One of the reasons for higher speeds is to avoid tail strikes.

 

Yes, we have LEDs and we are consistently the fastest approach speed on final. Several factors, actually. The plane lands best at 30 flaps. Tail strikes are an issue if you get slow. The -900 is faster.

 

So not only was the Gulfstream 200 hit over the head with the ugly stick:



It's got great runway performance:

Vref (1,23 x Vsr) is 140 knots at the maximum gross landing weight of 30,000 lbs (13,608 kg). According to EU-OPS 1.430 (C), Appendix 2, the G200 is operated as a category C aircraft for all approaches.

That's with leading edge devices... which have boots installed btw... but I guess you could say the 737 has the same Vref as one particular airplane that is 5 times smaller. But then again, you could just say the G200 has the Vref of an airplane 5 times bigger.

 

Best example of pilot engineering I've read in quite some time.

 

The 737 could have been so much more than it is..HUD is great the avionics with approach nav is great, Flies nice...the 2 axis autopilot so so.. The over head panel sucks the flight flight deck lighting sucks flightdeck space sucks..what was SWA thinking when they ordered a bazillion of them ..you had a real opportunity to innovate wiith Boeing ...but instead you got this half assed airplane ...that the rest of us have to suffer with..wait til ya fly it over 6 hrs like some do...

 

You don't get it, do you?

One type, one rating. Any changes require more training for new type.


That means $$$$. SWA didn't like spending it. Boeing isn't going to change/develop one type for SWA pilots.

 

Actually, they did because SWA was the launch customer for 737NG (700, 800, 900 series). Therefore , what you meant was Boeing wasn't going to design another A/C for the rest of us because SWA wanted the exact same panel as the -200, 300, 500 series. Also, we couldn't have had the much quieter (and roomier cockpit) of the 757 because of the common type. Boeing had both of those modifications laid out in the design phase that were never implemented. You know, DAL (and others) manage to fly a common type for 757/767 with different FMS packages and SWA couldn't figure out a way to common type the 737 variants. It's also amazing to see press releases touting SWA's revolutionary use of RNP departures and approaches (that have been available on the 737-700 at launch). I JS on you guys a lot, appreciate it a lot, BUT it is painful to watch you struggle with 737-700 displays that were designed just for you. Also, the complete prohibition of many of the automation features of the 737 NG (autobrakes, RNP departures and arrivals, no autothrottle, etc) was painful to watch.

 

Hello everyone I am a Student who wants to interview a Airline Pilot for a project that I need to be completed by April 23, 2012 so could someone please reply their email address or just message me at [email protected] so that I could send the questions because I cant send any direct messages until after 10 "Quality messages are posted in the forums" It would really help and yes I am extremely interested in becoming a Airline Pilot so if anyone will give me guidance that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

I don't work for SWA.

I've flown 3 different L1011 models all with the same type. 2 different A/Ps, 4 different NAV systems. The view out the window and all the overhead switches and systems were the same as far as the pilot's were concerned. Changing the view out the window and/or changing the switch layout, operation, or tactile feel endangers consistent type.

Boeing had a 757-100 on the drawing board, but no one wanted it. Not enough interest in puting the B757 cockpit, including glass, on the B737. It wasn't going to sell. Boeing wasn't going to but steam gauges on the NGs either, so SWA and CAL put the bastardized displays in to keep the FAA happy.

You give SWA too much credit.

 

Funny...someone who jumpseats on us a lot would have probably noticed that the -700 six-pack EFIS displays have been gone for almost two years.

I guess it's "painful" to watch a pilot actually fly the aircraft instead of watching a pilot watch the automation fly the aircraft?