|
Originally Posted by Knotcher
(Post 3397843)
The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.
|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3398035)
yeah, training nowadays is just too difficult because of the FAA’s onerous rules
I'm talking about differences and type rating requirements, the whole reason the overhead hasn't changed. So yeah the airlines didn't want to pay for the training required by the FAA. |
Originally Posted by Knotcher
(Post 3397843)
The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.
Boeing has done flight deck changes before so not sure how it’s on the FAA to blame for further inaction on Boeing’s part. Boeing, through the airlines desire for cheaper purchase prices, has chosen to do or not do changes, while in compliance with FAR’s. They swapped from electromechanical/ round dials on the 737-200 to EFIS screens on the 737-300/500 (plus new engines) to the NG screens. They built a new wing for the NG. See all the airframe changes for the MAX in addition to the new engines. The 767-400 flight deck is different enough from legacy 757/767’s that currency is mandated in order to fly the 767-400. Plenty of changes that required new certification but that didn’t stop Boeing from designing and building them. But it’s the FAA that is holding up a modern 737 flight deck? if the Six pack was so great how come other Boeing’s since then weren’t designed with it? |
Originally Posted by Knotcher
(Post 3397843)
The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.
|
Originally Posted by LJ Driver
(Post 3395256)
Have there been any accidents specifically attributed to the panel? I flew C130s in the USAF, and yes we had an engineer but the 737 panel really isn’t a big deal. Once you learn it that’s it, I don’t get the issue. The Max 10 not having EICAS should have no bearing on its cert, and the requirement was a classic knee jerk regulation free-for-all in response to untrained pilots not following procedure and crashing the other Max airplanes. In other words, “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!”
if I recall correctly the panel was specifically not updated because the primary customer (SW) requested it be as close to the NG panel as possible, thus making an easier transition and less training required. Either way, the panel not having EICAS is simply not a safety issue, and makes almost no impact once a pilot learns the 737 panel of any type. My opinion obviously. |
Originally Posted by C11DCA
(Post 3398088)
BS.
Boeing has done flight deck changes before so not sure how it’s on the FAA to blame for further inaction on Boeing’s part. Boeing, through the airlines desire for cheaper purchase prices, has chosen to do or not do changes, while in compliance with FAR’s. They swapped from electromechanical/ round dials on the 737-200 to EFIS screens on the 737-300/500 (plus new engines) to the NG screens. They built a new wing for the NG. See all the airframe changes for the MAX in addition to the new engines. The 767-400 flight deck is different enough from legacy 757/767’s that currency is mandated in order to fly the 767-400. That is the whole reason the 757/767 have identical cockpits, for commonality and minimal training expense. Modernize it (like the 400) and all the sudden you throw a wrench in it and now you have all new training complexities. You proved my whole point. |
My point being about the NG wing was it required certification and that it was not too big of a hurdle for Boeing to do.
Boeing chose not to do a new flight deck beyond the screens, not because it was too difficult per the FAA rules. |
Originally Posted by Beaver Hunter
(Post 3398094)
untrained pilots crashing the Max. Pretty big balls statement considering the facts don't confirm your theory. Boeing made a massive and I would say criminal act by hiding the MCAS system from operators. I suggest you watch the Netflix show about this very issue. Unless you enjoy playing the role of a fool.
|
Originally Posted by C11DCA
(Post 3398486)
My point being about the NG wing was it required certification and that it was not too big of a hurdle for Boeing to do.
Boeing chose not to do a new flight deck beyond the screens, not because it was too difficult per the FAA rules. |
Originally Posted by C11DCA
(Post 3397724)
no need for the XLR. The standard 321NEO can do what a Max10 is planned to do.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:07 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands