Flyer35

Great info here. I'm a GA pilot looking to get into the airlines, will stay on here to learn what I can.

USMCFDX

I'm a 777 driver and it looks a lot different to me.

FlyingViking

Like Eastern you mean?

727gm

I wasn't looking at it from a happy pilot/contract provision standpoint, if this is OK, then why not fly these airliners on a multiengine rating alone? In other words, then what is the point of a type rating, anyway??

BeenThere

Mr Airline Manager:

"Well, looky here. It's got a cockpit on the front end, two big round things on the wings, buncha tires, buncha seats, and that tail thingy on the back. That's pretty common ain't it?"

Mr FAA man:

"Why yes it is. How stupid of us not to have noticed! Here's your common type rating, and thanks for the Mercedes."

HAL39

Yea I get what you're saying. I agree. I used to fly the Q400, which was a common type with the Q1/2/300 (they're all considered DHC-8), even though the Q4 had many differences in systems / procedures from the 1/2/3 series. Where I used to fly, the Q4 and Q2 were considered separate types with separate pay scales / bid packages / training programs, which is the way it should be for different aircraft with different missions. I don't really understand how the FAA could possibly see the 777 & 787 as a common type. Not only are there significant differences in the cockpit layout, I'm sure the systems are quite different as well.

Stupid as it may be, I think it's good news for the airlines in terms of cost control, which could be a good bargaining chip for unions during contract negotiations.

Timbo

My own personal observation as to "why" the FAA is allowing this, in addition to the political pressure from the ATA, they are allowing less and less systems knowledge/training (witness DAL's CD rom systems ground school programs):

These airplanes (777/787) are designed to "handle" most systems problems for you, ie. it shuts down failed hydrolic pumps, generators, etc. gives you an EICAS message and then it you click on the Electronic Checklist and it tells you what to do, and it's already done most of it, but then later when you pull up the Descent/Approach and Landing checklists, it again will remind you of what you have/don't have.

I got through my 777 oral (with the FAA sitting in) by giving the stock 767/757 answers to most of the questions, and that works for most of the systems, but when it was over the FAA guy asked me what I thought of the training.

I was one of the guinea pigs for the (then) new -do it yourself- at home, with the wife and kids yelling and the phone ringing, Systems CD training(vs. a real human instructor teaching systems). So when he asked me what I thought, I just burst out laughing, and said, "I have NO IDEA how this thing works! I showed up on Monday and today is Friday and I'm taking my oral!"

He said, "Well you did a good job on the oral."

I said, "I can memorize a question bank and regurgitate the book answers, but 3 beers from now I won't remember any of it."

He said, "Yeah, I think they may have cut too deep, we are going to have to look at adding more days..."

And I said, "If they aren't going to teach us anything, why do they ask us any questions at all? If the answer to every problem is, 'pull up the checklist, take appropriate actions, land at the nearest suitable airport.' what else do I need to know? I could fly any airplane, with zero systems knowledge, from the 737 to the 777. Just put the word "Flare" at the appropriate place on the RA tape."

He laughed and agreed with me.

Know what Delta did? They got rid of the Oral! Now you don't even have to talk to a "Human" for your oral, you take a written test on a computer!

So, strap me in that 787 with zero ground school, just teach the F/O's how to start it, and we're good to go! At least with a Boeing, you can turn off the A/P and fly it like an airplane.

From what I hear, Airbus doesn't even want you to do that!

80ktsClamp

Au contraire.... if you look at the DL manuals it strongly emphasizes if it starts doing things you don't want it to do to turn off the automation and fly the thing.

Timbo

That's Delta, I'm talking about Airbus's ideas about what a 'Pilot' is vs. Boeing's idea.

This guy, the Lead Test Pilot for Airbus, thought he could just 'turn it off' and fly it too, how'd that work out for him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHVnIxNUIw

Twin Wasp

While everyone here is blaming the airlines, normally it's the manufacturer who pushes hard for this so they can turn around and tell the airlines it's just a differences course on a common type.