After being in the glass cockpits on the newer aircraft, the 767 is a real throwback. It feels almost military in it's apperance and setup.
Compare the 767: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/9/0247951...
767s can be retrofit to that state though, and some airlines have done so. This is a rendering of a cockpit retrofit for a 767 freighter commissioned by UPS: https://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/News/2...
Finally, the dynamic lighting range of the displays is unholy; I've been in the cockpit at night when the mechanic working on something cranked up the brightness to full (he warned me first) — it felt close to staring into an LED flashlight. There's plenty of oomph there to make it readable in daylight.
Before that, screens were simply matte, I think. And now there are matte films that you can slap on the smooth glareful screen (much recommend).
In the planewatcher community it's very common to ask if you can talk to the pilots after you land. Apparently they're usually amenable to chat with plane bluffs!
My kid is always wearing some kind of aviation-themed t-shirt or his favorite Boeing hoodie, so that kind of signals we're pretty safe...
I've been fortunate enough to fly first class on many top tier airlines since then but nothing will ever beat the thrill of those early flights being led to the cockpit by a flight attendant, bursting with anticipation, ready to meet the pilots and see where in the world we were flying, through the front window of the plane.
 - https://www.boeing.com/boeing100/stories/2016/march/junior-j...  - https://www.adventuresinfamilyland.com/blast-from-the-past-b...  - http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/2005/02/boac_junior_jet.p...
I was like, could I have my child back please? While she enjoyed herself, I'm not sure she understood what the cockpit was for...
Things are way laxer in other parts of the world.
I suppose i can’t testify to “most”, not having sampled a majority of the world’s airlines, but certainly on major carriers like Aeroflot and smaller regionals they aren’t so uptight.
And just this week, Hawaiian Airlines is flying their last 767 flights. More details: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20974085
It looks like their last 767 revenue flight landed in HNL a few hours ago, HA43 SJC-HNL flown by N594HA, a 767-300 originally delivered to Delta in October 1986! An airframe that predates the Macintosh II, still flying. Crazy to think about.
Whereas the 767 is rated up to 50,000 cycles. In 2010, the feet leader had 101,000 hours and 31,000 cycles. (https://www.elal.com/en/ELALTech/Documents/Press_Releases/76...)
Also commercial aviation is a lot less hard on equipment than military service because they optimize for comfort and cost whereas the military is going to doing combat readiness stuff regularly and that involves much more stress on the air-frames.
I wonder if this is just the subjective feeling of a pilot, or if the 767 actually has a record of using its high power and maneuverability to avoid accidents that a 737, for example, would not have been able to avoid. There's a lot of information out there about actual crashes, but not much about narrowly avoided crashes.
Actually the FAA collects information about near-misses too, and records them in the same database that it uses for crashes, the rather unfortunately named Accidents and Incidents Data System (https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:12::::::). Navigating the interface takes some doing, but every accident and near-miss is recorded there, sorted by carrier, source airport, destination airport, and aircraft make and model.
For example, here (https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT...) is a incident in which a plane caused another plane to abort takeoff by using a taxiway without clearance.
Another incident (https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT...) where the plane overran the end of the runway and ended up in the grass.
The FAA is really good about collecting data on aviation incidents. Making that data available to the public is another matter.
I suspect a big advantage of hybrid electric aircraft would be faster throttle control because electrically driven fans would spin up fast.
When you're flying a fixed-wing aircraft, however, it's not an option to stop where you are. So I guess it can be handy to be able to fly away at a high speed and steep angle!
The aerodynamic load of a trailer is enough at highway speeds that its like hitting the trailer brakes already if you panic and take your foot off the gas, so if that didn't cause a recovery you're best off flooring it to get the system in tension which usually eliminates sway, then carefully slow down.
People who haven't looked into the mechanical engineering of towing are often confused why 400 pounds of stuff in the pickup bed is no problem but 400 pounds of trailer requires strange elaborate sway bars and brake systems and strange dampeners on the hitch... its a oscillation damper not a total power dissipation issue.
In theory a perfect aerodynamic and weight balance tow and trailer would never fishtail at any speed; in practice of course they do.
You don't need any sway control whatsoever so long as the weight distribution is sane for the speed you want to travel. Look at large boat trailers for examples. They never have sway control unless the owner adds it because they want to load the boat farther back (because their vehicle can't handle the tongue weight).
Vehicles not being able to handle the tongue weight of a properly loaded trailer is becoming less of an issue for light loads because asinine CAFE rules force OEMs to push the axles to the very edges of the vehicle increasing wheelbase and reducing rear overhang so your average car or small/midsize SUV today can handle tongue weight a lot better than 15yr ago.
>In theory a perfect aerodynamic and weight balance tow and trailer would never fishtail at any speed; in practice of course they do.
Only because people are idiots and procrastinate putting the heavy things in the uhaul until the end and then they want to drive 80mph with it. It's not a matter of theory vs reality. There are very few situations where you can't get good weight distribution if you have ten brain cells and ten seconds to plan how you're gonna load stuff.
Here is a 7 second video of Tesla driver accelerating out of what would have been a bad rear-end accident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRR31NaXoVw
Sidenote: I too have a 2 channel (front and rear) Blackvue dash cam setup. I highly recommend it. It's already paid for itself when it got me back my deductible after someone hit me, whereas without the camera the blame would have been 50/50.
Braking, I'd have had to avoid all of the trailer, but stamping on the accelerator got me out of his way before the driver realised and corrected to stay in lane.
I'm not saying that power is always the solution, but it's handy to have it in some circumstances.
Obviously depends on road conditions, but stronger engine means you need a smaller window to make it.
They started taking the -300 into DCA a few years back and it's a bit nerve wracking. Barely enough runway for takeoff and doing the river visual approach -- which has you hang a hard right over the 14th Street bridge so low that you can read people's phones through their sunroofs -- is extra cozy.
Of course, the 767 performs pretty well even when underpowered! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_143
six hours on a 737 is hell.
It’s rare for a relatively modern airliner to be placed in a museum but the Spirit of Delta is notable because it was actually purchased through donations by the employees of Delta.
They essentially have kept operations streamlined by using one plane for all flights, so all pilots and flight crew can fly the entire fleet.
What a weird comment. Probably the reason you think modern aircraft have more "creaks and rattles" than older ones is that their engines are so much quieter you can actually hear some minor rattling of the cabin fitout on bumpy runways.
I've been an avgeek my whole life and while I'm nostalgic for the old planes, I don't think I could ever delude myself into thinking they're in any way "better". Turns out the manufacturers, and the airlines, and the passengers, agree. The 777 is my favourite too - from the outside. Tell me I have to spend 12 hours inside the damn thing though and I'll choose an a350 - or a b787 - every time.
You're right though, I over-generalised saying all passenger prefer newer planes all of the time - they don't. What they emphatically do prefer, however, is point to point flights - which the new generations of planes open up. Bigger planes like the 777s and above are in many ways a relic of the hub and spoke system, with its multiple transfers and 24hr+ flight times.
I'm sad to see the big planes reduced in importance, but newcomers like the 787, a350 and even a321 render a lot more city pairs economically viable. For this reason they're far more versatile an investment for the airliners, and passengers choose direct every time if the price is reasonable.