Any news in the grapevine about the flight deck? I couldn't find any info about the overhead panel or the mighty circuit breaker racks nobody needs. Would be nice to receive some more data about the actual development status.

They are getting rid of the RAM DOOR OPEN lights. There ya go. That's the big change.

The reason you didn't find any info, is because there almost no change.:{

Fascinating reading this thread along side the "Single Pilot" and "Pilotless" airliner threads...

A bad panel design?
 

No amount of lights and warnings so-called improvements will help unless the pilot actually knows how the airplane and its systems work and actually pays attention to what they are doing and to the aircraft and what its gauges are telling him/her.

And any checklists are much the same. Brain must be on first. The main thing I find annoying in the QRH is its size had quadrupled due to poorly thought out attempted remedies to accommodate pilots who do not know the machine and how the systems work. Now it is a clumsy bulky 'airplane for idiots' book.

Is there any official documentation on the Max cockpit upgrades? There is a nice picture on the Boeing website but it is very small.

Randy's Journal

Is the HUD going to be a standard fit or option?

:ok:

My thoughts exactly. Given that both the A320Neo and 737Max will still be flying for airlines in 2035-2040's using 80's and 60's technology I think that pilot jobs are pretty safe for the next couple of generations.

What other industry in 2040 will be using designs and technology from the 1960s??!! Goes to show how backward aviation really is! It's 2030 and you are still flying around with no EICAS!

On a serious note it is going to provide a training challenge into the future.

Airlines that have orders in for the Max have access to a powerpoint show and tell regarding the cockpit "updates". At least ours does, anyway.

You can thank Southwest for that.

They had Boeing install "INOP" labelled metal plates on the MCP to prevent VNAV and A/T from being used on their 737NG fleet up to 2009.

When they opted to take advantage of RNP approaches, they had to re-train crews and enabled A/T and VNAV. This alone achieved millions of $$$ in savings within the first month.

Still, they want to keep commonality for good reason ($$$) and have a lot of say in the MAX development. Since the -200 fleet, the goal has been to keep the next generation of 737 derivative as close as possible to the previous one.

Not to mention the FO had nothing... It wasnt like everyone didnt figure out you could use a paperclip though that pinhole in that plate to engage VNAV...

That was funny! :}

And what exactly is Southwest going to do if Boeing decides to upgrade the jurassic overhead panel?
Scrap all their 737 aircraft and buy Airbus? Weeks of transition training?
Or give the pilots a days training on the new panel?

This is Boeings decision. Saves money.

Sorry, but...

Anyone care to explain what was the Southwest deal regarding A/T and VNAV stated above ?

:}

The -200 had no A/T and VNAV so the -300/500 were operated without either as were the -700. Southwest also pushed Boeing to design the "classic" configuration of the display units (resembling the non-glass configuration of the -300/500 they operated). Thankfully Boeing made this a customer option.

Some other operators also made use of this, such as Continental/United until the classics were retired (simple software pin change to switch to the regular display set up).

http://www.avionic-online.com/img/737NGX_PMDG18.jpg

And yes ManaAdaSystem, Boeing could indeed force the change, and Southwest could do little about it. Ultimately they value the customers longstanding loyalty, and to the extent that Southwest gets a full tank of gas on all their -700/800 deliveries out of KBFI, to this day.

I'm sure ure most other big NG operators dont want any major changes either. Pilots excluded of course

So WN's order for 200 MAX's trumped the desires of the remaining 2600 orders from other airlines?

No way.

That argument may have been valid for the NG, but not the MAX.

The MAX was destined for minimal change due to market pressure. The NEO is a year ahead of it, and Boeing needed to get something to market asap.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737...-displays.page

B737NG/Max still rules the NAV world with RNP and GLS
 

Perhaps notwithstanding some of the "less than complementary" comments elsewhere in this thread, ...the B737NG, and particularly the Max still rule the world of NAV, with excellent fleet leading RNP ops capability (e.g., just try to fly procedures like at NZQN, PAJN, CYLW, or even KDCA with tight RNP, to the same reliable capability in ANY other transport or corporate jet) ...and also GLS (e.g., especially with RNP matched with EDFCS and LAND 3 monitored by the HUD AIII). The B737 is as good or better than any other current or planned narrow-body or wide body jet produced globally... The B737 remains the fleet leader for much of NAV capability, and likely will remain so for at least the next decade or more (and that includes all current offerings from both sides of the Atlantic).

It is certainly a good product for NAV capability. And yes, IAN is in my opinion better implemented than the managed variant, although it has a breach in procedure with the inability to fly curved approaches in APProach mode, unlike the managed thing.

However, GLS is available on equipment from both OEMs, airbii are certified for RNP 0.10 approaches as well as boeings are.

But i believe the comments were not about the NAV capability. It was about the more than questionable flight deck ergonomics, the missing EICAS and the ancient overhead panel.

Even navigation wise, not really. As Denti says, no curved approaches with IAN, it won't tune an ILS for you automatically (something Boeing introduced on the 747-400 in the 80's), no autotuning of appropriate VOR/NDBs en-route for position check, etc. Plus, you can't do a single-engine Cat 3A autoland with single AC source - unless you have an HUD.

No doubt 737 is a very nice airplane, just not a very modern one.

It is the RNP capability and GLS that matter
 

Reference NAV, ...it is the RNP and GLS "CAPABILITY" that matters...

Note: not all RNP .1 is even equal. To actually fly real RNP based procedures (like the ones referenced),... The NG and Max are superior to any current european or south american offering, ...and the NG/Max are even equal to or superior to any other north american offering for actual path performance and capability. Yes, it is true that secondary features like some aspects of tuning could be updated, but that doesn't affect its excellent performance.

Reference IAN, ... IAN was never designed to address flying RF legs. That's why you simply use RNP capability with LNAV and VNAV for all those kinds of key beneficial procedures. IAN was originally invented simply to provide a better way to use the AP and various (e.g., EGPWS) protections, and use common flight deck procedures and annunciations, ...with a more sensible (straight-in) lateral and vertical path, typically when needing to fly classic straight-in based SIAP approaches.

The FMC/MMR does autotuning, it's just transparent. Why not let the ANP do its job or watch the appropriate page in the FMC?

Hello there... i am planning to go for B737 NG type rating, can any one suggest what to study before we go for rating.. some help will be appreciated...

Thanks

"Super 80" is not an AA thing, it's a Mcdonell Douglas marketing thing that they used when they named the MD-80 the "DC-9 Super 80."

And yes it was super in every way! Old school to the last nut & bolt, I greatly enjoyed flying it and it made me one heck of a sharp pilot. I even preferred it over the 75/76 in many ways...