User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:03 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
767333ER wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

Nor totally correct. The LCD displays have several very modern functions like a Vertical Situation Display and RNP Nav Performance Scales. That outdated FMC was the first airplane in the world to support a .1nm RNP.

And the NG’s screens could do all the same things other than OMF which they could have fit on those as well. Why put those huge 787 screens if it still can’t tell/show you what the systems are doing, where at the airport you are, or have your checklists or anything like that on there? RNP and ANP scales could be put on the old CRT displays if the old 737s needed it and any relatively modern plane would have that, just not in the same place. Even a Dash 8-100 can tell you that. And VSD is from the early/mid 2000s so it’s not as modern of a thing as some think compared to airport diagrams for example. Considering the 737 isn’t the only RNP capable plane, it being the first doesn’t say much because it was only first because the first operators that saw the need for RNP happened to be 737 operators, many other types of plane that are as old can do the same thing and do nowadays. The FMC lags when you type, it can’t do FMC COMM or NAV RAD functions, and it can’t tell the pressurization system what you landing elevation is and even worse the cruise altitude. Even an old 757 that’s parked in the desert could do that latter.


So what exactly is your point? We’ve already established that the 737 Max has some less than futuristic design. If you happened to have read previous posts before your rant, you might also understand there are some valid reasons for that. I don’t like it anymore than anyone else. But there are some good business reasons why the 737 is what it is.

Personally I don’t have the big drama that some people have about how the A320 is soooooo much wider and more comfortable. I find AS’s 737s just fine in coach. AA’s seem more cramped.

Well first of all I didn’t say anything about the passenger experience so that’s besides the point. There are some good business reasons why you don’t get the food you used to or the seat pitch you used to, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it. I look at it though the pilots point of view, I couldn’t care less what the beancounters think because if they could have it even more their way things would be even worse. This is a thread about why we think the 737 is outdated and I’m just listing the things I think might be outdated. If it bothers you, why are you even reading this thread as the nature of this discussing is critiquing the 737, if it doesn’t great.
barney captain wrote:
I'm not at all saying the 737 doesn't have plenty of room for improvement, but some of your comments are just hard to justify;

It has those massive LCD displays that can’t display much of anything more than the CRTs could on the classic.


Huh?

Image


The autopilot still needs to have CWS for when it supposedly screws up from time to time.


That's just plain nonsense.

The rest, I agree with. :))

That may be a 737-200/300 cockpit, but I wasn’t comparing to the electromechanical instruments, but rather the CRT EFIS. As for the autopilot I’m just coming to a conclusion based off of what information I’ve been given. I’ve been told that CWS is a feature never used on the 757/767 which is why it has largely been removed at operators such as Delta and I’ve also been told that the 737’s autopilot has a few issues others do not such as it does trance things on VNAV or it sometimes just gives up on an approach so the conclusion I draw from that is that there is a reason they still feel the need to put CWS or there is a need for operators not to remove it. I wasn’t 100% sure which is why I said supposedly. I respect that you fly the thing and I haven’t, it makes me wonder about the others that have and do complain, opinions I guess...
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:13 am

barney captain wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
I believe the 737 (all versions?) cannot have rafts at the rear doors unlike the A320 family. So better seat upfront in case of water landing.


The rafts are located in the ceiling, one fwd and two aft.


I meant the aft doors cannot be opened in a water landing because the aircraft is tail heavy. So the rafts can only used at the forward doors as shown on this safety card:

Image

Only the -900 has rafts aft of the wing:

Image

I suppose the MAX -9 and -10 also have aft rafts?
 
barney captain
Posts: 1789
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:37 am

I meant the aft doors cannot be opened in a water landing because the aircraft is tail heavy. So the rafts can only used at the forward doors as shown on this safety card:


Good point, and you are 100% correct.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
WIederling
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:54 am

barney captain wrote:
I meant the aft doors cannot be opened in a water landing because the aircraft is tail heavy. So the rafts can only used at the forward doors as shown on this safety card:


Good point, and you are 100% correct.


Were the rear doors used in the Hudson splashdown?
( afair not photo from the salvage "liftout" only front and wing exits open.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 41287c.jpg )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:37 am

WIederling wrote:
barney captain wrote:
I meant the aft doors cannot be opened in a water landing because the aircraft is tail heavy. So the rafts can only used at the forward doors as shown on this safety card:


Good point, and you are 100% correct.


