4 ms·
Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they
by hef19898 3y ago
Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training.
Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance.
There is nothing to funny about any of that.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoThat's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that just accidentally or by design looks like 737. It IS 737, with slightly different behaviour because of the fact it is lengthened and it has engines moved. And the story of the MCAS is that Boeing needed this system to make 737 MAX to behave in entire envelope. But introducing new major system would require re-certifying pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed importance of it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Retric 3y agoThe point is they could have called it “Blueberry” instead of “737 MAX” and have it still share the same type rating as the 737. Which is perfectly reasonable as changing the branding alone isn’t particularly meaningful from a safety, airworthiness, or training perspective.
- Dylan16807 3y ago> 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. That wasn't under dispute. The question you responded to is whether they had to use the 737 brand. And personally, I think that once you lengthen it and move the engine, it would not be weird at all to give it a different number. Even just 738 would give it better distinction than "MAX".
- zirgs 3y ago> But introducing new major system would require re-certifying pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed importance of it. Is it typical to hide critical systems from pilots in the aviation industry? Or is only Boeing doing that?
- throwaheyy 3y agoNo, what parent said is true: they could have changed the model number if they so chose to, and kept the same type rating. The 757 and 767 have the same type rating for example. Whether they call it 737, 737 Max, 73Seven, 838 or whatever else is just marketing and has no bearing on keeping training compatibility. Only the type rating matters for that.
- nearlyepic 3y agoYou're right on. For example, the 757 and 767 share a common type rating.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoBoeing was trying to piggy back on existing 737 certification. If they certified it as a new plane, the certification would be more extensive and the pilot training would be different (which could have been a better route given the size of the engines they installed on it).
- bob778 3y agoNo, it is a variant of the 737 so using the certification is correct. They weren’t trying to avoid additional certification, it just wasn’t required as it’s a variation of an existing type
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoIt is definitely a variant of the 737, but tacking on those extra large radius engines that the original airframe wasn't designed for and 737 pilots weren’t trained for virtually made it into a new plane.
- beowulfey 3y agothey kept the 737 branding to indicate backwards compatibility with existing jetways so airlines wouldn't need to upgrade other equipment.