Overhead panel, push or pull
Guest
Posts: n/a
Overhead panel, push or pull
The only thing I didn't consider to be perfect on the older 737s was the overhead panel. What happens: They create the 737NG and change everything but the overhead panel!!!
We still have to take out the flashlight to make sure the bleeds are on after sunset.
Now I'm not an Airbus fan, but wouldn't that A320 OHP. look nice on a 737?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Basically because Southwest Airlines were the launch customer and also the single biggest customer of the B737NG they had a huge input into the design of the cockpit and cabin. The overhead is almost unchanged because SWA operates B737-200s through to -700s (I believe almost 350 total) and to maintain the single type endorsement the overhead was modified but basically unchanged and the PFD/ND display was "dumbed down" to look like the staem powered gauges in the -200.
This is what I have been told by our company reps.
This is what I have been told by our company reps.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh that's nice!!
We are not allowed to fly the NG and the classics mixed, but because Mr.'just missed the tankstation' can, I got screwed twice.
I'm not driving my good old classic anymore and they didn't even give me a new OH to make up for it.
And on top of this, the -800 lands like an overweight pipercub.
Am I the only one to be dissapointed by the NG's??
We are not allowed to fly the NG and the classics mixed, but because Mr.'just missed the tankstation' can, I got screwed twice.
I'm not driving my good old classic anymore and they didn't even give me a new OH to make up for it.
And on top of this, the -800 lands like an overweight pipercub.
Am I the only one to be dissapointed by the NG's??
Guest
Posts: n/a
No offense intended, but if the only thing you can see wrong with the B737 'classic' is the overhead panel, then you need better glasses!
The fact that Boeing went ahead with building the NG with many of the same dangerous features of the -3/500 series is complete and perfect evidence for the 'tombstone imperative' explained in Andrew Weir's book (this, by the way, is a 'must read' for the aviation professional - and God forbid that people who travel down the back should read and understand it in large numbers).
The fact that the FAA allowed Boeing to get away with certificating the NG shows that the FAA cares not one jot about safety, and is only mindful of economics.
This is a disgrace to our profession, and it's beyond time that we, as pilots, stood firm for safe aircraft, safe flight decks, and safe cockpit procedures and philosophies - and that means an enlightened attitude towards CRM rather than the 'man and boy' approach advocated by Boeing.
The fact that we are not standing firm serves to ensure the continued degradation of our profession.
I am, incidentally, deadly serious about this.
The fact that Boeing went ahead with building the NG with many of the same dangerous features of the -3/500 series is complete and perfect evidence for the 'tombstone imperative' explained in Andrew Weir's book (this, by the way, is a 'must read' for the aviation professional - and God forbid that people who travel down the back should read and understand it in large numbers).
The fact that the FAA allowed Boeing to get away with certificating the NG shows that the FAA cares not one jot about safety, and is only mindful of economics.
This is a disgrace to our profession, and it's beyond time that we, as pilots, stood firm for safe aircraft, safe flight decks, and safe cockpit procedures and philosophies - and that means an enlightened attitude towards CRM rather than the 'man and boy' approach advocated by Boeing.
The fact that we are not standing firm serves to ensure the continued degradation of our profession.
I am, incidentally, deadly serious about this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No seriously.....
I'm just saying I enjoy flying the 737 classics better than the NG's. Whether the NG is safer than the NG was not the issue.
It's clear classics come down too often and I fully agree on the fact that CRM as well as the aircraft could always benefit from improvement. However, I wouldn't say the NG's do not meet proper safety standards or that Boeing has not succeeded in improving it's reliability.
BTW, when talkin about classics, I'm talking 200's! 2 much glass in the 3/4/500's !!
Cheers,
NGJC
I'm just saying I enjoy flying the 737 classics better than the NG's. Whether the NG is safer than the NG was not the issue.
It's clear classics come down too often and I fully agree on the fact that CRM as well as the aircraft could always benefit from improvement. However, I wouldn't say the NG's do not meet proper safety standards or that Boeing has not succeeded in improving it's reliability.
BTW, when talkin about classics, I'm talking 200's! 2 much glass in the 3/4/500's !!
Cheers,
NGJC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Canuck_AV8R, I'm not sure what kind of facts you want - but my views on the Seattle product are widely available on this forum. Look at alerting systems, alpha floor protection, rudder design, speedbrake design, Boeing QRH and manuals, for starters.
So far as certification goes, you'd need an engineer to answer the question 'Could the FAA certify the -NG as a new aircraft?', but the answer would come back an emphatic NO, as many standards have shifted so far since the original 737 was certified.
So it's not at all strange that, facing a brand new design (massively costly) or a brief re-jig of an old product (cheap at twice the price) in contemplating what became the -NG, Boeing found a compelling argument to certify the -NG as an add-on to the older aircraft.
The fact is, the -NG, as it should have been built, has been built. It's not perfect, but it leaves the -NG in the dark ages where it belongs. It's called the A320 family.
So far as multi-type Airbus flying goes, no, I am quite comfortable with it, but would need to sit down and have a long conversation with you to explain why. It boils down, in brief, to the type of man/machine interface, and how correct or incorrect reaction between these two elements can influence the outcome of a given set of circumstances, coupled to the likelihood and consequences of an incorrect outcome in the first place. Sorry if that sounds like a 'line' but this is a very complex issue, and one which doesn't lend itself to short postings in a bulletin board.
Happy landings!
[This message has been edited by Portly (edited 01 October 2000).]
So far as certification goes, you'd need an engineer to answer the question 'Could the FAA certify the -NG as a new aircraft?', but the answer would come back an emphatic NO, as many standards have shifted so far since the original 737 was certified.
So it's not at all strange that, facing a brand new design (massively costly) or a brief re-jig of an old product (cheap at twice the price) in contemplating what became the -NG, Boeing found a compelling argument to certify the -NG as an add-on to the older aircraft.
The fact is, the -NG, as it should have been built, has been built. It's not perfect, but it leaves the -NG in the dark ages where it belongs. It's called the A320 family.
So far as multi-type Airbus flying goes, no, I am quite comfortable with it, but would need to sit down and have a long conversation with you to explain why. It boils down, in brief, to the type of man/machine interface, and how correct or incorrect reaction between these two elements can influence the outcome of a given set of circumstances, coupled to the likelihood and consequences of an incorrect outcome in the first place. Sorry if that sounds like a 'line' but this is a very complex issue, and one which doesn't lend itself to short postings in a bulletin board.
Happy landings!
[This message has been edited by Portly (edited 01 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Portly,
You are quite obviously an Airbus fan(atic) and that is fine there are worse things to be
.
But seriously, while I agree there are things that Boeing could have improved on the NG I certainly do not agree that it is a deathtrap as you elude to. Lets have a look at some of your beefs with the NG.
Alerting systems - so it does not have EICAS/ECAM and cutsey schematics of the systems. Not really a life or death issue.
Alpha floor protection - while I am sure this is an interesting system ( I do not know too much about it)and probably has its benefits any pilot worth their salt should never put himself in a position that the computer has to "take over". It didn't do much for the Gulf Air crew did it??
Rudder design - the jury is still out on that one so I will not comment except to say that if it were as serious as some would have us believe then B737s should be falling out of the sky each and every day. There are over 3000 in service worldwide.
Speedbrake design - what is wrong with the speedbrake besides being not being as effective as I would like at lower speeds??
Boeing QRH and manuals - OK you got me, that is why most airlines develop their own procedures based on but not verbatim from the Boeing stuff. We use a version of the QRC system developed by United and it is in my opinion the best checklist philosophy I have seen to date. If the Airbus checklists and manuals are anything like the ATR42 stuff I have one word for you "Franglais". The ATR manuals and checklists were the most archaic, longwinded and generally usless pieces of paper I have come across and the manuals in some instances were so poorly translated that you had to guess at the meaning.
Why would Boeing certify the NG as a "new aircraft" when it isn't. Airbus had to do this for the A320 family because it was a new aircraft not a variant of an existing model. The 757/767 and the 777 were certified as new aircraft because that is what they were, new. Was the B717 certified as new, I don't think so it is just a variant on the DC9 as were the MD80 series.
I am sure I am not going to change your mind on this, but lets see how many A320s are around 34 years after the start of production. I flew a 25 year old B737-200 yesterday and it is still going strong.
Remember if it's not Boeing I'm not going.
Cheers
Canuck
You are quite obviously an Airbus fan(atic) and that is fine there are worse things to be
.But seriously, while I agree there are things that Boeing could have improved on the NG I certainly do not agree that it is a deathtrap as you elude to. Lets have a look at some of your beefs with the NG.
Alerting systems - so it does not have EICAS/ECAM and cutsey schematics of the systems. Not really a life or death issue.
Alpha floor protection - while I am sure this is an interesting system ( I do not know too much about it)and probably has its benefits any pilot worth their salt should never put himself in a position that the computer has to "take over". It didn't do much for the Gulf Air crew did it??
Rudder design - the jury is still out on that one so I will not comment except to say that if it were as serious as some would have us believe then B737s should be falling out of the sky each and every day. There are over 3000 in service worldwide.