Were the rear doors used in the Hudson splashdown?
( afair not photo from the salvage "liftout" only front and wing exits open.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 41287c.jpg )


Good question. I couldn't find photos showing the aft doors open while in the water. What could have made the A320 tail heavy? Fuel tanks in the horizontal stabilizers? Fully loaded containers?
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:11 am

I recall, (back in the days of the -200/300) that the aft door was not used in a water landing due to the outflow valve being open and the aircraft would eventually settle and sink tail first. But ... if you look at the -200Cs we flew, with the two rear exits being the only two for passengers in some combi configurations, the rear exits were used in a water landing.

I asked "what gives?" at the time. Apparently, Boeing devised standpipes around the outflow valve, (and another opening I can't recall) which slowed the entrance of water enough to allow everyone to get out with time to spare. I always found it odd that later 737 versions did not have this feature.

The A320 has a "ditching switch" that closes all openings for a water landing. But, with time short on the Hudson, it was not used.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
barney captain
Posts: 1789
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:34 am

longhauler wrote:
I recall, (back in the days of the -200/300) that the aft door was not used in a water landing due to the outflow valve being open and the aircraft would eventually settle and sink tail first. But ... if you look at the -200Cs we flew, with the two rear exits being the only two for passengers in some combi configurations, the rear exits were used in a water landing.

I asked "what gives?" at the time. Apparently, Boeing devised standpipes around the outflow valve, (and another opening I can't recall) which slowed the entrance of water enough to allow everyone to get out with time to spare. I always found it odd that later 737 versions did not have this feature.

The A320 has a "ditching switch" that closes all openings for a water landing. But, with time short on the Hudson, it was not used.


Great info Long - you are one of the reasons I continue to come here - quality information.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:04 am

longhauler wrote:
I recall, (back in the days of the -200/300) that the aft door was not used in a water landing due to the outflow valve being open and the aircraft would eventually settle and sink tail first. But ... if you look at the -200Cs we flew, with the two rear exits being the only two for passengers in some combi configurations, the rear exits were used in a water landing.

I asked "what gives?" at the time. Apparently, Boeing devised standpipes around the outflow valve, (and another opening I can't recall) which slowed the entrance of water enough to allow everyone to get out with time to spare. I always found it odd that later 737 versions did not have this feature.

The A320 has a "ditching switch" that closes all openings for a water landing. But, with time short on the Hudson, it was not used.


Thanks for this detailed explanation. Very informative.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 18120
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:17 am

The ditching pushbutton can also be found on the 330/340 and the 350. It does get used in normal ops when we de-ice/anti-ice. The guard is red on the 330, which IMHO does not quite follow "Airbus logic" since the action is reversible.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11932
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:21 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
The ditching pushbutton can also be found on the 330/340 and the 350. It does get used in normal ops when we de-ice/anti-ice. The guard is red on the 330, which IMHO does not quite follow "Airbus logic" since the action is reversible.


Nothing to do with Airbus philosophy (which is not even true). Emergency controls on every aircraft even the 737 need to me marked in red according to design regulations like FAR 25.1555.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:39 pm

zeke wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
The ditching pushbutton can also be found on the 330/340 and the 350. It does get used in normal ops when we de-ice/anti-ice. The guard is red on the 330, which IMHO does not quite follow "Airbus logic" since the action is reversible.


Nothing to do with Airbus philosophy (which is not even true). Emergency controls on every aircraft even the 737 need to me marked in red according to design regulations like FAR 25.1555.


IMU Starlionbleu's understanding is/was that red marked buttons/switches indicate resultant irreversible actions.

Intrinsically true for things like firebootles.

But probably not the "FAR designated kind of signaling" ? lead me.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11932
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:56 pm

WIederling wrote:
IMU Starlionbleu's understanding is/was that red marked buttons/switches indicate resultant irreversible actions.

Intrinsically true for things like firebootles.

But probably not the "FAR designated kind of signaling" ? lead me.


The fire handles on Boeings and fire switches on Airbus are reversible, the actual discharge of the Engine/APU fire bottle on the 737 and A320 for example are not reversible. On the FBW Airbus the discharge buttons are not red, or guarded. There was a famous incident years ago with a BA 747 that lost all 4 engines after entering volcanic ash, the fire handle was pulled on one engine, the flight engineer stowed that handle and that engine was the first to relight.

The famous PA by Capt Moody ”Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.”
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:27 pm

zeke wrote:
here was a famous incident years ago with a BA 747 that lost all 4 engines after entering volcanic ash, the fire handle was pulled on one engine, the flight engineer stowed that handle and that engine was the first to relight.

The famous PA by Capt Moody ”Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.”


Blown clean :-)
firebottle filling still is Halon(R) right?

today Capt. Moody would from now on sit at home for being nonPC in a serious situation :-)))
Murphy is an optimist
 
aerotech777
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:29 pm

Hi,

Good question. I couldn't find photos showing the aft doors open while in the water. What could have made the A320 tail heavy? Fuel tanks in the horizontal stabilizers? Fully loaded containers?


The ditching pushbutton can also be found on the 330/340 and the 350. It does get used in normal ops when we de-ice/anti-ice. The guard is red on the 330, which IMHO does not quite follow "Airbus logic" since the action is reversible.


If I am not mistaken the flight control computers imposed limits that prevented the crew to achieve the optimum landing flare for the ditching, which would have softened the impact.The result was hard impact with the water which damaged the back fuselage which caused heavy tail.

After the crash, lot of persons (in certain aviation forum) blamed the crew for the aircraft heavy tail because the pilot didn't actuate the ditching pushbutton. The crew didn't have time to finish the ditching checklist. Even if the ditching pushbutton was used, it would not prevent the aircraft heavy tail (big hole in the fuselage because of the hard impact). Also because of the impact a piece of the structure went through the floorboards of the cabin and injured a flight attendant.
 
WNCrew
Posts: 906
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:06 pm

ro1960 wrote:
barney captain wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
I believe the 737 (all versions?) cannot have rafts at the rear doors unlike the A320 family. So better seat upfront in case of water landing.


The rafts are located in the ceiling, one fwd and two aft.


I meant the aft doors cannot be opened in a water landing because the aircraft is tail heavy. So the rafts can only used at the forward doors as shown on this safety card:

Image

Only the -900 has rafts aft of the wing:

Image

I suppose the MAX -9 and -10 also have aft rafts?


Just to clarify for everyone:

There is a slide, there is a raft, and then there is a slide-raft.

The 737 does NOT, under any circumstance come equipped with a slide-raft. Slide-rafts are slides that double as raft without having to "launch" if-you-will, anything else. You open the door, the slide inflates, and if it's floating on water, once detached from the door sill it is now a raft.

The door of the 707,727,737 is not wide enough, and due to the fact that it has to rotate about a smaller axis that the 757 and 747 it can't accommodate a slide pack large enough to hold anything larger than just a simple slide. Therefore the 737s have rafts in the centerline ceiling stowage compartments located either FWD or MID-cabin. On the 737-700,-800,-900, and MAX variants Boeing indicates not using AFT exits except for the mid-aft exit behind the wings.

WHat you see on the Safety Information Card in the post I quoted is the escape slide being detached and passengers holding onto the handles on the sides. Again, this is NOT a raft. Some operators teach Cabin Crew to flip the slide over exposing the open area on the bottom which can hold maybe 10-15 smaller people at most but again, this is not a raft, there is no survival gear nor a canopy.

The A320 door can accommodate either a slide (like the 737) OR a slide-raft. In the case of the Hudson ditching, the aircraft was equipped with slide-rafts.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4759
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:46 pm

767333ER wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
767333ER wrote:
And the NG’s screens could do all the same things other than OMF which they could have fit on those as well. Why put those huge 787 screens if it still can’t tell/show you what the systems are doing, where at the airport you are, or have your checklists or anything like that on there? RNP and ANP scales could be put on the old CRT displays if the old 737s needed it and any relatively modern plane would have that, just not in the same place. Even a Dash 8-100 can tell you that. And VSD is from the early/mid 2000s so it’s not as modern of a thing as some think compared to airport diagrams for example. Considering the 737 isn’t the only RNP capable plane, it being the first doesn’t say much because it was only first because the first operators that saw the need for RNP happened to be 737 operators, many other types of plane that are as old can do the same thing and do nowadays. The FMC lags when you type, it can’t do FMC COMM or NAV RAD functions, and it can’t tell the pressurization system what you landing elevation is and even worse the cruise altitude. Even an old 757 that’s parked in the desert could do that latter.


