean it is the same aircraft.
737-200 is totally different to a 737-400 which is totally different to a 737-800. Marketing. Every heard of it?
737-200 is totally different to a 737-400 which is totally different to a 737-800. Marketing. Every heard of it?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previous post says it all, like saying a Ford Mustang should be banned because it can't pass emissions rules. Of course a '68 Mustang wouldn't get through 2005 certificationl, but a 2005 one does.
But that begs the question, I fly Bizjets so I know little about 73s, but is the latest 737 flying with the same type certificate as the original or are the latest ones completely re-certified?
But that begs the question, I fly Bizjets so I know little about 73s, but is the latest 737 flying with the same type certificate as the original or are the latest ones completely re-certified?