737 Max cockpit upgrades
 

Reading into the 737 Max "Upgrade" I don't see a lot of things that will provide comfort or ease of operation to the flight crew. The 737 has always been an ergonomic disaster as far as the cockpit goes with the positioning of switches and gauges being an after thought in most cases. The original cockpit layout is almost 50 years old. I understand and appreciate the desire to maintain cockpit commonality (90% of which can be achieved simply by putting the displays and primary knobs/dials in the same place) but isn't it shocking that Boeing refuse to bring the design into the 21st century as far as ergonomics and comfort go?

I think Monarch flight crew will see it as a massive backwards step when they are doing a 10 hour LGW-SSH-LGW

You can partially blame big Boeing customers with negotiating leverage like Southwest in the States. As an example, SWA evidently lobbied very hard to maintain the overhead panel design, among other things, for years. Like many airlines, SWA continues to operate older 300s as well as newer 800s in the same fleet.

Monarch pilots should appreciate their wider Airbus flight decks and sidesticks while they can... Even the C-Series (CS300) looks to provide a more ergonomic flight deck when compared with the 800/MAX. But when has pilot comfort ever been a consideration in fleet negotiations? Never has and never will.

Boeing has to make compromises in order to maintain a common B737 type rating - which even doesn't include the -200 under EASA.

There is plenty (and I really mean plenty) of room for improvement regarding B737 cockpit ergonomics, such as not getting 10 lights for a simple engine failure, etc., but most of them would probably result in a need for a new type rating endorsment under some authorities.

I honestly hope and believe that given the current Boeing's schedule of pushing B737 generations - every 15 years - that MAX's successor would be designed from scratch (or at least from 787's platform).

It would be possible to massively improve the 737 just by moving the P6/P18 panels back a foot and making more room. Some carpet would be nice too. The A321 I just looked into the flight deck was a new one granted, but SO much nicer than the 737 I fly.

I'm from Seattle, and my neighbor is in on the redesign. He's pretty excited by some of the changes.

One of the biggest changes is in the cockpit switches. They are replacing the little white rubber knobs with a slightly better white rubber knob.

That is if the little white rubber caps stay on. If the don't, as is often the case, then they are no longer nice white rubber switches, but grubby grey ones.

They are white?! I thought they were dirty grey/black and greasy by default...but that must be because our cockpits are never cleaned :sad::\

Too bad... same crappy cockpit and seats designed from the original proof of concept aircraft the Dash 80 some 58 years ago:*.

Boeing don't have much of a choice to upgrade the screens (I can imagine a lot of the forward weight reduction comes from the choice of avionics) but that's all they'll be doing (plus a couple of long overdue changes with the engine bleed/pack function). As an A320 driver I have only ever spent a couple of hours in a 737 sim and though I was initially impressed by the level of immersion the cockpit offers a pilot I sure as hell wouldn't like the same feeling continuously for 5 hours with no where to put my feet or rest my head ;)

I wonder what they'd find if they did a study of pilot fatigue B737 vs A320? As stated above, I'm sure cockpit comfort wasn't a major concern for the Monarch party doing the deal.

From the picture, it seems it still has the crappy 'recall' system! How about EICAS guys? :{

Forget it. The MAX will be the same pathetic 50 year old cockpit the rest of them have. You're still going to be running fuel pumps as if you're flying some badly put together homebuilt.

"Does that say overheat? Or overhead? What's the smegging problem?

Ahhh that's funny, the number of times we've had to cycle fuel pump switches, Prims, Secs, Trim tank transfer failures, outer to inner transfer failures requiring manual transfer, Trim Tank manual fwd transfer blah blah blah on our A330's brand new from the factory is amazing.
For an Aircraft that is supposed to be so automatic it's a joke.


Don't lecture us on the good ol 737. I remember the old girl well.

Looks like a really nice flight deck for the Max to me.

Pay me the same and I know which one I'd prefer to fly.

Idiots.

Hi,
Anybody knows If the overhead panel is going to be the same that 737 Ng?

And how about a window you can see out of in anything other than a light shower of rain...........or alternatively bring back the rain repellant.:ok:

How the current situation is certifiable is beyond me..........:mad:

Concerning the 737 overhead panel. time and time again I have heard if they change that panel it's going to require a new type rating. But frankly I think that excuse is a load of hog wash. If the b717 can maintain a common type rating with the dc9 why the hell can't the 737 do the same. In my opinion it comes down to SWA forcing boeing to keep the legacy panel in-place to maintain SWA fleet commonality.

The only Aircraft I've flown with decent wipers that actually worked was the 744. 737 A330 and 777 all have crap wipers.....

Not just the 737...

The worst would have to be the A330.

I don't think it's a wiper issue it's to do with the vertical windows and all the water flowing down them. The newer gen aircraft all have sloping windows which would assist with rain removal.

No, it's probably due to them sourcing the windscreen wipers from a 1969 VW Beetle.

