767 vs 737 Classic cockpit set up?
Thread Starter
767 vs 737 Classic cockpit set up?
I am Airbus FBW mainly, but was rated on B737 Classic for a short while. I am wondering how the '76 compares in terms of cockpit set up and manual switching required?
The '73 Classic required a lot of manual switching between various flight phases, e.g. Pitot heat, generators etc. (compared to Airbus FBW), and I am wondering if the '76 is similar or if most functions are automated on those aircraft.
Does the '76 have Fadecs, and how is Flex thrust set on take-off ? The '73 Classic requires PM to set the thrust manually for example.
The '73 Classic required a lot of manual switching between various flight phases, e.g. Pitot heat, generators etc. (compared to Airbus FBW), and I am wondering if the '76 is similar or if most functions are automated on those aircraft.
Does the '76 have Fadecs, and how is Flex thrust set on take-off ? The '73 Classic requires PM to set the thrust manually for example.
A lot less switching on the B767. No generators or pitot heat to manualy switch. More automated than B737 Classic, although B767 is actually an older design.
Before start scan (fuel, pumps, hydraulic pumps, packs) is similar, after start and all other scans are simpler. If the B737 has 2 of something, then the B767 has 3 of them (engines excepted).
Yes B767 has FADEC.
More cockpit room, and foot and shoulder warmers as well.
Before start scan (fuel, pumps, hydraulic pumps, packs) is similar, after start and all other scans are simpler. If the B737 has 2 of something, then the B767 has 3 of them (engines excepted).
Yes B767 has FADEC.
More cockpit room, and foot and shoulder warmers as well.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the '76 have Fadecs, and how is Flex thrust set on take-off ? The '73 Classic requires PM to set the thrust manually for example.
Ah, you're off by a decade - the PW4000 FADEC was certified on the 767 in 1988. Specifically it depends on the engines on the 767. All early 767s (JT9D-7R4 and CF6-80A/A2) were hydromechanical fuel controls with 'Supervisory EEC' (basically a trimmer system to keep N1/EPR ~ constant with changing flight conditions). In 1988 the 767 was re-engined with PW4000 and CF6-80C2 PMC (i.e. non-FADEC, basically a supervisory EEC similar to the -80A). Some early CF6-80C2 powered 767s were 'provisioned' for FADEC - which came along a year or so later. Turned out the 'FADEC provisions' were totally inadequate and I don't believe any PMC aircraft were ever retrofit to FADEC.
For roughly 10 years, the -80C2 was available in both PMC and FADEC versions - buyer option (the FADEC had slightly better fuel burn than the PMC) - after that the PMC option was removed - an operator could only get the PMC if they'd previously purchased it.
From the flight deck, the PMC/FADEC difference was pretty close to transparent - the only real difference being the EEC switch in the overhead changed from "ON/OFF" on the PMC to "NORM/ALT" on the FADEC.
For roughly 10 years, the -80C2 was available in both PMC and FADEC versions - buyer option (the FADEC had slightly better fuel burn than the PMC) - after that the PMC option was removed - an operator could only get the PMC if they'd previously purchased it.
From the flight deck, the PMC/FADEC difference was pretty close to transparent - the only real difference being the EEC switch in the overhead changed from "ON/OFF" on the PMC to "NORM/ALT" on the FADEC.
The 767 was the first iteration of the "Quiet, Dark Cockpit" that has become standard on newer aircraft. In short - with few exceptions - an illuminated light meant something was wrong instead of normal operation. That was a pretty dramatic change from the 737 philosophy.
Thread Starter
Thanks folks, keep it coming. Much appreciated 
Uplinker,
You will enjoy flying the 767. As others have said, a Cadillac, or Bentley for my UK friends. Beautiful flight control harmony, and very easy to fly…I’ve never heard of any pilot making a negative comment about a 767, however those who have migrated to the 777 will rank the “triple 7” above it..
You will enjoy flying the 767. As others have said, a Cadillac, or Bentley for my UK friends. Beautiful flight control harmony, and very easy to fly…I’ve never heard of any pilot making a negative comment about a 767, however those who have migrated to the 777 will rank the “triple 7” above it..
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Europe
Age: 33
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker,
You will enjoy flying the 767. As others have said, a Cadillac, or Bentley for my UK friends. Beautiful flight control harmony, and very easy to fly…I’ve never heard of any pilot making a negative comment about a 767, however those who have migrated to the 777 will rank the “triple 7” above it..
You will enjoy flying the 767. As others have said, a Cadillac, or Bentley for my UK friends. Beautiful flight control harmony, and very easy to fly…I’ve never heard of any pilot making a negative comment about a 767, however those who have migrated to the 777 will rank the “triple 7” above it..
So what's better, a Mercedes-Benz, a Cadillac or a Bentley?
Uplinker,
You will enjoy flying the 767. As others have said, a Cadillac, or Bentley for my UK friends. Beautiful flight control harmony, and very easy to fly…I’ve never heard of any pilot making a negative comment about a 767, however those who have migrated to the 777 will rank the “triple 7” above it..
