Back to Squawk list
  • 10

Common Type Rating for A350 and A330 jetliners

提交時間:
 
Airbus A350 XWB and A330 jetliners has received Comman Type Rating pilot training approval from EASA and FAA. (www.aviationanalysis.net) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 1
In the early days of development in the 80's, they were nearly identical. There was some change on the upgrades over the years as they progressed. If they were still the same, there would be no transition required today as there is, however minor. I really hate to rain on your parade but I flew the 757 for 36 years and after my first retirement, came back and made the short transition to the 767, which the company operates now, and the transition is more to the AC size and handling than the panels. 737 is close but no cigar.
JENNYJET
Preacher, thank you. You have just hit upon something that concerned me. The basics of flying have not changed but sitting in a pilot's seat certainly has. There was a time when a veteran of air force combat flying could step forward if he was unfortunate to be on a flight that had incapacitated pilots and with ground tower guidance, land the aircraft.

Today, if flight deck crew became incapacitated, what hobby or air force veteran could step into the left seat on a B787 or it's familier's and fathom the computer centre that is what presents as a flight deck?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, it might not be identical or look the same but certain instruments have the same function, regardless of their looks and those are the ones, altimeter, speed, etc., that a pilot will look for. Flying remains the same; you just have to figure out how to make an AC do what you want it to. All a common type rating is a panel and/or cockpit that is identical or nearly identical to another one of a different type or model. Regarding your situation above, a pilot would know all his V numbers and instruction from the ground or QRH would give them. He would just have to familiarize himself with the basic controls to get there and safely land.
JENNYJET
Maybe perhaps swap one set of wings for another possibly permanent arrangement?

No, I just hope that I am trying to reconcile true flying to the sterile environment that remains this day.

Thank you Preacher, I hold the greatest respect of you.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, it is all getting complicated, hence a checklist and/or QRH to make sure you don't miss anything. Knowing all that crap is like a Dr. or lawyer, which is why the big bucks. There was a time, back in the day, that a checklist was ignored, if there was one, because things were so basic. Now, there is no way a human mind can comprehend all that is there. It is all for the same thing though, to get one in the air for a halfway level flight or on the ground safely and it is the same format no matter how you cut it. Speed and altitude will get you there. Some panels are recognizable and identical and some are very far apart but the basics are in there somewhere.
JENNYJET
Thank you Preacher, so in essence, if I had basic non commercial pilot's license and is familiar with multiple engine craft such as Beechcraft or Piper Navajo types ( have I identified them correctly?) by having the familarity of those basic essentials of flying and of those essential instruments one can with help from the tower land a modern passenger jet?

Assume then I take control of such a jet on my FSX, would it be a similar scenario? My concern in the real left seat is what the original pilot had entered into the FMC and whether the other computers chose to over ride any manual instructions from the tower...Mr Patroni might well give up his fat cigars if the modern Boeing's failed to behave as his beloved 707!

As a further comment, are not modern civil airliners now designed to be aeronautically unstable so that computers suck out every last cent from the onboard Kerosene? If so, what hope for a relatively basically trained hero from the economy cabin trying to bring the jet home?
preacher1
preacher1 1
One of the first things to be done in your type scenario would be to clear the FMS but chances are, if an airliner, you wouldn't be by yourself in the cockpit. You seem to have an awful premonition about something that has hardly been on the radar the past few years. Relax and enjoy your flight.
JENNYJET
Forgive me my female ignorance but please explain to me how knowing the way around a A330 flight deck helps me fly the somewhat different 4 engined 340 and 380 and the differing aerodynamics involved without some very extensive and expensive training?

Common fight typing is fine but the same upon all the big beasts? Was it that easy to switch between the 757 to a 767? And can a B767 pilot gain a licence on a B787 as this approximately similar aircraft by size?

I thought that Airbus had the situation solved by common flight decks but I remain puzzled as nearly all aircraft appear to be common to all pilots with the necessary type ratings etc....
preacher1
preacher1 1
757 and 767 decks are almost identical. It takes very little to make the transition from one into the other, not nearly what it takes for a whole new type. 767 and 777 are a world apart on the deck although similar in size and all and the 787 is a whole 'nuther critter. In particular, from the triple 7 up, you are looking at about 15 years of advancement there so you will see many changes; same with the 787. That said, the basics of flying don't change. A pilot just has to know what to do in a particular AC to make it do what it needs to.
JENNYJET
Hardly on the radar? Honestly, I hope nothing sinister is read into my curiosity and need to learn but as an intellectual exercise I am simply attempting to tease out from anyone with an aviators brain a solution to a problem that is often dreamt up by 'Hollywood' types and sadly taken up by malcontents.

No, my concern was to attempt to reconcile the principles of flying against the ability of modern aircraft flying commercial services to fly themselves should the human element expire upon the flight deck, has the moment arrived whereby having two expensive pilot's can be considered surplus to requirements and thus, the true art of flying dies with them and if power is lost, what value therefore those back-up systems bringing the aircraft home?

I somewhat doubt therefore a holder of any non commercial with type rated license being able to become the hero that brought the ship home because simply, the equipment is likely to beyond comprehension as I attempted to illustrate previously.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It is really not on the radar when you consider the happenings vs the number of flights. that said, the basics of flying do not change and the same instruments monitor those functions. Their locations and looks may change but their functions are the same. When one familiarizes themselves with those basics, then you can settle in to flying the plane, whether a C150 or a 747.
JENNYJET
Thank you, still non the wiser but I feel the need to inform that I hold legal qualifications (UK) though not in practice. Purely academic because it benefits me more!

When I hear the next 'is there a doctor on board, ' I may have to think hard before interpreting another event......maybe I should go by boat next time as at least a swim might save me!
preacher1
preacher1 1
LOL. It ain't easy and I really wouldn't worry until they ask " Is there a pilot on board". Also, in the stories detailing such, the remaining pilot in the cockpit will review your qualifications and see if you would be a help or hindrance. Keep in mind that though although somewhat automated, there are many, many tasks that have to be done and this is generally where any fill in would come in at. This is a prime reason for 2 in the cockpit. Both are qualified but most AC are 2 man certified meaning 2 people are needed up front. "Doctor on board could be for a pax too, rather than flight crew.
JENNYJET
I value your opinions and educated approach but forgive me if I say that am non the wiser!I

Let me try another track....The B737-200, the B757-200, B767-300, B737-8/9, B787-800, B777-300, B747-4/8 and the equivalent A300, A310, the Fly by Wire A320/3/4/5/80 families...I am trying to illustrate a family timeline indicating the basics of flying to managing a computer centre disguised as a flight deck!

Can, I, if called upon, take command of a B787 with only limited twin prop experience given those modern flight decks that may just fight me?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Kinda difficult, although again, flying is the same and regardless of shape or form, basic instruments are the same. If you know how to fly and know the basic instrumentation, you should at least have some familiarity.
preacher1
preacher1 1
To do as you are talking though, unassisted, you would have a hell of a time.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Years ago it was the 757/767. No reason they shouldn't finally catch up and get around to it. LOL
Dubslow
Dubslow 1
The A330 and A340 also have a common type rating.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I can't see what's the big deal. Panel is about the same and all. The 57 is just a little, well, a whole lot spunkier than the 67.LOL.
thegoodguy
thegoodguy 1
Yep i like 777/787 type maybe?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Not sure but I doubt those will carry same type. Actually, 777 should have went with the other 2. I haven't flown one but they say the 777 is just a natural transition from the 67. idk.
btweston
btweston 1
'Merica

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出