Things I'd like to see changed on tthe 737:

1. Give us an electric panel where you can tell what generator is online without having to think what blue light on/off where means ..
2. Get the damn engine anti ice system to do things on its own
3. If you're gonna take valves off a small trawler to operate the bleed air can it please be a more modern trawler?
4. After 40 years its about time Boeing had the inspiration to make a tiiiny bit of room for things like a bottle of water and/or a Jepp manual/EFB
5. AC plug sockets on both sides of the cockpit please

yeah and whilst i'm dreaming, how about a lil broadband so i can get on with my life:E

It is not true at list with EASA license: dc9/md80 and b717 are different type ratings.

african skies loved your shopping list
 

I guess Boeing are between a rock & hard place in terms of what they'd like to do and what the authorities will allow for a common type rating and its the latter that drives what the airlines want/will pay for. The NG is a significant improvement on the CL but the MAX will have a transatlantic range and it would be a lot less fatiguing if the cockpit was quieter and the central pedestal lost some girth.

I believe that the overhead panel simply mimics the CL switch gear and it could just as easily be push button black panel technology, but for the need of a common rating?

Whilst the 'RECAL' system is from the ark it does work provided you understand the logic of dual systems and resist the temptation to dismiss any light as a nuisance warning !!!

But lower fuel burn, more payload/range will be the driver, not the comfort of the driver....

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pressurisation panel. You could not come up with a system more likely to lead to accidents than they did with that - ergonomic disaster doesn't even come close.
In my view they need to move on from the entire flight deck, it's a mess.

Push buttons have a short life span, those pesky switches last forever.

What's wrong with it? As long as you remember the C-flow and use a hair of common sense and systems understanding, you shouldn't have any problems. Although I do hear that some companies require the bleeds off takeoff procedure to be done from supplementary procedures.

Al Murdoch says
The cockpit has been working fine since its inception. May not be the best... but its not the worst either.

The problem lie with pilots that have not or may not follow company SOPs and visually verify switch positions as appropriate.

WINSCREEN WIPERS?!!?

FORWARDS VISIBILITY?!?

Does this mean some B73 crews have the spare capacity to actually LOOKOUT, instead of scanning their screens and proclaiming to the CVR:

"What's it doing now?"-indicating a new 'Bus pilot

"Oh, it's doing that again!" - indicating an experienced 'Bus pilot

Careful folks, if this keeps up, we'll see the word "airmanship" creeping back into the manuals and that will never do!

Anyway, it was fun searching the cramped flight deck for those grubby little rubber switch caps. Better than the F/O retiring into his/her hand-held info pad and gawping at motorcycles/gliders/high-heeled shoes etc..........

one thing they could change that would be a big improvement for me is the possibility to tune a VOR and ILS at the same time and still both get the loc and gp indication on the pfd

(if this is possible i'm sorry than it's just my company that doesn't want to pay for it)

The gauges alone are appallingly designed for a start - if your aircraft is not pressurising at 10,000ft the needles are in exactly the opposite sense to where they should be - a quick glance in a busy environment and it looks like everything is fine.
The cabin altitude horn is the SAME SOUND as the configuration alarm. Seriously?? Boeing have had to add warning lights to distinguish between the two because of the original poor design that contributed to the Helios accident.
Lots of people do and should notice that immediately, but guess what - people make mistakes and the easier you make it to do so, the more they'll do it.

LED
 

What about replacing the antiquated Edison light bulbs with LED ones, at least we don't have to change one every day.

Boeing IMHO made a fatal mistake some years back in changing the items on the original B737 after take off checklist. The original checklist first item was "Air Conditioning and Pressurisation......Set." Amplification was contained in the FCOM. It included checking the two pressurisation instruments of cabin altitude and cabin rate of climb.

Instead, Boeing changed that to: "Engine Bleeds....On and Packs.....Auto.

From personal observation of many after take off checklists I believe very few crews bother to verify the correct operation of the two vital pressurisation instruments of cabin altitude and cabin rate of climb and that is simply because it is not written in a checklist.

Random scanning in flight by either pilot of various overhead switches and instruments is not a checklist item and that is fair enough. Yet sound airmanship would dictate it is prudent to do so; especially the two instruments of the pressurisation system.

And another gripe. Having the PM challenge and reply to his own actions during the after take off checklist and with no input from the PF, is a real human factors trap, since more often than not, it results in the PF failing to cross check the PM's check list verbal enunciation/ actions. The PF can doubtless hear the self challenge and response by the PM, but does he look across and confirm for himself that all is done correctly? Maybe - maybe not. I am all for bringing back the tried and trusted challenge by one pilot and respond by the other pilot. And that is for all normal checklists. At least it is a proper double check.

The fatal accident to the Helios Airline B737 that took off in the manual pressurisation mode and outflow valve open, may not have happened if the crew had used the original Boeing 737 after take off checklist of "Air Conditioning and Pressurisation...Set" where part of that check was to observe the cabin altitude and cabin rate of climb as directed in the amplified section of the FCOM. Clearly neither pilot did this otherwise they would have seen an abnormal cabin rate of climb and be alerted to a pressurisation problem.

