
Ode to the 767 - smacktoward
http://www.askthepilot.com/ode-to-the-767/
======
joezydeco
My son and I try to visit the cockpit every time we fly. This last trip
included an AA 767-300.

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...](https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/9/0247951-v40-10.jpg)

To an A340:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/A3...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/A340-642_flight_deck.jpg/800px-A340-642_flight_deck.jpg)

~~~
mediocrejoker
I didn't know "visiting the cockpit" was still allowed anywhere since 9/11.

~~~
akhilcacharya
I'm brown and did it in 2005. The pilot and FA's were very nice!

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!

~~~
joezydeco
Everyone loves talking about their job. =)

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...

------
mrpippy
Some notable airlines have retired their 767 fleets recently. British Airways
did a few months ago, a former BA 767 pilot posted a fantastic retrospective:
[https://tim-the-pilot.co.uk/2018/11/23/a-personal-reflection...](https://tim-
the-pilot.co.uk/2018/11/23/a-personal-reflection-on-the-b767-within-british-
airways/)

And just this week, Hawaiian Airlines is flying their last 767 flights. More
details:
[http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20974085](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.

~~~
caf
None of the 76 B52 airframes in service are newer than 55 years old.

~~~
mrpippy
That is true, and they’re planned to stay in service (with new engines and
radars) until at least 2050! They fly _a lot_ less than a commercial airliner
though, with wing surfaces limited to ~30,000 hours.
([https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm](https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm))

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...](https://www.elal.com/en/ELALTech/Documents/Press_Releases/767.pdf))

~~~
dsfyu404ed
It's an apples to oranges comparison. The types of air-frames are totally
different. A B52 has a wing that flops all over the place the entire fuselage
is not pressurized like on a commercial jet.

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.

~~~
moftz
The military does run their stuff pretty hard but at the same time a
commercial airliner pretty much runs 24/7 because every minute it's not in the
air is a waste of money. Military stuff always has to be ready to go but that
doesn't mean it's always actually doing something.

------
kijin
The takeoff and landing stories seem to suggest that the excess thrust and
responsive controls of the 767 make it safer than a more sluggish plane, since
it can fly faster and higher out of a potentially dangerous situation.

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.

~~~
quanticle
>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::::::](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...](https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20150117004509I))
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...](https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:18:::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:20130419011239I))
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.

~~~
bdamm
NASA's aviation close-call database, however, is entirely open to the public.
And these reports make for some great reading!

[https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html](https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html)

------
huffmsa
More related to the write up on the 757, but it really is a versatile plane.

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.

~~~
count
That's my favorite approach. It's also by far the most nerve wracking :)

------
jboggan
Related, an actual ode to a specific Boeing 727 nicknamed "Big Flo" that was
used in a crash test in the Mexican desert:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKIQEvmkHo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKIQEvmkHo)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJZ1eHU_JZg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJZ1eHU_JZg)

------
ken
This same pilot wrote a love letter to the 757, too. In contrast, when I
worked among all the aircraft nerds at Boeing, there was, interestingly, a
clear favorite. The 767 was cool, and the 757 was a piece of junk. I don't
think I ever got a straight answer as to why. It just was.

~~~
bronco21016
That’s interesting. Most pilots I speak with who fly both prefer the 757. It’s
over powered and just really performs according to what I’ve been told.

~~~
ken
It could be the pilot-versus-engineer difference. Maybe mere size: the 767 was
built in the Big factory in Everett, while the 757 was down in the little
factory in Renton. Knowing engineers, it could well have been some minor
technical detail that no pilot or passenger would ever see.

Of course, the 767 performs pretty well even when underpowered!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_143](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_143)

------
Animats
And what's Boeing selling? 737 variants. First flight in 1967. Cabin diameter
hasn't changed. The Greyhound Bus of airliners.

~~~
Aloha
my kingdom for a cross country wide body flight.

six hours on a 737 is hell.

~~~
lmm
I find widebodies a lot more claustrophobic, as strange as it sounds - on a
737 at least you're never too far from a window.

------
bronco21016
For anyone interested in getting really up close with a 767 there is one named
the Spirit of Delta at Delta Air Lines’ museum in Atlanta.

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.

------
zwaps
This guy applauds airlines who fly the 757, like Icelandair. Icelandair has so
many technical issues, that they rarely manage to make it across atlantic
without significant delay. People who fly cross atlantic with Icelandair know
what I mean

So no.

------
elamje
Compare the big three airlines to Southwest's business model:
[https://slate.com/business/2012/06/southwest-airlines-
profit...](https://slate.com/business/2012/06/southwest-airlines-
profitability-how-the-company-uses-operations-theory-to-fuel-its-success.html)

They essentially have kept operations streamlined by using one plane for all
flights, so all pilots and flight crew can fly the entire fleet.

------
rayiner
Most modern jets are worse in key ways than the 767. More freaks and rattles
during take off and landing. Airbus are particularly bad in this regard. The
767 by contrast feels like a big old Buick. (The triple 7 is my favorite
though. Marvelous plane. It’s been downhill ever since.)

~~~
sho
> Most modern jets are worse in key ways than the 767. More freaks and rattles
> during take off and landing

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.

~~~
rayiner
I don’t know if passengers agree. I go out of my way to take a 777 for
international travel over a 787. But the latter is a lot more fuel efficient,
which is why airlines prefer them.

~~~
sho
Well, I suppose I would sometimes as well, but that's to do with airline
seating choices more than anything else. Emirates has 10-across economy in its
777s - no thanks! Whereas Cathay stuck with 9, which is way better. Meanwhile
a Qantas 787 is pretty nice to ride in, but a Jetstar or Scoot is cramped as
hell. Noise cancelling headphones pretty much remove the noise issue for me.

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.

