Hacker News Reader

Comment by Moto7451 | Hacker News Reader

Not a direct answer, but what you’re more or less asking is “why did they not modernize the 757 instead?” The answer is type ratings. Pilots can fly certain classes of planes based on common training. I.E. the 757 and 767 are common enough you can be trained for both at the same time. The issue with changing geometry of the 737 is you have to then retrain pilots against a new type instead of letting them take an orientation course on the new plane.

Honestly if the accidents did not happen we’d be calling them geniuses. After all, that’s why the 737 is the best selling plane ever.

View on HN

Not really - they definitely could have extended the landing gear of the 737, as evidenced by the fact that they did exactly that for the 737 MAX 10. To handle the extra length they added telescoping landing gear that are about 10 inches longer than on the other variants

Lengthening the landings gear did nothing to change the engine placement. It was done to allow for type commonality.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/boeing-737-max-10-landing-gear...

Even with the extension it’s not as tall as the 757 or A320 series.

True, it wasn't done to solve the problem of the engine placement. It solved an entirely different problem. But it does show that the changing the landing gear whilst maintaining type commonality wasn't impossible.

Is there a point where the pilot is expected to remember so many procedures that it’s no longer possible to know all of them? You’d forget something critical here and there.

> Is there a point where the pilot is expected to remember so many procedures that it’s no longer possible to know all of them? You’d forget something critical here and there.

I don't think they have to remember all of them. Pilots rely heavily on checklists to make sure procedures are followed correctly and few mistakes are made.

True. However, there are "memory items" that have to be done from memory when the situation does not allow time for a checklist. Stall recovery is one of them, which is exactly when the MCAS is supposed to activate. I'm pretty sure runaway trim is another since it won't take long to end up in a very bad attitude if this happens, especially at high airspeeds.

There’s just not much time as often cited as the problem when a pilot makes a mistake in a stressful situation, so seems like the add more training mantra ignores a more fundamental issue.

When US Airways Flight 1549 lost both engines, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger intentionally skipped some items on that checklist. The checklist had been written with the assumption of higher altitude and he didn't have enough time to go through everything.

> Not a direct answer, but what you’re more or less asking is “why did they not modernize the 757 instead?” The answer is type ratings.

But if there's already an existing type out there that's a better fit, why not just use that?

The 757 didn't sell nearly as many planes in total as the 737. There's entire airlines (e.g. Southwest) that only use 737s and have their entire business built around them. The 737 MAX was designed for this use case; a newer 757 might not have sold to these carriers at all.

Plus, the 757 has some features on it that make it more of a longer range, transcontinental jet than the 737. That makes it more expensive. If all you're using it for is regional air service (the existing mission of the 737), then it's too expensive for the job. The 737 is the Honda Civic of the skies; the 757 is more like a (insert more expensive car model here).

Because the plane was basically designed for Southwest Airlines and American Airlines, and they demanded a new 737, not a new plane.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -- Henry Ford (purportedly)

There is still a significant niche market for faster horses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com