On that occasion it is presumed the PM did indeed challenge and respond to himself that he had "Set or verified" that the engine bleeds and air conditioning packs were operating as the first items on the published after take off checklist. But yet the aircraft took off unpressurised.

Right now, the Boeing 737 after take off checklist, which is started after flap retraction is complete (typically by 3000 feet), includes nothing about checking the cabin altitude or cabin rate of climb. As a result, these two vital pressurisation instruments are often missed by both pilots in the after take off scan.

The picture posted of the MAX cockpit very intentionally omits the overhead panel. There will be minimum changes to its appearance, even if the systems change somewhat. Awful antiquated design that is way past its sell-by date.

And the lovely :mad: grinder wheel is still there, "clunk, clunk".

That's so 1960s...

Write to Boeing or tweet about it, there is a bit of work to be done.

Move all the CBs to the E&E bay and make it more like the 787.

Sorry chaps, great points but you will have to get all proposed changes approved by Southwest Airlines first... They have Boeing by the sack.

Ha I laughed reading some of these!

Tee Em I completely agree with you regarding the checklists challenge.

What's with the finishing of the before takeoff checklist after cabin secure nowadays? There's still items to be done now after its completion ie. Strobes, transponder, lights.. and if you fly 300 400 and 800 these items are all in different places.. :uhoh:

Dualbleed
 

The manufacturers of the B737 warning lights do produce an LED direct replacement............... All your boss has to do is buy them!

http://www.esterline.com/controlsyst...Indicator.aspx

That is one of the best features, that and the throttles that actually move. Both provide ample warning of impending doom.

Al Murdoch, if you are a current 73 driver, a little thinking outside the TRIs box and the cabin alt/diff guage is soooh easy to interpret!

It reads like a clock, 12 o'clock on the ground at sea level airports.

By the time the after T/O checklist is actioned, the "clock" reads 1210 to 1215 with the "minute hand" ALWAYS leading the "hour hand", just like any normal analogue watch/clock.

By 10,000 ft, it reads 1225, by 20,000 ft it reads 1235 and at 30,000 ft it reads 1340ish.

If it doesn't, it is blindingly obvious, especially when the little hand moves faster/further than the big hand.

The same obvious trend, with slightly different "times", will be obvious after takeoff from non-sealevel fields.

In various companies I tried to get the TRIs to try this as a method for teaching new to type trainees, but alas the not-invented-here syndrome ensured this easy unambiguous way of interpreting the 2 pointer instrument was never adopted.

S'not rocket science.

Tee Emm, this is a similar reason for your observations on the lack of pressn checks in the climb. The responsibility rests with the hallowed profession of TRE/TRI/LTC. Why are they not teaching the check and appropriately debriefing their candidates?

5,000' 2PSI, 10,000' 4PSI, FL180 6PSI...

This is not rocket science, and should be part of your scan after clean up and passing through altitude benchmarks.

Just the noise level change with the exhaust valve closing is part of the routine.

Flight International 15-21 July 2014 has just published extracts from a an Irish investigation into a Ryan Air 737-800 pressurisation problem where the aircraft was incorrectly configured for take off and which was missed by the crew conducting the after take off checklist. According to the FI article, the crew also missed subsequent checks of the pressurisation at 3000 ft and 10,000 ft and the oversight was not discovered until 18,000 ft. Inquiries by the Ireland Air Accidents Investigation Unit found that during the after start checklist, the captain responded "packs off" when the first officer called the after start checklist.

While the before start checklist requires the air conditioning packs to be off, the after start checklist demands a "Packs Auto." The first officer did not query the error. In response, Ryan Air has introduced a procedural change following the incident, requiring the PM to verbalise cabin pressure gauge readings rather than simply call "check" during the climb. The inquiry is recommending that this change be introduced by all carriers.

In the actual AAIU report there is a interesting comment concerning an obvious flat cockpit gradient. That presumably referred to the habit of the first officer addressing the captain as "Mate" on several occasions during the pressurisation problem and taking precipitate actions without apparently first coordinating with the captain

Talk about re-inventing the wheel. The check of the cabin pressurisation instruments was always part of the after take off checklist scan from the introduction of the first Boeing 737-100 in 1968 until Boeing saw fit to change it a few years ago. See Tee Emm's earlier comments at Post 30.

At the rate of climb of the NG over that altitude increase, I'm surprised the trapped wind pressure and possible escape plus the popping of the eustacion tubes didn't alert these 2?

I'm not advocating flying by the seat of the pants but occasionally this can indicate a systems malfunction or mis-setting..........

I refer the readers to my previous posting, a practice which I attribute to the dead science of "airmanship/common sense", written out of the plot in recent amendments of the "How to fly it" series of manuals!!! :confused: