16 ms·
Ode to the 767
- jboggan 8y agoRelated, an actual ode to a specific Boeing 727 nicknamed "Big Flo" that was used in a crash test in the Mexican desert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKIQEvmkHo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKIQEvmkHo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJZ1eHU_JZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJZ1eHU_JZg
- joezydeco 8y agoMy son and I try to visit the cockpit every time we fly. This last trip included an AA 767-300. After being in the glass cockpits on the newer aircraft, the 767 is a real throwback. It feels almost military in it's apperance and setup. Compare the 767: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/9/0247951-v40-10.jpg https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/9/0247951... To an A340: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/A340-642_flight_deck.jpg/800px-A340-642_flight_deck.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/A3...
- nhf 8y agoOr try the A350, which is just full on glass: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RYQL4QdHzFA/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RYQL4QdHzFA/maxresdefault.jpg 767s can be retrofit to that state though, and some airlines have done so. This is a rendering of a cockpit retrofit for a 767 freighter commissioned by UPS: https://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/News/2012_Cal_Yr/CS/~/media/C30B9FB0A3B941C4B40BC70C5ECB1A46.ashx https://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/News/2...
- kijin 8y agoHow do they deal with the glare on all those screens? Do they use a special kind of panel that doesn't become unreadable when sunlight falls on it?
- AceyMan 8y agoThere are very few, if any, angles where the sun can fall on the primary panel. Also, just above is a shelf that juts out (with many of the commonly touched buttons) called the glareshield that keeps direct light off the instruments. Finally, the dynamic lighting range of the displays is unholy; I've been in the cockpit at night when the mechanic working on something cranked up the brightness to full (he warned me first) — it felt close to staring into an LED flashlight. There's plenty of oomph there to make it readable in daylight.
- frankchn 8y agoI assume it is similar (but higher quality) to the LCDs in car instrument panels. Very bright, and angled such that sunlight rarely hits them.
- aasasd 8y agoComputer LCD screens weren't so susceptible to glare until sometime in the past decade when manufacturers decided that the deep black is worth the sacrifice. Before that, screens were simply matte, I think. And now there are matte films that you can slap on the smooth glareful screen (much recommend).
- starpilot 8y agoThey use displays designed to be readable in full, direct sunlight: https://www.l3aviationproducts.com/products/104-multi-function-display-tech-refresh/ https://www.l3aviationproducts.com/products/104-multi-functi...
- mediocrejoker 8y agoI didn't know "visiting the cockpit" was still allowed anywhere since 9/11.
- FigBug 8y agoIt is on the ground, no longer allowed in the air.
- cameldrv 8y agoIt's very often allowed on Southwest on the ground if you have kids, particularly if you are doing a stopover. If you have young kids, book your next flight with a stop (where you stay on the plane), and ask nicely, you should be able to get a cool picture of the family in the cockpit. We've done it twice, my son loved it.
- gumby 8y agoOutside the USA most airlines permit it except to/from USA. My kid loved it.
- wil421 8y agoNot true. They won’t do it in the air but they will certainly do it after landing in the USA.
- gumby 8y ago“what do you mean “not true”? I’m saying my son had certainly visited the the cockpit in flight in the last decade. (He’s old enough now that he isn’t really a kid, and also less interested). I suppose i can’t testify to “most”, not having sampled a majority of the world’s airlines, but certainly on major carriers like Aeroflot and smaller regionals they aren’t so uptight.
- samstave 8y agoYou can also ask to tour the tower at SFO as well. but you need to call ahead and jump through hurdles to get to the right people apparently.
- Animats 8y agoAnd what's Boeing selling? 737 variants. First flight in 1967. Cabin diameter hasn't changed. The Greyhound Bus of airliners.
- loeg 8y agoIf it ain't broke, don't fix it? (Not that there aren't plenty of things wrong with the 737.) It works well enough for short-haul US domestic, which is most of it, and unlike newer jets, there's less R&D cost to recoup, more safety history, etc, etc.