So what exactly is your point? We’ve already established that the 737 Max has some less than futuristic design. If you happened to have read previous posts before your rant, you might also understand there are some valid reasons for that. I don’t like it anymore than anyone else. But there are some good business reasons why the 737 is what it is.

Personally I don’t have the big drama that some people have about how the A320 is soooooo much wider and more comfortable. I find AS’s 737s just fine in coach. AA’s seem more cramped.

Well first of all I didn’t say anything about the passenger experience so that’s besides the point. There are some good business reasons why you don’t get the food you used to or the seat pitch you used to, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it. I look at it though the pilots point of view, I couldn’t care less what the beancounters think because if they could have it even more their way things would be even worse. This is a thread about why we think the 737 is outdated and I’m just listing the things I think might be outdated. If it bothers you, why are you even reading this thread as the nature of this discussing is critiquing the 737, if it doesn’t great.
barney captain wrote:
I'm not at all saying the 737 doesn't have plenty of room for improvement, but some of your comments are just hard to justify;

It has those massive LCD displays that can’t display much of anything more than the CRTs could on the classic.


Huh?

Image


The autopilot still needs to have CWS for when it supposedly screws up from time to time.


That's just plain nonsense.

The rest, I agree with. :))

That may be a 737-200/300 cockpit, but I wasn’t comparing to the electromechanical instruments, but rather the CRT EFIS. As for the autopilot I’m just coming to a conclusion based off of what information I’ve been given. I’ve been told that CWS is a feature never used on the 757/767 which is why it has largely been removed at operators such as Delta and I’ve also been told that the 737’s autopilot has a few issues others do not such as it does trance things on VNAV or it sometimes just gives up on an approach so the conclusion I draw from that is that there is a reason they still feel the need to put CWS or there is a need for operators not to remove it. I wasn’t 100% sure which is why I said supposedly. I respect that you fly the thing and I haven’t, it makes me wonder about the others that have and do complain, opinions I guess...


You’re making a lot of assumption based on rumors you’ve heard, some of which is not technically accurate.

CWS hasn’t even been offered on the 757/767 since the mid-1990s. Very few in service 757s or 767s ever had it. I doubt DL removed it. Pretty sure most or all of their current 757/767 fleet never had it.

Just because the 737 has CWS doesn’t mean you can reach for the sky and draw circumstantial conclusions about how poor other functionality works.
 
aeropix
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:08 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:51 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
All the "outdated" talk is plain Bunk!! the B737 is glying to Hawaii from the west coast and Alaska


So was the 707 and DC-8. We don't seem to tout those as modern updated designs, though I suppose you would based on that criteria.

The 737 is a 55 year old design that has multiple sub-optimal features that have been repeatedly carried through to modern times for the sake of maintaining low construction cost and common type rating. The arguments here defending the 737 are almost all superfluous to the fact that it is indeed an antique design. Defenses like "it sold a lot of copies" or "it can fly to Hawaii" or "it is really really safe" are all absolutely true and yet all have nothing to do with the fact that it is nonetheless, a modern relic of a past technological era. The two lines of reasoning are not mutually exclusive. The design is really old, that's a fact, and none of the unrelated defenses, while true of themselves, will ever change this fact.
 
WNCrew
Posts: 906
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:17 pm

As a Cabin Crew I can only comment on that.

VERY little standard integrated cabin technology. FAs should be able to (from all stations) tell/control:

LAV status
Door status
Call light location
Cabin Temp
Reset Reading Lights
Cabin Equip Faults
Alert FD "Cabin Ready"


Also:
-Cabins are narrow
-Galleys are cramped and cannot carry what A320/757
*FWD Galleys in 737 4-full & 2-1/2 and on A320 8-full.
*AFT Galleys in 737 5-full and on A320 7-full.
-LAVS are even more cramped than A320
-Doors are needlessly challenging to open
-Arming/DIsarming is cumbersome and risky
*doesn't take into account Human Factors with current design elements
-Narrow jumpseats that can't be split (like A320 or larger 757)
-A320 width allows for fold-down aisle direct view JS, not possible on 737
*additional JS good for commuting and travel as well for FAs
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 18120
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:41 am

zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
IMU Starlionbleu's understanding is/was that red marked buttons/switches indicate resultant irreversible actions.

Intrinsically true for things like firebootles.

But probably not the "FAR designated kind of signaling" ? lead me.


The fire handles on Boeings and fire switches on Airbus are reversible, the actual discharge of the Engine/APU fire bottle on the 737 and A320 for example are not reversible. On the FBW Airbus the discharge buttons are not red, or guarded. There was a famous incident years ago with a BA 747 that lost all 4 engines after entering volcanic ash, the fire handle was pulled on one engine, the flight engineer stowed that handle and that engine was the first to relight.

The famous PA by Capt Moody ”Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.”


My understanding of "red guard" and "black guard" logic is based on what I was taught by technical school and sim instructors. Plus there's this passage in both 330 and 350 FCTMs under the heading "Handling of cockpit controls": "... action by the flight crew with irreversible effects (i.e. when the flight crew operates red guarded controls). If the flight crew inadvertently operates a black guarded control, the subsequent effect is reversible."

Not always consistent but close? ;)

The fire bottle discharge buttons are indeed irreversible and have no guards. However they aren't active until you've pressed the relevant fire button, as in pressing them will do nothing. So in a way the guard on the fire pb prevents use of the discharge pb.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11932
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:59 am

This is not the appropriate thread to discuss that point, will reiterate what I said above that is it simply not true. Too many exceptions.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VSMUT
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:56 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

That’s a bit of a childish way to state it. Boeing doesn’t make design decisions because they are “lazy”. There are a number of factors, all have which have already been listen in this thread. Let me state some of the reasons:

1) Certification basis. The customers were asking for commonality with their existing fleet. Often, when you change a design you are subject to the Change Product Rule, which requires you to step up to a newer certification basis.
2) The customer’s desire for commonality has already been discussed.
3) Similarly, customers have asked Boeing for contractual terms guarenteeing a certain level of training differences. Any major changes and you have to go through a higher level of training differences, which costs the airline a lot more. Then Boeing has to pay big contractual penalties.
4) The customers demand a low cost airplane. Boeing could gold plate it and redesign the overhead easily. That adds a lot of cost, Type Cert risks, and possibly extra customer training costs. Do the airlines want to pay that much more? If they did, Boeing would have redesigned this stuff.

Before people say silly stuff like Boeing was “lazy”, you might want to consider the multitude of business realities that led to these decisions. You can’t just put an EICAS on it either for the same reasons.


You could apply every single one of those claims to ATR, and yet they found a reason to do so despite being a much smaller operation running on much smaller margins.


Again totally ignoring the business and certification realities.

Do all the ATR models share a common type rating? Have they gotten pressure for large customers not to make changes? What are the training differences between the various minor models?

When it’s appropriate to make changes, they are made. The KC-46 flight deck is not your father’s 767-200 flight deck, for example.


You make very little sense. Are you claiming that ATR totally ignored business and certification realities when they updated their much more modern than the 737s flight deck? And then you go on to say that the KC-46 flight deck was updated despite the original 767 being much more modern than the 737s. How does that fit in with your "business and certification realities"?
And how exactly is a flat piece of plastic covering the eyebrow holes, or an electrical panel without cutouts for gauges that haven't been there for 40 years going to impede the 737s commonality across the variants?

Newbiepilot wrote:
Don’t forget how often flight deck panels get changed due to switch failures. Airlines are constantly swapping out various panels in the flight decks of all airplanes. Having common spare parts lowers inventory cost. It might not look pretty, but sharing common parts is good for training purposes and good for spare part costs.


?

I have never seen a flight deck panel get changed before, for any reason. Is this another 737 "feature"?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4759
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:27 pm

VSMUT wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

You could apply every single one of those claims to ATR, and yet they found a reason to do so despite being a much smaller operation running on much smaller margins.


Again totally ignoring the business and certification realities.

Do all the ATR models share a common type rating? Have they gotten pressure for large customers not to make changes? What are the training differences between the various minor models?

When it’s appropriate to make changes, they are made. The KC-46 flight deck is not your father’s 767-200 flight deck, for example.


You make very little sense. Are you claiming that ATR totally ignored business and certification realities when they updated their much more modern than the 737s flight deck? And then you go on to say that the KC-46 flight deck was updated despite the original 767 being much more modern than the 737s. How does that fit in with your "business and certification realities"?
And how exactly is a flat piece of plastic covering the eyebrow holes, or an electrical panel without cutouts for gauges that haven't been there for 40 years going to impede the 737s commonality across the variants?

Newbiepilot wrote:
Don’t forget how often flight deck panels get changed due to switch failures. Airlines are constantly swapping out various panels in the flight decks of all airplanes. Having common spare parts lowers inventory cost. It might not look pretty, but sharing common parts is good for training purposes and good for spare part costs.


?

I have never seen a flight deck panel get changed before, for any reason. Is this another 737 "feature"?


It just doesn’t make sense to you because I suspect you have no clue what you are talking about. You also didn’t answer my question about whether the much more updated ATR variants share a same type rating with the older variants.

You’re going on a baseless rant about the 737 and comparing it to other models when you don’t know much about customer commonality, business or certification issues.

Your childish sarcastic comment about the “737 feature” just shows you have an axe to grind but are unable to engage in any substantial discussion about what the 737 Max is what it is. I don’t really like it either, but I understand how we got here.
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:01 am

Not sure if it's a matter of being outdated or not, I just saw a photo of the 737-7 MAX and I noticed there are two gaps between the windows (where air ducts are) compared to the NGs:



The A320 NEO don't seem to have this gap:



How did Airbus manage to route the ducts between the windows or somewhere else?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11932
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:55 am

ro1960 wrote:
How did Airbus manage to route the ducts between the windows or somewhere else?


Yes between the windows, I sat next to person one day that went ape at the cabin crew because the had asked for a window because they get claustrophobic only to get the wall.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:38 pm

ro1960 wrote:
Not sure if it's a matter of being outdated or not, I just saw a photo of the 737-7 MAX and I noticed there are two gaps between the windows (where air ducts are) compared to the NGs:



The A320 NEO don't seem to have this gap:



How did Airbus manage to route the ducts between the windows or somewhere else?

That actually was an update to the 737-7 to have that as it is simply a 737-8 that just got shortened unlike the 737-700 that was a bit different than the 737-800. The way Airbus does it is the way it was done on the 737-100/200 and on other planes, between windows, they way it should be done in my opinion.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:07 pm

I think a lot of people are equating "old" with "outdated". Yes, the 737 is an "old" type, but it is hardly "outdated". If it were, Boeing wouldn't still be selling thousands of them! Airlines are not stupid, they know what they are buying and they are still buying the 737.

However ... the -100 and -200 were very different from even the -300 to -500 which is very very different from the -600 and later.

I used to fly the -200 out of 4000' gravel strips in Canada's Arctic. You wouldn't even dream of trying that in a MAX! But then crossing the country in a -200 at M0.74 at FL350 is very different from a MAX at M0.80 at FL410! As airlines demands changed, Boeing evolved their best seller.

I was recently in our training center and after my own training was done, I jumped into a MAX-8 sim that was empty. Yes, I waxed nostalgic at the familiar gauges on the overhead panel, but ... from the windshield to the forward lav, it is a very very different and advanced aircraft.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
estorilm
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:21 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Yeah the B737 design is "long in the tooth" But! it's set a standard the Airbus might not EVER match

What standard are you speaking of, exactly? Most I can think of have not only been matched, but exceeded. Unless you're speaking of age / sales "miles flown" records or something. I don't really think crew, pax, or airlines care about that, though. :)
 
hivue
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:26 pm

aerotech777 wrote:
If I am not mistaken the flight control computers imposed limits that prevented the crew to achieve the optimum landing flare for the ditching, which would have softened the impact.The result was hard impact with the water which damaged the back fuselage which caused heavy tail.


IIMU that the crew's early decision to start the APU (an item they never reached in the checklist), allowing the flight control system to remain in Normal Law with attendant envelope protections, was cited by authorities as a major contributor to the successful outcome of the ditching.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
PerVG
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:41 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:44 pm

I would add that a bit of an hard impact upon "landing" was far better than a possible much harder impact upon falling down after stalling, had not the flight envelope protection been in full effect. :)
 
estorilm
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:04 pm

I do think there are a number of protections which aid in preventing crashes on a fairly regular basis, but end up being embarrassing moments that usually don't even get reported or mentioned (for obvious reasons).

I was able to find an alarming number of unstable approaches similar to Asiana 214, for example. There are actually quite a few instances of the "Low Energy Warnings" as well as Alpha Floor being triggered. One such event was an A320 (forget airline/number but you can google VH-VFJ ATSB to read the report).

The pilots botched a number of things, and low-energy was triggered at 120kts along with "speed-speed-speed!" warning, at which time the captain took control of the aircraft and increased throttles - speed continued decreasing to 117 (alpha protection enabled) - at 116 alpha floor activated and auto-throttles were enabled to TOGA automatically.

All of this happened even with those pilots at least "kind of" flying the approach - if they were zombies just watching the whole thing unfold like Asiana, you'd be hard-pressed to tell me those protections wouldn't have helped. I know we aren't talking about Asiana here, or a 777 - but I feel it's worth bring up that certain protections are very valuable when a crew is having an "off day" - I realize that many on the forums feel that "you can fly an Airbus into the ground just as easily as a (legacy) Boeing" but after reading a few of these event reports where the aircraft landed safely, then reading the series of events that happened with Asiana, it's pretty clear that flight protections are very valuable.

I understand it's a philosophy thing too - Boeing insists on their various protections not directly interfering with with ones ability to "fly the plane" - while AB protections can be "in your face" sometimes - but isn't that the point? The whole flight-level-change mode on approach issue where it can enter a "hold" for various reasons and disable autothrottle speed protection is a completely different approach (pardon the pun) to the way flight control protections are implemented on the AB.

AvWeek had an interesting quote in an article posted following the Asiana crash about a possible redesign of the Boeing AT.
"Bob Myers, flight deck chief engineer, says—for this particular design—they were faced with a choice. “If we did a wake-up or some sort of mode transition of the autothrottle and hold mode for a low-speed condition, we would have had a mode transition without the pilots authorizing that change.”"

Hm. Isn't that the entire point of a protection? Because it can be activated (automatically) when sufficient SA has been lost by the flight crew?

I think that quote sums up the differences in philosophy between the two companies very well.
 
Mutt
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:06 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:53 pm

Moving on;


From a pilot aspect the ancient nose and cockpit windows that were borrow from early design B707. The cockpit wind noise is defining.


Yet somehow the cockpit of the MAX is noticeably quieter.
I've yet to fly the Max, but I should be getting into one soon. I will say that on my one commute in the very back, it was a little quieter. I have a sound meter and plan some tests...


The cockpit horns dragging through the air causes the air to still be tumbling at the tail - hence the
strakes by the vertical stab. And I don't believe the other explanations for those, it's the gawd awful cockpit angles.


Then how did they remove them from the MAX - and still manage to make the cockpit quieter?

I'm guessing that the reason for the strakes had more to do with the still-turbulent air off the horns separating at the tail. Now that the tail is shaped differently, the strakes weren't needed to straighten the airflow back out. I am in no way an aero engineer, but, because I'm stubborn, I'm sticking to that hypothesis until proven otherwise.

Image

Believe me, no one wanted to see the cockpit fully modernized more than me. But to use words like "unsafe" and "ball-buster" is just ridiculous. And yes, I'm jealous every time I step into an airbus cockpit.[/quote]

I would hesitate to call the cockpit unsafe, or the other term, but it is embarrassing compared to something designed in the last 35 years.

Ultimately, Boeing's short-sighted vision of the 1990's, and the their unprecedented f-up of the 787 is to blame for continuing on with this much-inferior product. Not sure which one is more responsible, but I would guess Stonecipher's - or whomever - (lack of) vision more so.

The two things I can't help but think about from time-to-time, are: This single-isle disparity has spanned 30 years, and that is some people's entire career. So at Boeing, some people have spent their entire career building an inferior product. And, after 30 years of getting your a$$ kicked, doesn't it hurt??
 
barney captain
Posts: 1789
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:20 am

longhauler wrote:
I think a lot of people are equating "old" with "outdated". Yes, the 737 is an "old" type, but it is hardly "outdated". If it were, Boeing wouldn't still be selling thousands of them! Airlines are not stupid, they know what they are buying and they are still buying the 737.

However ... the -100 and -200 were very different from even the -300 to -500 which is very very different from the -600 and later.

I used to fly the -200 out of 4000' gravel strips in Canada's Arctic. You wouldn't even dream of trying that in a MAX! But then crossing the country in a -200 at M0.74 at FL350 is very different from a MAX at M0.80 at FL410! As airlines demands changed, Boeing evolved their best seller.

I was recently in our training center and after my own training was done, I jumped into a MAX-8 sim that was empty. Yes, I waxed nostalgic at the familiar gauges on the overhead panel, but ... from the windshield to the forward lav, it is a very very different and advanced aircraft.


Thank you :bigthumbsup:

I'm as big of critic of the 737 as anybody - 25 years in her I guess gives me that right :) But she is still a very capable aircraft, with thousands of orders, successfully competing in a market that couldn't have been imagined when she was first designed.