Speedbrake design - what is wrong with the speedbrake besides being not being as effective as I would like at lower speeds??
Boeing QRH and manuals - OK you got me, that is why most airlines develop their own procedures based on but not verbatim from the Boeing stuff. We use a version of the QRC system developed by United and it is in my opinion the best checklist philosophy I have seen to date. If the Airbus checklists and manuals are anything like the ATR42 stuff I have one word for you "Franglais". The ATR manuals and checklists were the most archaic, longwinded and generally usless pieces of paper I have come across and the manuals in some instances were so poorly translated that you had to guess at the meaning.
Why would Boeing certify the NG as a "new aircraft" when it isn't. Airbus had to do this for the A320 family because it was a new aircraft not a variant of an existing model. The 757/767 and the 777 were certified as new aircraft because that is what they were, new. Was the B717 certified as new, I don't think so it is just a variant on the DC9 as were the MD80 series.
I am sure I am not going to change your mind on this, but lets see how many A320s are around 34 years after the start of production. I flew a 25 year old B737-200 yesterday and it is still going strong.
Remember if it's not Boeing I'm not going.
Cheers
Canuck
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Canuck_AV8R,
A few comments:
The speed protection system will, when flying with certain non-normal flap/slat configurations, and using the QRH recommended speeds, send the aircraft diving towards the ground.
Speedbrakes = fuel to vibration converters. Effectiveness is not a problem (its just annoying), that they will not retract automatically when doing the GPWS avoidance manouver is.
The aircraft is not capable of performing an automatic go-around when flying a nonprecision approach. Thats when i do most of my misaps.
The autopilot has no rolloutfunction when performing an autoland. 0 visibility required on the second segment of a CatIII approach, and you may find yourself IMC shortly after touchdown. Fun!
The cockpit is TOO BLOODY NOISY! I do not care for that beeping sound in my ears after a long days work.
Its not sexy.
Thats it from me, i feel a lot better now.
[This message has been edited by ManaAdaSystem (edited 03 October 2000).]
A few comments:
The speed protection system will, when flying with certain non-normal flap/slat configurations, and using the QRH recommended speeds, send the aircraft diving towards the ground.
Speedbrakes = fuel to vibration converters. Effectiveness is not a problem (its just annoying), that they will not retract automatically when doing the GPWS avoidance manouver is.
The aircraft is not capable of performing an automatic go-around when flying a nonprecision approach. Thats when i do most of my misaps.
The autopilot has no rolloutfunction when performing an autoland. 0 visibility required on the second segment of a CatIII approach, and you may find yourself IMC shortly after touchdown. Fun!
The cockpit is TOO BLOODY NOISY! I do not care for that beeping sound in my ears after a long days work.
Its not sexy.
Thats it from me, i feel a lot better now.
[This message has been edited by ManaAdaSystem (edited 03 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
ManaAdaSystem:
Thanks for your comments. Since I have yet to fly an NG aircraft (not due to arrive until next year) only a -200 I am not really qualified to comment on specifics relating to the NG. I can only go on what material I have read so far.
You bring up an interesting point about aircraft diving towards the ground due to faults in the speed protection system. I do not want to turn this into a Boeing vs. Airbus mud slinging contest but I had an interesting experience while jumpseating on an A320 a few weeks ago. First the automatics completely missed capturing the LOC on the transition from the STAR, the intercept was less than 45 degrees. The captain had to manually turn the a/c to a reintercept heading from the other side of the LOC and then re-engage the automatics. Later on the same approach (now I have to get this right or all the Airbus types will be all over me) while changing from a selected airspeed mode (ATC instructions) to managed mode at about 1000ft AGL the a/c rapidly pitched to about 7 degrees nose down even though the managed speed was less than the speed being flown. Surely the a/c should have just pitched up a degree or two and/or thrust should have been reduced to bleed off the speed, it was only about 15 knots. It scared the life out of me and the crew flying. The captain quickly took control and landed but after landing he turned to me and appologised saying he had no idea why the a/c did what it did. Had this approach been in IMC it would have been doubly scary.
How do you tell and new Airbus pilot from an old Airbus pilot???
New Airbus pilot - "What is it doing now???"
Old Airbus pilot - "Look it is doing it again!!!"
On the speedbrake issue I was not aware that the brake would not automatically retract when you advance the thrust levers for a GPWS maneuver. Our SOP procedure for a GPWS warning in IMC includes retracting the speedbrake but I assumed (wrongly it seems) that it was just there as a double check to ensure it had retracted. Our SOP also states that when the speedbrake is deployed the PF who deployed it always has his/her hand on the lever so as not to forget that it is deployed. Thank you I will do a little more research on that one.
I cannot comment on the autoland functions for the reasons stated above.
The cockpit is definately NOISY I will give you that. The -200 is quite noisy and I imagine the NG with it's increased speed in cruise and the same window design would have more noise.
The B737 fits into my company's plan better than the equivilant Airbus product. We are a low fare, no frills airline and we didn't require all the bells and whistles that come with the standard cookie cut Airbus. We don't require hot galleys as we do not serve hot meals but they come as standard on the Airbus. With Boeing we are basically designing the cabin to suit our needs. When we were looking at fleet renewal Airbus was here bargaining hard against Boeing for our business. We were in the market for 70 aircraft, since increased to 94 so this was no small order. A few things I know that went against the Airbus were it's height off the ground necessitating loading belts at all destinations, the absence of a standard installed airstair and lack of delivery options (we are installing HUD in all the NGs)and slots (we couldn't get an aircraft until 2004)
Not sexy, whaddyamean????? It is cute and chubby
Cheers
Canuck
Thanks for your comments. Since I have yet to fly an NG aircraft (not due to arrive until next year) only a -200 I am not really qualified to comment on specifics relating to the NG. I can only go on what material I have read so far.
You bring up an interesting point about aircraft diving towards the ground due to faults in the speed protection system. I do not want to turn this into a Boeing vs. Airbus mud slinging contest but I had an interesting experience while jumpseating on an A320 a few weeks ago. First the automatics completely missed capturing the LOC on the transition from the STAR, the intercept was less than 45 degrees. The captain had to manually turn the a/c to a reintercept heading from the other side of the LOC and then re-engage the automatics. Later on the same approach (now I have to get this right or all the Airbus types will be all over me) while changing from a selected airspeed mode (ATC instructions) to managed mode at about 1000ft AGL the a/c rapidly pitched to about 7 degrees nose down even though the managed speed was less than the speed being flown. Surely the a/c should have just pitched up a degree or two and/or thrust should have been reduced to bleed off the speed, it was only about 15 knots. It scared the life out of me and the crew flying. The captain quickly took control and landed but after landing he turned to me and appologised saying he had no idea why the a/c did what it did. Had this approach been in IMC it would have been doubly scary.
How do you tell and new Airbus pilot from an old Airbus pilot???
New Airbus pilot - "What is it doing now???"
Old Airbus pilot - "Look it is doing it again!!!"
On the speedbrake issue I was not aware that the brake would not automatically retract when you advance the thrust levers for a GPWS maneuver. Our SOP procedure for a GPWS warning in IMC includes retracting the speedbrake but I assumed (wrongly it seems) that it was just there as a double check to ensure it had retracted. Our SOP also states that when the speedbrake is deployed the PF who deployed it always has his/her hand on the lever so as not to forget that it is deployed. Thank you I will do a little more research on that one.
I cannot comment on the autoland functions for the reasons stated above.
The cockpit is definately NOISY I will give you that. The -200 is quite noisy and I imagine the NG with it's increased speed in cruise and the same window design would have more noise.
The B737 fits into my company's plan better than the equivilant Airbus product. We are a low fare, no frills airline and we didn't require all the bells and whistles that come with the standard cookie cut Airbus. We don't require hot galleys as we do not serve hot meals but they come as standard on the Airbus. With Boeing we are basically designing the cabin to suit our needs. When we were looking at fleet renewal Airbus was here bargaining hard against Boeing for our business. We were in the market for 70 aircraft, since increased to 94 so this was no small order. A few things I know that went against the Airbus were it's height off the ground necessitating loading belts at all destinations, the absence of a standard installed airstair and lack of delivery options (we are installing HUD in all the NGs)and slots (we couldn't get an aircraft until 2004)
Not sexy, whaddyamean????? It is cute and chubby
Cheers
Canuck
Guest
Posts: n/a
All interesting points, I fly the 727 and there are a few things about the cockpit that I'd have designed differently, But you have to realize the cockpit on the 737 is essentially the same cockpit designed in 1952 for the dash-80 (the prototype 707) I agree Boeing should have an auto-stow feature for the speedbrakes, The C-141 has it and it was designed in the early 60's. But lets look at this from a marketing standpoint, If Boeing totally redesigned the 737 what would all the existing 73 operators do? buy the new 787? obviously alot of airlines are happy with the 73 as it is so to totally redesign it may have been a huge and costly risk. One final note, and all you Airbus fans please dont whine! Airbus is selling their A-320 at an extremely low price vis a vis the 737, so a new design would invariably cost more than the existing 737 and would make it non-competitive with the subsidized Bus!! Go ahead fire away