- Gibbon1 8y agoThe 737 has the advantage of being able to spread it's design mistakes over a inordinate number of aircraft. You find and fix design holes and issues with maintenance every time one crashes.
- loeg 8y agoYeah. The other fun thing about the 737 is the airframe is somewhat similar to the original model, but lots of things have changed. In particular, the landing gear are the same height, but the engine turbines are much larger (more fuel efficient). This is why modern 737 engines are so low to the ground and flat-bottomed instead of round.
- Aloha 8y agomy kingdom for a cross country wide body flight. six hours on a 737 is hell.
- isostatic 8y agoI've flown 8 hours Doha to London on an A319, it was fine. Not as good as the A350 or 787, but a nice change, and certainly better than anything BA have.
- lmm 8y agoI find widebodies a lot more claustrophobic, as strange as it sounds - on a 737 at least you're never too far from a window.
- kijin 8y agoThe takeoff and landing stories seem to suggest that the excess thrust and responsive controls of the 767 make it safer than a more sluggish plane, since it can fly faster and higher out of a potentially dangerous situation. I wonder if this is just the subjective feeling of a pilot, or if the 767 actually has a record of using its high power and maneuverability to avoid accidents that a 737, for example, would not have been able to avoid. There's a lot of information out there about actual crashes, but not much about narrowly avoided crashes.
- quanticle 8y ago>There's a lot of information out there about actual crashes, but not much about narrowly avoided crashes. Actually the FAA collects information about near-misses too, and records them in the same database that it uses for crashes, the rather unfortunately named Accidents and Incidents Data System (https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:12:::::: https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:12::::::). Navigating the interface takes some doing, but every accident and near-miss is recorded there, sorted by carrier, source airport, destination airport, and aircraft make and model. For example, here (https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20150117004509I https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT...) is a incident in which a plane caused another plane to abort takeoff by using a taxiway without clearance. Another incident (https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20130419011239I https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT...) where the plane overran the end of the runway and ended up in the grass. The FAA is really good about collecting data on aviation incidents. Making that data available to the public is another matter.
- bdamm 8y agoNASA's aviation close-call database, however, is entirely open to the public. And these reports make for some great reading! https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html
- cameldrv 8y agoProbably a little bit safer, and much more comfortable for the pilots since the fuselage is so much wider. Airlines care about cost. On cost, the 737 is a huge winner, because it's the most produced airliner ever, by a wide margin. It also has a wide range of sizes, from 103 on a -600 to 188 on a MAX 10. There are lots of pilots that already have a 737 type certificate, there are lots of maintenance shops that can work on them, parts are very available anywhere in the world, and leasing companies like them because they are very common and thus a relatively liquid asset.
- rayiner 8y agoMost modern jets are worse in key ways than the 767. More freaks and rattles during take off and landing. Airbus are particularly bad in this regard. The 767 by contrast feels like a big old Buick. (The triple 7 is my favorite though. Marvelous plane. It’s been downhill ever since.)
- jpatokal 8y agoReally? As a passenger, 777s are way noisier than modern jets like 787 or A380.
- 52-6F-62 8y agoThe 787-900 is just fantastic. Best economy ride I've ever had. I'm not a frequent flier, mind—but it sure beats other jumbo jets I've taken.
- sho 8y ago> Most modern jets are worse in key ways than the 767. More freaks and rattles during take off and landing What a weird comment. Probably the reason you think modern aircraft have more "creaks and rattles" than older ones is that their engines are so much quieter you can actually hear some minor rattling of the cabin fitout on bumpy runways. I've been an avgeek my whole life and while I'm nostalgic for the old planes, I don't think I could ever delude myself into thinking they're in any way "better". Turns out the manufacturers, and the airlines, and the passengers, agree. The 777 is my favourite too - from the outside. Tell me I have to spend 12 hours inside the damn thing though and I'll choose an a350 - or a b787 - every time.
- ken 8y agoThis same pilot wrote a love letter to the 757, too. In contrast, when I worked among all the aircraft nerds at Boeing, there was, interestingly, a clear favorite. The 767 was cool, and the 757 was a piece of junk. I don't think I ever got a straight answer as to why. It just was.
- bronco21016 8y agoThat’s interesting. Most pilots I speak with who fly both prefer the 757. It’s over powered and just really performs according to what I’ve been told.
- coredog64 8y agoThe 57 and 67 story I heard from older heads was that the 57 wing used then-new computer modeling for the wing design, while the 67 was more traditional for risk management. The 57 wing outperformed the computer models, making it more of a “hot rod” in some respects.
- ken 8y agoIt could be the pilot-versus-engineer difference. Maybe mere size: the 767 was built in the Big factory in Everett, while the 757 was down in the little factory in Renton. Knowing engineers, it could well have been some minor technical detail that no pilot or passenger would ever see. Of course, the 767 performs pretty well even when underpowered! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_143
- mrpippy 8y agoSome notable airlines have retired their 767 fleets recently. British Airways did a few months ago, a former BA 767 pilot posted a fantastic retrospective: https://tim-the-pilot.co.uk/2018/11/23/a-personal-reflection-on-the-b767-within-british-airways/ https://tim-the-pilot.co.uk/2018/11/23/a-personal-reflection... And just this week, Hawaiian Airlines is flying their last 767 flights. More details: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20974085 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20974085 It looks like their last 767 revenue flight landed in HNL a few hours ago, HA43 SJC-HNL flown by N594HA, a 767-300 originally delivered to Delta in October 1986! An airframe that predates the Macintosh II, still flying. Crazy to think about.
- caf 8y agoNone of the 76 B52 airframes in service are newer than 55 years old.
- mrpippy 8y agoThat is true, and they’re planned to stay in service (with new engines and radars) until at least 2050! They fly a lot less than a commercial airliner though, with wing surfaces limited to ~30,000 hours. (https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm) Whereas the 767 is rated up to 50,000 cycles. In 2010, the feet leader had 101,000 hours and 31,000 cycles. (https://www.elal.com/en/ELALTech/Documents/Press_Releases/767.pdf https://www.elal.com/en/ELALTech/Documents/Press_Releases/76...)
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoIt's an apples to oranges comparison. The types of air-frames are totally different. A B52 has a wing that flops all over the place the entire fuselage is not pressurized like on a commercial jet. Also commercial aviation is a lot less hard on equipment than military service because they optimize for comfort and cost whereas the military is going to doing combat readiness stuff regularly and that involves much more stress on the air-frames.
- zwaps 8y agoThis guy applauds airlines who fly the 757, like Icelandair. Icelandair has so many technical issues, that they rarely manage to make it across atlantic without significant delay. People who fly cross atlantic with Icelandair know what I mean So no.
- huffmsa 8y agoMore related to the write up on the 757, but it really is a versatile plane. They started taking the -300 into DCA a few years back and it's a bit nerve wracking. Barely enough runway for takeoff and doing the river visual approach -- which has you hang a hard right over the 14th Street bridge so low that you can read people's phones through their sunroofs -- is extra cozy.
- count 8y agoThat's my favorite approach. It's also by far the most nerve wracking :)
- bronco21016 8y agoFor anyone interested in getting really up close with a 767 there is one named the Spirit of Delta at Delta Air Lines’ museum in Atlanta. It’s rare for a relatively modern airliner to be placed in a museum but the Spirit of Delta is notable because it was actually purchased through donations by the employees of Delta.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- elamje 8y agoCompare the big three airlines to Southwest's business model: https://slate.com/business/2012/06/southwest-airlines-profitability-how-the-company-uses-operations-theory-to-fuel-its-success.html https://slate.com/business/2012/06/southwest-airlines-profit... They essentially have kept operations streamlined by using one plane for all flights, so all pilots and flight crew can fly the entire fleet.