6 ms·

I always thought the real miracle was grandfathering that thing on the 777 type certificate.

neuronic 7y ago
Will pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Complete noob here, so I am trying to improve my understanding.
- nottorp 7y ago
  You want Boeing's opinion or the pilots' opinion? :)
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    A lawyer's opinion. ;-)
    - coding123 7y ago
      I'd like the aftermath opinion (before the "math" happens).
      - samstave 7y ago
        I'd prefer the NTSB's take-off on this...
- masklinn 7y ago
  > Will pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Well that depends what you mean by "need" specifically. The point of being the same type is that regulations-wise they don't.
  - iso947 7y ago
    That worked so well before
  - neuronic 7y ago
    Yes, this was my question, thank you!
- mrtweetyhack 7y ago
  No, software will handle any deficiencies in the pilot
the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
Which tricks did they have to pull here?
- wolfgke 7y ago
  $$$
raverbashing 7y ago
Doesn't look too complicated (I mean, given what "complicated" means in aviation), the 777 is a relatively modern project.
- kijin 7y ago
  Yeah, Boeing gets (and rightfully deserves) a lot of flak these days but updating the 20-year-old 777 is very different from updating the 50-year-old 737. More specifically, the 737 design had so little ground clearance that the bigger, more efficient engines used in the Max had to be mounted in a different position than before. This change resulted in different maneuvering characteristics that Boeing tried to patch with crappy software. The 777, on the other hand, is a much bigger plane with plenty of clearance and the new engines are only marginally larger than the old ones. I don't see Boeing messing with the engine positioning needlessly here, especially in the wake of the 737 Max fiasco.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    Technology dramatically changes in 20 years. Would you be happy to drive around in a 20 year old car design? I for sure would feel a little uneasy about the rather basic airbags, and the lack of proper FEA modelling of the crumple zone. Same applies for planes. Now remember these planes will probably be produced for 30 years, and then maybe in service for a further 20 years. Will you be happy to know that safety critical design decisions were made to standards of 90 years ago?
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      I crashed a gen 2 Ford Explorer (first production year 1995) head on at about 35-40 MPH and wouldn't be scared to drive one around today. The other driver crossed the centerline directly in front of me and I crashed into the rear of their gen 2 Ford Explorer (so a medium-large vehicle striking a medium-large vehicle). It didn't have airbags, I was wearing the seat belt, I had a slightly sore neck for a couple months (not like bothersome sore, I noticed it when doing higher impact things). Which isn't to say I'm opposed to updated safety features, rather that 20 years ago wasn't that bad, even without air bags.

Will pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Complete noob here, so I am trying to improve my understanding.

nottorp 7y ago
You want Boeing's opinion or the pilots' opinion? :)
- wolfgke 7y ago
  A lawyer's opinion. ;-)
  - coding123 7y ago
    I'd like the aftermath opinion (before the "math" happens).
    - samstave 7y ago
      I'd prefer the NTSB's take-off on this...
masklinn 7y ago
> Will pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Well that depends what you mean by "need" specifically. The point of being the same type is that regulations-wise they don't.
- iso947 7y ago
  That worked so well before
- neuronic 7y ago
  Yes, this was my question, thank you!
mrtweetyhack 7y ago
No, software will handle any deficiencies in the pilot

the_mitsuhiko 7y ago

Which tricks did they have to pull here?

wolfgke 7y ago
$$$

raverbashing 7y ago

Doesn't look too complicated (I mean, given what "complicated" means in aviation), the 777 is a relatively modern project.

kijin 7y ago
Yeah, Boeing gets (and rightfully deserves) a lot of flak these days but updating the 20-year-old 777 is very different from updating the 50-year-old 737. More specifically, the 737 design had so little ground clearance that the bigger, more efficient engines used in the Max had to be mounted in a different position than before. This change resulted in different maneuvering characteristics that Boeing tried to patch with crappy software. The 777, on the other hand, is a much bigger plane with plenty of clearance and the new engines are only marginally larger than the old ones. I don't see Boeing messing with the engine positioning needlessly here, especially in the wake of the 737 Max fiasco.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  Technology dramatically changes in 20 years. Would you be happy to drive around in a 20 year old car design? I for sure would feel a little uneasy about the rather basic airbags, and the lack of proper FEA modelling of the crumple zone. Same applies for planes. Now remember these planes will probably be produced for 30 years, and then maybe in service for a further 20 years. Will you be happy to know that safety critical design decisions were made to standards of 90 years ago?
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I crashed a gen 2 Ford Explorer (first production year 1995) head on at about 35-40 MPH and wouldn't be scared to drive one around today. The other driver crossed the centerline directly in front of me and I crashed into the rear of their gen 2 Ford Explorer (so a medium-large vehicle striking a medium-large vehicle). It didn't have airbags, I was wearing the seat belt, I had a slightly sore neck for a couple months (not like bothersome sore, I noticed it when doing higher impact things). Which isn't to say I'm opposed to updated safety features, rather that 20 years ago wasn't that bad, even without air bags.