![]() |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 935278)
........ The front end of the guppy is an outdated cramped little hell hole not to mention it's loud. I mean we are talking 1950's technology here. It's simply a 707 nose plugged into the front of a smaller airframe.
You've ovboiusly never flown an EMB product. |
Possible, but illegal
Originally Posted by EWR73FO
(Post 935313)
CAL did not PAY for the data on the new gens. It's there. Same reason why we don't simply flip the switch in the avonics bay for "true" glass. Costs something like 40-50K per aircraft.
I suppose that maintaining the certification would have required periodic performance of the maneuver in each airplane, which would be a questionable idea with passengers on board. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 935278)
If you remember correctly strfyr51 UAl pilots had a huge influence on the flight deck design, and ergonomics on the 777 as we were the launch customer.
We also influenced many seemingly petty things like which way the door flight deck door opened. The front end of the guppy is an outdated cramped little hell hole not to mention it's loud. I mean we are talking 1950's technology here. |
You've ovboiusly never flown an EMB product. So now I know where to lay the blame for yokes instead of sidesticks. I was about 50/50 for getting that thing right on the first push/pull of the trip. All true but, unlike me, at 50 it'll be faster, longer and have more endurance than it had at 20. |
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
(Post 934998)
Boeing is really becoming a "liability" with their planes. The 787 is becoming a nightmare for them with delay after delay after delay (and they laughed at Airbus because of A-380 delays?). The 737-900ER is having a tailstrike problem since it's speeds are so critical on landing, (2 knots below ref and you're setting yourself up for a tailstrike......I know........already happened to me, and it was a SMOOTH landing!) and we're no longer allowed to use flaps "2" since Boeing didn't do any testing and therefore has no data for us to use it! Interesting, with THOUSANDS of B-737's out there, and they put a flap selection that you can't use. I'm also getting tired of the "cubby hole" for our luggage in the cockpit. Haven't the Boeing engineers figured out that we actually OVERNIGHT in the damn thing yet and NEED SPACE for our luggage? :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by scrapdog
(Post 935651)
Hmmm...strange, never happened to me and I didn't hear it was a major issue.
I fly the 900ER thinking "fly it like your grandmother with arthritis and not move anything too fast!" |
Originally Posted by scrapdog
(Post 935651)
Hmmm...strange, never happened to me and I didn't hear it was a major issue.
|
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 935713)
I would think a major tail strike issue would be the subject of pilot bulletins, training bulletins, monthly fleet newsletters, etc. Haven't seen any of those.
I fly the 900ER thinking "fly it like your grandmother with arthritis and not move anything too fast!" |
Originally Posted by EWR73FO
(Post 935313)
CAL did not PAY for the data on the new gens. It's there. Same reason why we don't simply flip the switch in the avonics bay for "true" glass. Costs something like 40-50K per aircraft.
Flip a switch in the electronics bay for True GLASS?? Please explain..???? Aren't theN G. CAL 737's FANS equipped?? I'm sure that cannot be. Hell the A320's are 13yers OLD and many of them are FANS equipped with ATSU's rather than just ACARS and uprated MCDU's With provisions for 3 mcdu's and dual radars. Did they only upgrade the 800's and 900 ER's to fly ETOPS?? Heck! As BAD as UAL management has been over the last 15 years We've at LEAST not knowingly shorted the cockpit equipment and when they did? It usually got corrected. I know we made the mistake of not installing the second Flight managment computer on our 737-322/522's and it came back to "bite us in the Butt" so many times that the planning guys said they'd never make that mistake again! They said from now on our airplanes would be ordered "Fully Dressed". We had an incident not that long ago where a 747 bound for Hong Kong nearly Taxied over max Gross weight and the VP OPS was Aghast to find out we didn't have the Gross Weight display capability like Singapore and Lufthansa had. We took nearly a 35 minute delay until the baggage /cargo and Fuel was recalulated to find we were in fact under max taxi weight. I thought Kolshak was going to have a Coronary/Conniption FIT right there in the OCC. That woulda' been something to see because VP's don't usually Have "Conniption fits"! (Unless they're REALLY "put upon") Since he was always trying to be so "COOL" I'd have paid GOOD money to see that! |
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 935713)
I would think a major tail strike issue would be the subject of pilot bulletins, training bulletins, monthly fleet newsletters, etc. Haven't seen any of those.
I fly the 900ER thinking "fly it like your grandmother with arthritis and not move anything too fast!" Is the -900 rotate angle limited to under 9deg?? I read that n the Boeing Guide recently. Some Airline in asia ground the Pressure bulkhead off at the lower skin leaving Malaysia. and they started using a flaps 2 takeoff to gain more lift at a slower rotate speed and changed their Power checks from 100 back to 80 kias.(Not really sure what that accomplished. except an earlier alert to VR and VLOF??) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands