I’ve read threads here about how certain airlines will order their planes with or without certain factory options from Boeing / Airbus. I understand that many interior components come from third party suppliers but suppose a person was ordering a fleet of 737s / A321 or 777 - what are some of the factory options that are offered??? It can’t be “one size fits all.”

There must be hundreds. On the A330, just to name a few:
- GLS
- ADF
- Go-around soft
- Auto TCAS
- Avionics bay portable extinguisher
- Brake cooling fans
- Cockpit foot warmer
- Datalink
- Gaseous vs chemical oxygen system
- Taxi camera
- Runway awareness and advisory system
- Alternate nosewheel steering
- F-LS (FMS generated landing system giving synthetic G/S and LOC for non-precision approaches)

The quick 737s ones i know...
Air stairs
TPMS
Dual batteries
flight control indication on lower DU
cockpit jumpseat
various avionics

That's off the top of my head... Im sure theres plenty more.

Starlionblue wrote:

There must be hundreds. On the A330, just to name a few:
- GLS
- ADF
- Go-around soft
- Auto TCAS
- Avionics bay portable extinguisher
- Brake cooling fans
- Cockpit foot warmer
- Datalink
- Gaseous vs chemical oxygen system
- Taxi camera
- Runway awareness and advisory system
- Alternate nosewheel steering
- F-LS (FMS generated landing system giving synthetic G/S and LOC for non-precision approaches)

Trying to imagine shooting an NDB approach in an A330. Can’t imagine it is done very regularly.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

There must be hundreds. On the A330, just to name a few:
- GLS
- ADF
- Go-around soft
- Auto TCAS
- Avionics bay portable extinguisher
- Brake cooling fans
- Cockpit foot warmer
- Datalink
- Gaseous vs chemical oxygen system
- Taxi camera
- Runway awareness and advisory system
- Alternate nosewheel steering
- F-LS (FMS generated landing system giving synthetic G/S and LOC for non-precision approaches)

Trying to imagine shooting an NDB approach in an A330. Can’t imagine it is done very regularly.

I'm guessing it does not happen much anymore. We aren't authorized to perform NDB approaches at all at my carrier. The A330 design is 30 years old, though. NDB approaches probably happened every now and then back in the day.

Some of our older A330s do have ADF, but I don't know where exactly this might have been used, if ever.

The ADF/VOR switches are still on the FCU (glareshield) even if ADF is not installed on that tail. Switching to ADF simply blanks out the on-side VOR display on the ND, as there is no more input.


Of note is that F-LS, which is standard on the A350 and an option on the A330, generates synthetic glideslope and localiser even for NDB, VOR, and other non-precision approaches. Flying with F-LS gives NPAs the look and feel of an ILS. An amazing tool.

Options can be just about whatever you want, depends on how deep your pockets are. Case in point is CO wanting four door 767-300s, which only four I think were built.

Four door 763s are a great segue in to my next point. I have a list from 2003 and 2004 of every single 767 AC had operating. Mind you some of these were ordered from AC, some came from CP, and most from the secondary market. But what is shown is a huge variation in the fleet with a huge amount of capabilities. Some have SATCOM, some don’t. Some have galley reefer packs which permit them to fly say HNL-SYD, some don’t. Some have crew rest, some don’t. One had a small compartment in the holds for AOG parts and had to fly with a mechanic on a few certain routes. When AC ordered their first batch of A320s, like we’re talking 1990 orders, they ordered them pretty basic, no GPS. Even MTOWs could be considered an option, if you’re going to fly a aircraft exclusively domestic, no sense in ordering one with the highest MTOW offering if the aircraft will never hit it.

Friend of mine worked for a charter airline that operated 738s. They had some with the short field performance pack, some were overwater equipped to do overseas flying, and one was equipped with a host of options since it was the only one legally allowed to fly to one country in South America. The later I cannot recall which country, but the regulator there approved foreign operators by the registration and SN, not the type.

For the 737-800 and MAX off the top of my head:
-Dual HF radio (1 is standard, provisions for second one always there)
-SATCOM data/voice
-Short-field performance package (two position tailskid, slight differences with TE/LE flap extension, thrust goes to idle power faster)
-Single vs. Dual ADF
-Inflight Entertainment (overhead monitors, seatback monitors, system manufacturers, etc)
-Brake temperature and wheel pressure monitoring
-Ceiling raft stowage compartments
-Cabin language placards (English is the default, bilingual placards are optional)
-Full facemask/half mask oxygen system for the flight deck
-Potable water tank capacity (40G vs. 60G)

I recall many (many) years ago, I did my left seat course on the A310 at Toulouse. After completion we brought a new A310 home to YYZ. It was interesting to watch the delivery process.

I asked one of the Airbus engineers about “options”. He laughed and showed me some of the options available on the A310-304. It was in five huge binders, each about 8 cm thick! It can’t be an easy task choosing the options on one’s new aircraft.

