Get real. EICAS gives you an immediate, plain English message of what failed. The 737 "Ding, vague hint, easter egg hunt for a light that doesn't clearly explain what the problem is, then dig into the EFB looking for the plain English explanation of what's wrong" may be an easy cognitive process at 0 knots and 0 G's. But when you add in fatigue, fear, confusion, while dealing with a handful of airplane and it shouldn't be this difficult to understand than under those stressful circumstances pilots might not be able to think and operate at 100% capacity, or be as amazing as all the badass pilots on this forum who simply would never make a mistake and would be the hero in every single circumstance.

 

^^^^^ Exactly^^^^^

 

Especially because the technology exists and has existed for a long time. EICAS isn't ground breaking stuff here. The A320 was certified with an ECAM in 1988! There are plenty of examples of 737 pilots disagreeing on what checklist to run, and then ending up running the wrong one. Doesnt happen on an EICAS equipped aircraft.

Why hasnt Boeing integrated it into old fleets?

Money. Full stop.

 

Well that's a little overly dramatic. EICAS is definitely the easier of the two systems, but neither is remotely difficult. On the 737 the 6 pack tells you exactly where to look on the overhead for the fault. If a fuel pump light is illuminated, you simply run that checklist. Not exactly the Easter egg hunt people make it out to be. As far as having to do that in real time while in flight being a challenge, I guess I'm dumbfounded. We should be able to analyze multiple failures and then prioritize how we handle them. It's not badassery, it's just basic pilot stuff. Luckily here at United we have other fleet types for those who insist on something like EICAS to bid. As long as the 737 provides the best schedule according my PBS demands, I'll just deal with the actual suck that it provides such as the noise and not being able to turn on a pack until the ground crew eventually gets around to pulling "conditioned" air.

 

That's exactly why, but to reiterate....... not having it isn't the end of the world.

 

People get very reactionary about the 737. Not sure why it's that big of a deal...if you don't want to fly it, don't. The entire rest of pretty much every major airline's fleet has EICAS.

 

That's pretty much how I see it and I'm glad we work at a company with choices. I tried long haul and it wasn't for me so I bid off, while others absolutely love it. I flew with a guy recently who switched from the 320 to the 737 because he wanted day trips and there were more on the 737 within his seniority. My first 2 avoid statements are avoid duty 2300-0600 and avoid more than 2 legs per day. Since that's what's important to me, the 737 provides more options, warts and all.

 

ECAM confuses people ALL the time on what checklist to run based on what's indented or not.

 

It’s not about being a badass. It’s also not an Easter egg hunt either. It’s basic pilot skills. Is EICAS better? Yes. But to paint a narrative that it’s super unsafe and crews are doomed so planes are falling out of the sky is dramatic.

You feel very passionate about this topic. In which case, you should bid off of it if you haven’t done so already

 

Did 12-to-life on the bus at NK, now on the 737. Flew the bus like it was a Boeing, AP/AT/FD off whenever I could, both for T/O & LND. Hate the non moving stick/thrust lever. A should definitely have done better with that aspect of the design. But the 737 not getting EICAS with the NG (LG?) was a huge mistake by B. The FAA letting B certify the MAX without it was a huge mistake from the FAA. And the current situation where the 7 & 10 can't fly is the direct result of that mistake by B 30 years ago.

And I am sure the ACA is lobbying in favor to resolve any problems the FAA has with the 737