737 NGs Unsafe to Fly?
 

1. Can't use the speed brake above 300 kts IAS due excessive empennage vibration.

2. Can't fly above 270 kts IAS if it's been de-iced due to elevator balance problems unless maintenace action is accomplished (Unlikely on line flying with quick turnrounds)

What is going on in Seattle? These things can only help Airbus in their sales drive! (easyJet order etc)

Airbus seems to be a lot cheaper, less to operate, better performance figures and altogether a better bet than the NG.

I can't help but think Boeing have missed a great oppurtunity to get ahead of the game with the NG, and have put together an airplane that does not feel right.

Who certified it; and why?

not unsafe
 

I dont think that the 737 NG is unsafe , the problems with the elivators all stem from the fact that the controls can go into a true manual reversion and work if the aircraft has a FULL electrical faiure , this is something that the airbus cant do ( yes I know that this is extreamly unlikely).

Boeings do have a fix for these problems but it will take time to get the aircraft into the sheds to have the work done and Boeing are taking a very cautious aproach on these problems.

Both Boeing and Airbus make very safe aircraft and to put the risks of flying into perspective I am going to to do something statisticly far more risky when I finnish this post .........make a cup of tea !.

There is nothing wrong with the NGs. We have a whole fleet of them including the -900. You have to consider that the NGs are a whole new aircraft and therefore it takes time to work the bugs out.

Thrush - this one got beaten to death about a month ago or so.... Gimme an NG anyday!

:(

One of our FOs flew them as an active duty (US) Navy pilot, and went overseas a number of times. He described the same frustrating extra limitations on the airframe, and also claimed that the cockpit pilot seats are some of the most uncomfortable such seats he has ever sat on. He was surprised by numerous disappointments, and wondered if Boeing was under severe pressure to design these newer types, with the foreign, government-subsidized competition breathing down its neck.

If the 737NG is on emergency power, does it also have engine-driven hydraulic pumps, with a RAT which extends with double engine-flameouts, and can provide (center?) hydraulic pressure for primary flight controls, as with the 757? I would still prefer the concept of a 737's conventional flight controls to that of a plane which needs on-line computers to safely fly, but will never get to choose between the two types of planes, as a replacement for our old narrow bodies. The 727s here will soon be gone, except for athletic charters.

You forgot about the centre tank fuel pumps which have to be kept immersed in fuel, else they blow up!

Get your story right IO, quote: with the foreign, government-subsidized competition breathing down its neck.

Isn't there a certain company in Seattle who uses military money to develop commercial aircraft variations?? Things like a cargo door on the 737.. Isn't there a state funded organisation who is doing research into aviation for commercial companies called NASA or something..

In Europe the only aid is that the governements have given is loans ie things you repay..

by the way: yes the NG is crap..

737NGs
 

The NGs series is one hell of an aircraft! Boeing took an already great product and made it even better than was thought possible! They used what they learned on the 777 and brought the best features to the Guppy......new advanced wing design, great new flight deck, and a passenger cabin to rival the A32x series. Yes it has had it share of problems....but that is expected with any new aircraft. My company already has 120 of the great aircraft and has another 200 on firm order....and I have to say we are very impressed and very happy with the 737NGs! (or as we call them the "Super Guppys") I know some here are diehard Airbus folks but please do not bash a perfectly good airplane!

737 NG Unsafe to fly? Hmm.. let's have a look at the accident statistics... Oh, I see. Very dangerous aircraft.... :rolleyes:

Aviation Trainer, too.... Go back to your C-152. A B-737 NG is definately not the approariate Aviation Training aircraft for you.

When you follow all those ADs, there is not any place left for a placard anymore now on the flightdeck, it must be safe to fly it. That is what you get if you certificate a new concept on an old model.
The good thing with the 270kt restriction is, that noise levels on the flight-deck have dropped considerably.
:rolleyes:

WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT?

"Placards"??? We got one one the flight deck - ONE - UNO - UN - 1
and that don't look too official (more like a company created reminder for the less attentive).

Jeez - you guys gimme the bleedin ebejeebies sometimes. If you don't like the NG then don't fly it - there are plenty of us who will!

:(

Boeing=good aeroplane.Did a 1000 hours on the 738, certainly not my favourite Boeing but an excellent commercial aeroplane.It would be my first choice if starting a new outfit and hoping to make money!!.

Has anyone else spotted the irony of posting these two comments in the same paragraph:-

...with the foreign, government-subsidized competition ...

and

One of our FOs flew them as an active duty (US) Navy pilot...
:D

Gentlemen,
I've just come home from flying an NG, unsafe? Never.
Seriously irritating? Yes, its about time that the speedbrake, icing and fuel pump issues were sorted out for good. Talk about a pain in the ar*e.....................

:cool:

B737NG Versus A320
 

Since I have not flown the A318- A321 I cannot compare myself.
I have heard rumours that Airbus narrowbodies leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to runway performace ie required runway lenghts ( Higher speeds) at equivalent weights when compared to the B737 NG family -600 to -900. Anyone care to enlighten me.

StressFree -

You have summed the whole thing up - It should all be sorted out, and soonest, please.

And thanks all of you for reminding me about the world's most complicated procedures for the center pumps, which I'd forgotten to mention in my original post!

"Hmm.. let's have a look at the accident statistics... Oh, I see. Very dangerous aircraft...."

I take it you are one of the people who actually believe that the Concorde went from being the world's safest aircraft to one of the most dangerous in one morning as well?

Statistics are a dangerous tool if not used correctly.

Cheers,
Fred

I flew both the A320-series as the 737-800.
My first impression of the 737 NG was a big disillusion. This was not the kind of aircraft that I expected from Boeing to compete with the A320.
Yes, it had new engines and wings, yes it had some nice LCD-screens. But that's it. Almost nothing has changed to the '60's technology.
After flying with it I discovered that the cockpit was extreme noisy due to the lack of isolation. Pilots at our company were flying with ANR headsets !!
The approach speeds are higher : it's a Cat. D aircraft (even the Airbus A330 is a Cat. C). Strange for such a small aircraft.
And then the AD's came; No speedbrake above 300 knots,... !!
Also due to the fact that the wings are thinner, we had several cases of de-icing the wingsurface at 10°C OAT after a long flight and with eco-fuel in the tanks. Never saw this in my life and I must say that it is very difficult to understand !!
When you come from the 737EFIS, the 737NG is a great aircraft but when you come from another modern aircraft, the 737NG is a dissapointment. But unsafe ??? It's on the limit I think....

EXCIN,

Thanks for that. Good info here.

I'd also forgotten about the problem of asking for a de-icing rig down in the Med. You get some strange looks! And you never get one. Normally the warm fuel going on melts the ice, but I've incurred half hour delays waiting for ice to melt, if the fuel has, for instance not been too warm (from underground storage, for example).

Icing Issue
 

I'm sorry but I don't buy that little story. Yes I have noticed the NGs tend to ice up quicker that the Classics....but by the time you block in at the gate it's usually melting. Again this little thread seems to be bashing the Next Gens a little hard. Yes I admit the airplane has had it share of problems....regardless of what you people say it a brand new airplane with brand new issues. I will say this:My airline is entering its 6th year of Next Gen operation and none of the so called problems you people have come up with have impacted our operations one bit. The pilots and F/A love the airplane and we can't wait until we get more. It a great airplane,so please do not bash it because you don't like it. Remember as pilots you have choices.....if you don'tlike the plane:BID OFF OF IT!

MDWpilot:

Sorry for you that you don't believe the fuel story.

I flew charter flights with the 737-800 from center Europe to the sunny south. During winter, you start with an OAT of around 0°C , take-off and climb to FL390 and then after 3-4 hours flight you land with lots of eco-fuel (sometimes fuel is 50% more expensive at the destination - I don't think you have this in the States) at a destination with 10-15°C OAT.
What happens with the upper surface of the wing : ICE (and sometimes very thick) - and you can see where the fuel in the tanks ends !! We had several cases at our company, where they had to ask the de-icing truck to avoid a delay of several hours. Since then, it was forbidden for us to take extra fuel when the OAT at destination was around 10°C.

For the rest, I don't mind to fly the 737 NG (it's a nice aircraft to fly when you compare it with the 737 EFIS) but it is an aircraft with a lot of mistakes ...

Yes, but fortunately more than a handfull 737 are flying out there :p

Excin,

The same problem exists in the A320s. The problem is that the A320 can't get has high as the 737s. A charter 320 will never see 390, especially tankering. The 737s cruise higher. IF you have a problem with fuel icing, simply fly the aircraft down around 350 like an A320 and the difference will be enough.

I flew a corporate 320 for a while and we would tanker and with only 50 seats always went to 390. Landed and iced up. pretty common.

I submit that icing has more to do with cruise alt than wing design.

Cheers
Wino

Thanks for the info Wino;

This is the first time I hear about this with the A320 and I flew 4 years on this aircraft.

Anyway, what follows is an extraction of our company's "Pilot Notes" about the 737-800 NG Introduction:

"Fuel tankering and wing icing:

Because the amount of fuel in the main (wing) tanks is less than on the B737 Classic, the chance of landing with full main tanks when tankering fuel is greater than on the classic.
The result is the possible appearance of icing on the upper wing, due to the condensation caused by the fuel cooled during the cruise part of the flight. Icing may occur even with an OAT above 20°C.
A take-off with any kind of contamination on the upper wing being prohibited and de-icing being unavailable in TFS and HER and other places, this situation may prove to be very disruptive to a smooth operation.

..."

EXCIN,

I didn't mean to insult you......In my experience with the NGs I have never seen the wing get iced up to the point of having to get deiced at the next stop.......however we rarely tanker fuel(I expect we will be doing it more in the future) and the majority of our flights are about an hour and a half.....and usually whatever ice there is melts by the time you get to the gate( I make sure I bring my hat on walkarounds:) ). Again I just want to say.....yes some of the features of the NGs are a pain in the ass.....but EVERY aircraft have their issues. I'mgonna be spending the rest of my career on them.....I would'nt be flying them if I thought they were dangerous!