I have always assumed Airbus (and Boeing, etc) would have a staff to assist a new buyer with the choices. Thousands and thousands of choices.

You can even chose different windscreen wiper setting options on the Airbus.

I think I read the 747-400 had over 1,500 different customer options, from cabin fittings to the manufacturer of the Hyd pumps. With the 787 they have tried to standardize things a lot more.

77west wrote:

I think I read the 747-400 had over 1,500 different customer options, from cabin fittings to the manufacturer of the Hyd pumps. With the 787 they have tried to standardize things a lot more.

The book "Legend and Legacy" has a writeup of how that slowed down production. I think the example was the "no smoking" placards in Lufthansa gray not being there in time, so those birds had to sit for a few weeks. There's also a segment about how the plumbing system was standardized from a recommendation by a KLM engineer.

Some of the options are probably selected as part of an RFP: the carrier says "I need a plane that has ABC capabilities" and the OEMs figure out what that means in their product list and which things to pre-select. Then there's also buyer-furnished equipment (BFE) where the OEM says "Ok, you bring it and we'll plug it in."

One rather silly situation was the pricing on the scimitars for the 737NG: out of the factory was expensive, but the retrofit was cheaper. I recall seeing a lot of NGs leaving Renton with the normal winglets, then they'd go right to their mx base and get the scimitars installed to get around that pricing. I imagine the total cost of that process is more wasteful, so you'd think the parties would renegotiate pricing on that.

77west wrote:

I think I read the 747-400 had over 1,500 different customer options, from cabin fittings to the manufacturer of the Hyd pumps. With the 787 they have tried to standardize things a lot more.

Yes I think the 744 was on another level when it came to options, you have choices for almost everything on that aircraft.

Some of the tiny minutiae you can customise:

How many seconds the fire bell goes for

Which way round you want OFF and ON to be for the external lights

How many digits you want the Mach No to show on the MCP

Whether the Flight Director cue is shaded or hollow

At least 3 or 4 different arrangements of cup holders in the cockpit

This list goes on and on...

The B747-400 had optional Autostart for the main engines. This was fitted to the simulator at Boeing, and was pretty standard. One crew for an airline did their training at Boeing, and were taught Autostart.. A few weeks later they were sent to LHR to fly the second leg of the delivery flight of their first B747-400. The aircraft arrived from Everett in good shape and they were soon ready to depart. On pushback they autostarted a pair of engines. Unfortunately Autostart was not fitted to their aircraft, and two engines caught fire and were severly damaged and had to be replaced.
Definitely no tea and biscuits with their interview with the chief pilot!

Tristarsteve wrote:

The B747-400 had optional Autostart for the main engines. This was fitted to the simulator at Boeing, and was pretty standard. One crew for an airline did their training at Boeing, and were taught Autostart.. A few weeks later they were sent to LHR to fly the second leg of the delivery flight of their first B747-400. The aircraft arrived from Everett in good shape and they were soon ready to depart. On pushback they autostarted a pair of engines. Unfortunately Autostart was not fitted to their aircraft, and two engines caught fire and were severly damaged and had to be replaced.
Definitely no tea and biscuits with their interview with the chief pilot!

I’ve not used auto start but I believe the normal procedure would be select start switch(s) then immediately select fuel on ?

Autostart will actually send fuel to the engine once the required rotation has been met and other parameters like oil pressure are normal


Of course with no auto start installed following that procedure will most likely give you a hot start, is that what happened ?

I believe that Boeing and Airbus are trying to reduce number of options. In B744, there are many options that differ by airline (most of these are within flight computer / FMS), just to add to the list: anti-ice -> auto or no auto, taxi lights, humidifier, gasper, jettison control with MLW, stab fuel tank, autostart option, optional toilet, optional rest area, specific RMI (with a different colors) or no RMI, types of standby instruments, etc.

Within FMS, there are options such as weight and balance system (none, one, two), MMO (0.90 vs. 0.92), Vspeed pointers/bugs, etc.

I believe that fuel pumps and hydraulic pumps were not really an option per say, but newer builds were installed with different setup (fuel system -> scavenge: hydro mechanical vs. electronic, demand pump: electrical vs. bleed air. But I am happy to be corrected.

Tristarsteve wrote:

Definitely no tea and biscuits with their interview with the chief pilot!

That is a pretty bad mistake. Yikes. I heard about it, but was never sure if it was only a rumor or it did actually happened.

Max Q wrote:

I’ve not used auto start but I believe the normal procedure would be select start switch(s) then immediately select fuel on ?

Autostart will actually send fuel to the engine once the required rotation has been met and other parameters like oil pressure are normal


Of course with no auto start installed following that procedure will most likely give you a hot start, is that what happened ?

There are two autostart options on B744. First has only one main control (controls all 4 engines) and second type is that each individual engine has a control (meaning you can turn off autostart for any desired engine). I would presume that crews with no-autostart option could technically be in any sim, but autostart option should have been turned off.

Your assumption is correct. Funny thing is that, when you turn on start switch with non-autostart option, it illuminates white immediately. When you have autostart feature, you have to introduce fuel for the switch to turn white.

I believe that hot start was most likely outcome. But still, that was a rookie mistake (coming form an armchair captain, that managed few hot-starts in a sim ).

Cheers,
Andrej

Several different cargo tie down securing options in A320 the flight deck. Most 320 seem to have the same cargo tie downs but then there are other planes where the cargo tie downs are different. There have been 4 different tiedowns I’ve seen

I bet the NDB options are kept around for Air Canada, cause Canada still keeps a few NDB approaches around for no apparent reason lol

One of the biggest problems with the A380 was customisation. Almost every aircraft was a head of version with associated manufacturing headaches. Since that the factory options are more limited.

N1120A wrote:

I bet the NDB options are kept around for Air Canada, cause Canada still keeps a few NDB approaches around for no apparent reason lol

A quick glance through my EFB/iPad and I don’t see any NDB approaches. It’s been years since I’ve even done one. We don’t do Range approaches either.

I can’t even remember when the last AC aircraft was delivered from the factory with ADFs. It would have before the E190/175.

I remember once, many years ago, going to YLW in an E190 and was told by the tower that the ILS16 was unauthorized as the NDB required for the miss was off the air. I told him that with dual GPSs, we didn’t need the NDB. Still, he said, you may not use it, but you need it “just in case”. Again, I told him, we don’t even have ADFs on this aircraft. He didn’t believe us!

So I told him, we’re on the ground for an hour, come on over, I’ll buy you a coffee, check out what we have. (No ADFs). He did ….. and between the two of us, we couldn’t figure out if we could do an ILS with the NDB off the air, in an airplane that doesn’t have ADFs. Only in Canada.

CrewBunk wrote:

N1120A wrote:

I bet the NDB options are kept around for Air Canada, cause Canada still keeps a few NDB approaches around for no apparent reason lol

A quick glance through my EFB/iPad and I don’t see any NDB approaches. It’s been years since I’ve even done one. We don’t do Range approaches either.

I can’t even remember when the last AC aircraft was delivered from the factory with ADFs. It would have before the E190/175.

I remember once, many years ago, going to YLW in an E190 and was told by the tower that the ILS16 was unauthorized as the NDB required for the miss was off the air. I told him that with dual GPSs, we didn’t need the NDB. Still, he said, you may not use it, but you need it “just in case”. Again, I told him, we don’t even have ADFs on this aircraft. He didn’t believe us!

So I told him, we’re on the ground for an hour, come on over, I’ll buy you a coffee, check out what we have. (No ADFs). He did ….. and between the two of us, we couldn’t figure out if we could do an ILS with the NDB off the air, in an airplane that doesn’t have ADFs. Only in Canada.

That's a great story. Is ther no technical order somewhere that says "use of suitable GPS-based RNAV is cool?" There are some of these in FAA-land in TSO 129 where it says "DME-required" or "ADF required" and if you have the right GSP substitute you're good to go. Was there a notam for it that specified ADF only and not a GPS alternative?

Supposedly Boeing offered a 4% thrust bump version of the GEnx-2b around the time the second PiP was introduced (2012 or so), but I never heard if there were any takers. The head of the program (Elizabeth Lund at the time) mentioned it in an article about the PiP. It was mainly for the freighter, as I recall.

Considering MTOW went up by 17,000 lbs, (27,000 if you go back to the original 960k version) you'd think a lot of customers would want it, especially since I think it was mostly a software change.

Anyone know more about it?

JAGflyer wrote:

For the 737-800 and MAX off the top of my head:
-Dual HF radio (1 is standard, provisions for second one always there)
-SATCOM data/voice
-Short-field performance package (two position tailskid, slight differences with TE/LE flap extension, thrust goes to idle power faster)
-Single vs. Dual ADF
-Inflight Entertainment (overhead monitors, seatback monitors, system manufacturers, etc)
-Brake temperature and wheel pressure monitoring
-Ceiling raft stowage compartments
-Cabin language placards (English is the default, bilingual placards are optional)
-Full facemask/half mask oxygen system for the flight deck
-Potable water tank capacity (40G vs. 60G)

One update. The Short Field Package is baseline on the 737 Max. It’s not optional.

744SPX wrote:

Supposedly Boeing offered a 4% thrust bump version of the GEnx-2b around the time the second PiP was introduced (2012 or so), but I never heard if there were any takers. The head of the program (Elizabeth Lund at the time) mentioned it in an article about the PiP. It was mainly for the freighter, as I recall.

Considering MTOW went up by 17,000 lbs, (27,000 if you go back to the original 960k version) you'd think a lot of customers would want it, especially since I think it was mostly a software change.

Anyone know more about it?

I guess the airports these freighters operate from generally have pretty long runways, the extra wear & tear may not have been worth the software thrust bump.