Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_mitsuhiko | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

Boeing 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).

No, 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

It 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.

That'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.

> 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".

The 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.

No, 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.

> 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?

You're right on. For example, the 757 and 767 share a common type rating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com