You will enjoy flying the 767. As others have said, a Cadillac, or Bentley for my UK friends. Beautiful flight control harmony, and very easy to fly…I’ve never heard of any pilot making a negative comment about a 767, however those who have migrated to the 777 will rank the “triple 7” above it..
The biggest difference between the 767 and 777 flightdecks are the 777s bigger display screens, plus making EICAS "Primary" allowed the deletion of most of the idiot lights in the 767. On the 767/757, EICAS wasn't considered to be the primary information source and wasn't on the battery, so just about everything needed a backup light or gauge for a loss of primary electrical power. Exception - the 767-400ER flight deck was derived from the 777 and EICAS was primary. At one time the plan was to incorporate the 767-400ER flight deck across the 757/767 line, but the combination of the lack of sales of the -400ER, plus declining interest in the 757/767 basically killed that.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Europe
Age: 33
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some useless piece of trivia: 757/767/737CL are all first generation EFIS. They don't have a PFD/ND, they have a EADI/EHSI instead (Electronic ADI, Electronic HSI).
It's intereting to me how even 757 pilots refer to the EADI/EHSI as PFD/ND. Either they know the correct term is EADI but say PFD instead because they think others won't know what they're talking about, or they don't know it's called an EADI. Never sure which is true.
It's intereting to me how even 757 pilots refer to the EADI/EHSI as PFD/ND. Either they know the correct term is EADI but say PFD instead because they think others won't know what they're talking about, or they don't know it's called an EADI. Never sure which is true.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some useless piece of trivia: 757/767/737CL are all first generation EFIS. They don't have a PFD/ND, they have a EADI/EHSI instead (Electronic ADI, Electronic HSI).
It's intereting to me how even 757 pilots refer to the EADI/EHSI as PFD/ND. Either they know the correct term is EADI but say PFD instead because they think others won't know what they're talking about, or they don't know it's called an EADI. Never sure which is true.
It's intereting to me how even 757 pilots refer to the EADI/EHSI as PFD/ND. Either they know the correct term is EADI but say PFD instead because they think others won't know what they're talking about, or they don't know it's called an EADI. Never sure which is true.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EADI and EHSI stand for Electronic Attitude Display Indication and Electronic HSI, in their original inception they were electronic versions of their steam gauge counterparts.
The original EADI did not have a speed tape, hence the analogue velocimetre and all other items of the traditional instrument T. The speed tape became an option only later.
I understand that a PFD has all the necessary information in one single display.
The original EADI did not have a speed tape, hence the analogue velocimetre and all other items of the traditional instrument T. The speed tape became an option only later.
I understand that a PFD has all the necessary information in one single display.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the 777 flightdeck as even better than the 767 - it was a direct evolution, using the same layout (the structural elements of the 767 and 777 flightdeck are nearly identical - as is the 757). The 777 flightdeck has 'lessons learned', plus over a decades worth of technological improvements compared to the 767.
The biggest difference between the 767 and 777 flightdecks are the 777s bigger display screens, plus making EICAS "Primary" allowed the deletion of most of the idiot lights in the 767. On the 767/757, EICAS wasn't considered to be the primary information source and wasn't on the battery, so just about everything needed a backup light or gauge for a loss of primary electrical power. Exception - the 767-400ER flight deck was derived from the 777 and EICAS was primary. At one time the plan was to incorporate the 767-400ER flight deck across the 757/767 line, but the combination of the lack of sales of the -400ER, plus declining interest in the 757/767 basically killed that.
The biggest difference between the 767 and 777 flightdecks are the 777s bigger display screens, plus making EICAS "Primary" allowed the deletion of most of the idiot lights in the 767. On the 767/757, EICAS wasn't considered to be the primary information source and wasn't on the battery, so just about everything needed a backup light or gauge for a loss of primary electrical power. Exception - the 767-400ER flight deck was derived from the 777 and EICAS was primary. At one time the plan was to incorporate the 767-400ER flight deck across the 757/767 line, but the combination of the lack of sales of the -400ER, plus declining interest in the 757/767 basically killed that.
I’ve flown the 757/67 with the ‘Classic’ set up and the 767-400 with the 777 type displays, I really liked the latter, a significant improvement and it’s a shame that update did not migrate to all variants
If I remember correctly a 757 was retrofitted and flight tested with these 764 displays ?
If I remember correctly a 757 was retrofitted and flight tested with these 764 displays ?
Flat Panels: 2 big screens on each side of the cockpit with the latest and greatest of electronic displays,
probably 12-13 years ago,
No doubt the screens were full of information, but it seemed more like over-load:
One grew up flying DC-3s,
DC-8s and Classic 747, but finally had to join the Glass Age with a vintage 757, plenty information for a dinosaur
until the "Flat Panels" retrofit.
No idea if that was 764 displays, or some generic in-house retro-job.
Glad I am retired now.