EXCIN

There is a way to tanker fuel without the wing problem. Put it in the center tank and don't burn it. Yes I know that isn't the standard way to do it, but it can be done. It becomes part of the aircraft's zero fuel weight at that point, so consider it like extra pax. You can't get quite as much that way (because of wing bending moments and whatnot, but it can be done.

Its called ballast fuel then, and will stay quite warm in the center tanks. Then you open the fuel transfer valve on the ground and pump it around if you round tripped your fuel, for the fueler will simply add his fuel to the wings and center as applicable.

Just requires a little thought on your load planning/operating the aircraft to make sure you don't excede wing bending and then don't forget and burn it anyway... Also you could let down a few min early at high speed. A nice high TAT will warm the wings quick.

CHeers
Wino

For info

Flew this evening 3hr 20 mins at FL 390 737-700.
Started with 11 tonnes, finished with 3.2 tonnes.

Hefty layer of ice underneath and on top of wing at destination (+12 C).

After refuel for return (11 tonnes again) took 35 mins for upper surface ice to dissipate.

Slight delay to departure saved a fortune (and probable further delay) in de-icing bill!

It's just a fact with the -700!

MDWpilot:

No problem. But that's the difference, with such a short flights of 1:30 I don't think you will ever see a large buildup of ice.
The company were I flew the -800 was a charter-company and the duration of most flights was around 3:30 with a max of 4:30- 5:00 at high altitude and sometimes with the fuel temp close to -40°C.
The problem in Europe, as I already posted, is the fuel price. Sometimes the fuel is 50% to even 70% more expensive at destination, so the company policy was always to take eco-fuel with us. The procedure that Wino is talking about came later when we had already several cases of delay after ice-buildup on the upper wing.

Not Unsafe
 

It's a blaady silly thing to say, however, saying it's a perfect flying machine is an overstatement. To put it mildly.
When it came, some genious had removed the Main gear shimmydampers. Saved some kiloes. That gave you a 20 % chance of getting a severe shimmy if you did a smooth landing. Tried that. Scared the shat out of the SLF's. And me. Panels falling from the roof. General mayhem in the cabin. Thank you for flying with us, etc, etc. I hate making excuses when it has nothing to do with me, or the way I operate. Until that one was fixed we were under orders not to make smooth landings. Had to change a few landing gears too.

DAC engines? This was an engine thing, and not really a Boeing problem. So, we had to operate them (engines) either at idle, or at the setting required in order to avoid failures. Ok. No V/S or intermediate settings during descent or climb.

De-ice. Vibrations after take off. Of course, we didn't know what caused it, but automatically I disconnected the autopilot and autothrottles, and believing it was engine related, I pulled back the throttles. Speed came back, and the vibrations stopped. Didn't stop one F/A offloading herself at destination, the vibrations were really bad in the back of the aircraft. Who am I to blame her? It was bad enough up front. So, speedlimitations in effect.

Never had any vibrations with the speedbrakes though, but limitation max 300 kts in effect.

Fuelpumps? In all fairness, Boeing didn't design them, but they are a big pain in the butt. Landingweight. Say no more.

Rudder anyone? X-overspeeds? The -800 can match the heavy jets approach speed anyday. Limited runway, full load, flaps 40, dodgy wind conditions. Hands full keeping the speed somewhere between stall and overspeed.

I don't want to talk about flight control module failures. We got them fixed. Some aircraft grounded before that happened though.

Don't change MAP mode/range during approach, as the displays may go blank. Or disagree. Or fail.

Leaving the navlights on during daylight will crack the glass. So don't.

Using the retractable landing lights without a special procedure will crack the glass.

It's to blaady noisy! It's beyond me how they can change everything except the nose of the plane. This has become a loss of lisence issue. Doing 320 kts it's as noisy as a turboprop. It s*cks!

The cockpit is beautiful! After you've manhandled yourself into it. 6 large screens. Just don't look up! I'm drooling for a 60's Mustang. Not a 60's overhead panel. It works, but it sure is ugly.

Ice, ice, baby. At least it doesn't enter the engines. A lot of operators with dents in the leading edge of the tailplane. Big surprise. Land with less than 4000 kgs.

Oh, the logo light reflectors will crack of you leave them on in a warm climate.

The taxi light is totally useless. Even the big one, and it's really expensive.

Go around on a single autopilot ILS or any non precision approach, you're on manual controls. It's not a problem, but it's not Next Generation either. In some airlines a manual go around is an emergency procedure. No names mentioned.

Autoland? It will do one very nicely. After touchdown the autopilot will say bye, bye, and you are left on you're own. Not smart. It's 20 (at least) years since autopilot rollout guidance was introduced. What do you prefer when you are running into second seqment 0 visibility?

If I ever kept speed control as poorly as the NG autopilot, my examiner would have failed me. No doubt.


No, it is not unsafe. We, as professionals are very good at developing procedures to make up for the shortcomings of the equipment we operate. We just have a lot of procedures for the NG at the moment.

2 stickers, Fowler. 2. So far.

ManaAdaSystem:

That's the 737NG we are talking about...:)