4 ms·
Didn't Boeing also market the plane as an evolution of the 737 that doesn't require retraining? So pilots with experience on the 737 can automatically fly the 7
by foepys 8y ago
Didn't Boeing also market the plane as an evolution of the 737 that doesn't require retraining? So pilots with experience on the 737 can automatically fly the 737 Max?
- alistairSH 8y agoCorrect.
- notfromhere 8y agoYep, that was the big selling point since airlines hate retraining pilots. Totally backfired in that regard though.
- cjrp 8y agoAlso if an airline is going to have to retrain pilots, they might also look at completely different manufacturers (e.g. Airbus) and play them off against each other to get a better deal.
- w0utert 8y agoIt sounds really stupid for Boeing if you put it that way. I can imagine it looks good on the marketing material, 'no pilot retraining required!', but as far as I understand from all the analysis so far, it's actually not that hard to disable the new MCAS system and prevent a crash. As a pilot you only need to know it is there, and what happens if it somehow fails. I would be surprised if they had sold even a single plane less if they advertised it as 'very minimal pilot retraining necessary'.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> I would be surprised if they had sold even a single plane less if they advertised it as 'very minimal pilot retraining necessary'. That might be enough for the plane to need a separate type certificate, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars expenses for Boeing to get it certified, and full new-type pilot training costs for every airline to fly the aircraft. (Plus, time, and ongoing crew management to juggle pilots certified on one but not the other.)
- jethro_tell 8y agoFrom what I understand, there were design decisions that were reworked to be more similar and keep the same type class as a requirement of customer 1, Southwest Airlines who is a major consumer of the max 8.
- wnkrshm 8y agoI also wonder about the engineers involved, what they think about the system and whether it was created expressly for getting around retraining, realizing late into the project that the changes to the in-flight behavior of the plane may have been too much.
- user5994461 8y agoThe contractors involved would be gone long before realizing anything. The decade(s) it takes to make a new plane is much longer than any tenure.
- notfromhere 8y agoProbably a boardroom type of decision that seemed fine and dandy until planes started crashing into the ground.
- outworlder 8y ago> As a pilot you only need to know it is there, and what happens if it somehow fails. You don't even have to know it is there. All you need to know is "hey, auto trim is acting very funky today and I'm having to fight it. Better override.". And hit two switches. > I would be surprised if they had sold even a single plane less if they advertised it as 'very minimal pilot retraining necessary'. They were likely afraid that it would require a new type certificate.
- linuxftw 8y ago> All you need to know is "hey, auto trim is acting very funky today and I'm having to fight it. Better override." Unless you believe your instruments (AoA reading high) and assume the plane is actually doing the correct thing.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- stouset 8y agoYes, but there are always going to be minor changes during each revision. Before the MAX there were the -600, -700, -800, and -900 series 737s. Before that, the -300, -400, -500 series. Each set will invariably have a few things that pilots will have to be aware of. In this case, Boeing didn’t alert pilots to the new MCAS system, which is a giant failure on their part. It’s not yet known if this latest crash is in any way related to the first (although I have several outstanding wagers against this being the case).