That has to be worth something.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11932
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:20 pm

longhauler wrote:



Wish there was a like button, hit the nail on the head LH.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
godsbeloved
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:32 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:07 pm

In some aspects system architecture is outdated. I once read about wiring and computers inside 737's. The architecture, while modernized still carries with it 50 years of legacy
 
hivue
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:39 pm

godsbeloved wrote:
I once read about wiring and computers inside 737's. The architecture, while modernized still carries with it 50 years of legacy


Every computer in existence today carries with it 80+ years of legacy.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
aerotech777
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:54 pm

Hi,

IIMU that the crew's early decision to start the APU (an item they never reached in the checklist), allowing the flight control system to remain in Normal Law with attendant envelope protections, was cited by authorities as a major contributor to the successful outcome of the ditching.


I would add that a bit of an hard impact upon "landing" was far better than a possible much harder impact upon falling down after stalling, had not the flight envelope protection been in full effect. :)


I just repeated what Sully said in this video (please watch what he said starting from 39 or 40 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKuw49KBywA
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:58 pm

”Bob Myers, flight deck chief engineer, says—for this particular design—they were faced with a choice. “If we did a wake-up or some sort of mode transition of the autothrottle and hold mode for a low-speed condition, we would have had a mode transition without the pilots authorizing that change.”"


And God knows, we wouldn’t want PILOTS actually flying the airplane!

GF
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 18120
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:30 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
”Bob Myers, flight deck chief engineer, says—for this particular design—they were faced with a choice. “If we did a wake-up or some sort of mode transition of the autothrottle and hold mode for a low-speed condition, we would have had a mode transition without the pilots authorizing that change.”"


And God knows, we wouldn’t want PILOTS actually flying the airplane!

GF


:D

Maybe I'm not understanding the nuance of Mr. Myers's objection. Don't Boeing aircraft change modes by themselves, e.g. when capturing an altitude?

I'm guessing there is more to this statement.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:29 pm

Good question, several modes change without specific “authorization”, THR to SPD in many evolutions. ALT CAP to ALT, for another.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4759
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:20 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Good question, several modes change without specific “authorization”, THR to SPD in many evolutions. ALT CAP to ALT, for another.


The 767 and 757 go from ALT CAP to ALT HOLD. The 777 and 787 Just annunciate ALT for both conditions.

I don’t know the context of Bob’s comments, but there are a number of examples where modes change automatically for good reason. Remember that the crew did something to enable it though. They selected their target Altitude in the MCP.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:05 pm

737 designed in the 60s, 320 designed in the 80s. Neither would be called a spring chicken, One has a little problem taking off (albatross?) One has a wing designed in the 90s. Both seem to soar like eagles. Picture that LOL.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1985
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:55 am

My understanding is that what makes the 737 "outdated" is its certification and grandfathering that Boeing quite rightly wants to maintain. The Jurassics had the little (comparatively) thin JT8D's under the wing and so was certificated with gear and therefore wing heights to match. Because the trailing edge of the wing is then quite close to the ground it did not require evac sides for the overwing exit. Because the wing trailing edge would need a slide if it were to get any higher that goes beyond what is acceptable for the grandfathered certification and would then require the whole lot to be re-certificated which would then basically mean loads of stuff has to be redone and would be the cost of a new program.

Fred
Image
 
hivue
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:28 pm

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems (subjectively) to me like new MAXes are flying out the doors (pardon the pun). Could part of Boeing's motivation for keeping an elderly design alive this long with assorted updates is that the marginal cost increase for producing a new version is virtually nil, with hardly any time/effort needed getting the production line up to speed?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: What makes the B737 an "old, outdated" design?

Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:03 am

hivue wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems (subjectively) to me like new MAXes are flying out the doors (pardon the pun). Could part of Boeing's motivation for keeping an elderly design alive this long with assorted updates is that the marginal cost increase for producing a new version is virtually nil, with hardly any time/effort needed getting the production line up to speed?


MAX launch 8/2011.

2016: 491 : 491 NG
2017: 493 : 419 NG 74 MAX

maintained overall rate but only 15% MAX deliveries. ( Randy seems to have talked about "MAX : most produced NB frame" :-)
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gloom, jetmechanicdave, LQ1GO, Majestic-12 [Bot], Nean1 and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos