5 ms·

It almost looks like if it was an error to call this plane 737 MAX instead of, let's say, 738, to communicate that it's quite a different plane because of aerod

It almost looks like if it was an error to call this plane 737 MAX instead of, let's say, 738, to communicate that it's quite a different plane because of aerodynamic differences and electronic systems to require a training for the pilots. Aircraft semaver.

cjbprime 8y ago
Boeing fought extremely hard to avoid doing this because it would introduce new costs in certification and new requirements for pilot training. It wasn't accidental.
- antirez 8y ago
  Oh interesting, thanks for the background info.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  I blows my mind that a naming convention can be used to determine the similarities between vehicles. "I don't need a licence as this isn't a bus, it's clearly a tricycle, look on the side."
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    I think it does actually reuse the >50 year-old 737 airframe design, as a condition of continuing the same type rating. Just.. not much else.
    - ams6110 8y ago
      Yes it's the same basic design, but you might be hard pressed to believe it. Notice especially the engines. Original 737: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#/media/File:D-ABEA_B737-130_Lufthansa_MAN_31JUL72_(6141699137).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#/media/File:D-ABEA_... Max: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#/media/File:HS-LSI_(44161228802).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#/media/File:HS-... The fuselage, tail, wings and control systems are close enough to the original type to stay certified.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
    It's not the naming convention; the name just matches the certification/rating scheme. The substance of keeping the rating consistent has to do with how the plane operates, the flight controls, etc. There are potentially perverse incentives here, but it's not as trivial as that.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      If Boeing had chosen to name it the 738, would that really have had no psychological impact on the humans involved in the process of determining whether or not Boeing should be permitted to consider it the "same" aircraft for certification/rating?
      - jcoby 8y ago
        It's not really a psychological question. Boeing had no option to change the name and meet the requests of its customers. The FAA says you have to have a B-737 rating to fly any 737, regardless of revision [1]. The MAX series is the maximum number of changes the FAA would permit and still allow it to be called a 737. In theory, someone who is type rated and familiar with the -100 series should be able to safely operate the MAX 8. Most likely the airlines have rules above and beyond that (like requiring sim or right seat time in a particular revision), but this is the motivation behind the aircraft. If they had made a 738, it would have needed to go through certification as if it were a new design. By making it a revision, the certification process is significantly reduced in both time and costs. 1. https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ (note the MAX isn't present on this list; I assume due to it being grounded)
        darkpuma 8y ago
        I presume that if Boeing arbitrarily decided that all new production 737NGs were to be renamed 738 with no engineering changes, on just the whim of some marketing team, the FAA would recognize it as the same airplane despite the different name. Perhaps they'd be quite annoyed with Boeing for doing that, but I can't imagine they'd actually require all pilots to retrain. That's just my presumption though.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Laws should be written in such a way that it shouldn't matter what provider calls the product, but what objective criteria it meets. Bad: "Taxis have to meet these standards." Good: "If you pick up strangers off the street and drive them somewhere for money, locating them by visual signals, you have to meet these standards." Bad: "If your plane is a new model number, it has to re-certify." Good: "If your plane exposes an interface to the pilot with incompatible expectations from your existing models, it has to re-certify." (Not making any claim about whether aviation or taxi law meets this standard, just making the general point.)
  - callalex 8y ago
    It’s funny that you chose that example. The RV industry has done an incredible job lobbying in this country. You can freely purchase and operate an RV that is the same exact size, and usually the same exact platform as a bus that would require a commercial driving license, because it is called an RV instead of a bus.

cjbprime 8y ago

Boeing fought extremely hard to avoid doing this because it would introduce new costs in certification and new requirements for pilot training. It wasn't accidental.

antirez 8y ago
Oh interesting, thanks for the background info.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
I blows my mind that a naming convention can be used to determine the similarities between vehicles. "I don't need a licence as this isn't a bus, it's clearly a tricycle, look on the side."
- cjbprime 8y ago
  I think it does actually reuse the >50 year-old 737 airframe design, as a condition of continuing the same type rating. Just.. not much else.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Yes it's the same basic design, but you might be hard pressed to believe it. Notice especially the engines. Original 737: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#/media/File:D-ABEA_B737-130_Lufthansa_MAN_31JUL72_(6141699137).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#/media/File:D-ABEA_... Max: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#/media/File:HS-LSI_(44161228802).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#/media/File:HS-... The fuselage, tail, wings and control systems are close enough to the original type to stay certified.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  It's not the naming convention; the name just matches the certification/rating scheme. The substance of keeping the rating consistent has to do with how the plane operates, the flight controls, etc. There are potentially perverse incentives here, but it's not as trivial as that.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    If Boeing had chosen to name it the 738, would that really have had no psychological impact on the humans involved in the process of determining whether or not Boeing should be permitted to consider it the "same" aircraft for certification/rating?
    - jcoby 8y ago
      It's not really a psychological question. Boeing had no option to change the name and meet the requests of its customers. The FAA says you have to have a B-737 rating to fly any 737, regardless of revision [1]. The MAX series is the maximum number of changes the FAA would permit and still allow it to be called a 737. In theory, someone who is type rated and familiar with the -100 series should be able to safely operate the MAX 8. Most likely the airlines have rules above and beyond that (like requiring sim or right seat time in a particular revision), but this is the motivation behind the aircraft. If they had made a 738, it would have needed to go through certification as if it were a new design. By making it a revision, the certification process is significantly reduced in both time and costs. 1. https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ (note the MAX isn't present on this list; I assume due to it being grounded)
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        I presume that if Boeing arbitrarily decided that all new production 737NGs were to be renamed 738 with no engineering changes, on just the whim of some marketing team, the FAA would recognize it as the same airplane despite the different name. Perhaps they'd be quite annoyed with Boeing for doing that, but I can't imagine they'd actually require all pilots to retrain. That's just my presumption though.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Laws should be written in such a way that it shouldn't matter what provider calls the product, but what objective criteria it meets. Bad: "Taxis have to meet these standards." Good: "If you pick up strangers off the street and drive them somewhere for money, locating them by visual signals, you have to meet these standards." Bad: "If your plane is a new model number, it has to re-certify." Good: "If your plane exposes an interface to the pilot with incompatible expectations from your existing models, it has to re-certify." (Not making any claim about whether aviation or taxi law meets this standard, just making the general point.)
- callalex 8y ago
  It’s funny that you chose that example. The RV industry has done an incredible job lobbying in this country. You can freely purchase and operate an RV that is the same exact size, and usually the same exact platform as a bus that would require a commercial driving license, because it is called an RV instead of a bus.