3 ms·

The article says "Both airplanes are Boeing's latest offering, the 737-800 MAX". That is incorrect. Both planes were "Boeing 737 MAX 8". There is no "737-800

The article says "Both airplanes are Boeing's latest offering, the 737-800 MAX". That is incorrect. Both planes were "Boeing 737 MAX 8". There is no "737-800 MAX". There is a plane named "Boeing 737-800" and that was the older version of "Boeing 737 MAX 8".

Ultramanoid 8y ago
Yes, indeed. The author is a decades-long 777 captain, and I doubt the mistake is his. Probably some unfortunate edit by CNN.
- dingaling 8y ago
  Well frankly many pilots struggle to distinguish an A320 from a 737-anything so I wouldn't expect variant-level accuracy from a Captain. But your comment raises the question of why the Max could be grandfathered in on the same 50-year-old certificate as the 737 NG, Classic and 'cigar-tube' variants when there are such major differences between all of them. For example the NG was rewinged and could fly at 41,000ft which was far above the ceiling of earlier variants, but with a cockpit options pack could be flown by pilots with the old rating. The root reason is to make certification cheaper and quicker and to sell more aeroplanes. I think that is a major error by the regulators who should be concentrating on safety and technical excellence, not facilitating commercial sales. Perhaps certification should be moved to the ICAO level instead of national regulators who have national interests?
  - Ultramanoid 8y ago
    > Well frankly many pilots struggle to distinguish an A320 from a 737-800 so I wouldn't expect variant-level accuracy from a Captain. Really ? I would for sure. I am no aviation expert by any means, but something as basic as telling Boeing or Airbus apart and many if not all variants ( certainly within your usual involvement with the industry ) I would think is common knowledge for anyone actually involved in flying, particularly pilots. > But your comment raises the question of why the Max could be grandfathered in on the same 50-year-old certificate as the 737 NG... I assume you've seen the comments regarding this on the main thread about this whole thing... [1] I do agree with your point of view on this, absolutely. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138

Ultramanoid 8y ago

Yes, indeed. The author is a decades-long 777 captain, and I doubt the mistake is his. Probably some unfortunate edit by CNN.

dingaling 8y ago
Well frankly many pilots struggle to distinguish an A320 from a 737-anything so I wouldn't expect variant-level accuracy from a Captain. But your comment raises the question of why the Max could be grandfathered in on the same 50-year-old certificate as the 737 NG, Classic and 'cigar-tube' variants when there are such major differences between all of them. For example the NG was rewinged and could fly at 41,000ft which was far above the ceiling of earlier variants, but with a cockpit options pack could be flown by pilots with the old rating. The root reason is to make certification cheaper and quicker and to sell more aeroplanes. I think that is a major error by the regulators who should be concentrating on safety and technical excellence, not facilitating commercial sales. Perhaps certification should be moved to the ICAO level instead of national regulators who have national interests?
- Ultramanoid 8y ago
  > Well frankly many pilots struggle to distinguish an A320 from a 737-800 so I wouldn't expect variant-level accuracy from a Captain. Really ? I would for sure. I am no aviation expert by any means, but something as basic as telling Boeing or Airbus apart and many if not all variants ( certainly within your usual involvement with the industry ) I would think is common knowledge for anyone actually involved in flying, particularly pilots. > But your comment raises the question of why the Max could be grandfathered in on the same 50-year-old certificate as the 737 NG... I assume you've seen the comments regarding this on the main thread about this whole thing... [1] I do agree with your point of view on this, absolutely. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138