767 Pilots
 

Hey guys, I'm doing a presentation on the Boeing 767 for my transport category aircraft systems course at UND. If any of you all have flown the 767, could you please help me out a little? I need to make the presentation interesting to pilots. I have a set of manuals for the 767 that I'm getting my systems info from. I was just wondering what those of you who fly or have flown the 767 would put in the presentation? Not looking for anything in particular, just some interesting facts or something you love/hate about the airframe.

Thanks for the help,
Rob

One more thing! I forgot to mention that the course is structured around the CRJ-200. We get bonus points if we can make correlations to the CRJ so that it is easier for the class to comprehend and make connections. So if any of you also flew the CRJ-200, that'd be helpful to me as well!

Thanks,
Rob

I don't know how much detail you want to go into but here are a few things that you might compare.

Both airplanes have three hydraulic systems. Compare the primary pump/demand pump system on the B767 to the On/Auto system on the CRJ.

The CRJ-200 uses 10th stage for PACKs and 14th stage for anti-ice without the ability for the high-pressure bleed to supplement the low-pressure bleed as does the B767. Which system is better? Which is simpler to operate?

CRJ has the flight plan log on the nav display and system synoptic pages. 767 doesn't.

Excellent points! Yeah, we aren't supposed to go into too much detail. Interesting tidbits like that are perfect to supplement my info!

Thanks!

Both RATS are on the right side? RJ on the right nose, 767 behind right wing root.

They may find a performance comparison interesting.
The 767 is impressive on short field operations. Probably comparable to the CRJ. I've never been anywhere in a Lear (my former life) that I wouldn't be more comfortable in a 76!
If you want me to look up a few examples for you, let me know.
CG

Crosswind landing characteristics of the 76 are benign compared to the CRJ

Good point. I never flew the CRJ but the 76 in heavy winds is like a Cherokee!
CG

Here's a little 767 gem (design flaw?) that I always found interesting:

If you were unfortunate enough to have a total electrical failure - both generators fried and down to battery power only, you would basically have the life of the battery to extend the landing gear...around 30mins or so. No electricity, no landing gear extension. The reason is that the up locks release needs electricity to release.

Definitely a rare scenario but an interesting study.

Good luck with your presentation. The 767 is one of the finest aircraft Boeing ever built and a joy to fly.

Yep the LOT polish guys found that out when a popped breaker kept them from the alternate gear extention and they belly landed it in.

Thanks for all the answers guys! I will definitely use them.

Rob

Plenty power on the 76 as opposed to underpowered like the CRJ

FMS on the CRJ is far better, better VNAV capabilities, a LOT better holding entries (if I'm doing anything but a direct entry, I just do it on heading mode until I'm entering the racetrack pattern and then engage LNAV, if you let it do the entry it just banks and yanks like in a red bull event LOL)

Better TCAS coverage (UP and down look) on the CRJ, you can't extend the range on the 76

The newer 76's have a very good radar like the RJ, but the older birds (such as the older BCF's for example) radars just plain suck, you have to avoid every bit of green on the scope, if not you will find yourself spilling your coffee in a Saint Elmo's fire light show.

The following is not exclusive of the CRJ/76 but rather A/C 's with wing mounted engines vs to fuselage mounted engines...., but pitch tendencies are opposite..., I found it interesting on the first couple of ILS's on the SIM I found myself over correcting the opposite way...LOL (the 76 pitches up when you add power)

The 76 is a stable flying platform, much more so than the RJ in every condition really..., a pleasure to handfly (I know the CRJ is fun to handfly, but the 76 so much more)

I enjoyed the CRJ and don't bad mouth it at all....! It is a great airplane.

But I'm also enjoying the 76 even with an older office layout...., the space, power, stability and overall characteristics of the 76 makes the good reputation it has amongst the pilots very well earned.

I think the most interesting comparison between the 767 and the CRJ is first generation glass vs. second generation glass. The situational awareness in the CRJ is much better. The moving map on the CRJ is bigger than the 767 and also displays TCAS data. I found it much easier to keep track of your relative position to the airport and traffic around you in the CRJ.

In the CRJ you have the option of looking at a synoptic systems page which told you on, off, or unknown. In the Boeing you have to determine on, off, or unknown using lights - which are all over the cockpit - and the EICAS, which is interesting because lights frequently burn out.

I don't know the history of the certification of the cockpit of the Boeing but just looking at it you can see that Boeing or the FAA or both didn't trust the screens. There are six separate screens doing what three could do and none of the screens include pitot/static data. Curiously the airspeed and altitude are electrical/mechanical (not pitot/static) which we now know are more prone to breaking than screens. The technology was there to put all the data on fewer screens and use reversionary logic for redundancy but they chose to use tried and true round dials. By the time the CRJ was certified the parties involved trusted screens enough to get rid of all round dials. It wasn't until third generation glass that they combined EICAS/engine data into one screen though.

Most or all modern airplanes use speed and altitude tapes which can be packaged neatly next to the attitude indicator but are relatively difficult to read. A speed tape without numbers shows you nothing, a round dial without numbers shows information that you can use. If you are familiar with a particular airplane you could use a round airspeed indicator without numbers with little trouble. Changes are easier to see on a round dial too but the trend vector on the speed tape makes that comparison a wash.

Every jet I'd flown before the 757/767 was second or third generation glass. Overall I'd say the situational awareness is better in more modern equipment but the transition to early glass was much more manageable than I anticipated. It's probably worth mentioning that the MCDU on the 767 is as good as the CRJ in most cases and superior when it comes to vertical navigation.

The CRJ has a T-tail design which was a design option for the early 7X7 in the mid 1970's. Of course that design never made it, but there are pics of the concept.

United Airlines was the launch customer for the 767 in 1982. Ironically, United Pilots gave up their scope in 1999 with the RJ Exception Letter Of Agreement that allowed for the proliferation of CRJ-200s. Prior to that LOA, United could only use 65, 50-seat RJs total in service to the company.

I was writing my post when you posted this but we said pretty much the exact opposite regarding VNAV. It's been a long time since I've flown a CRJ but as far as I recall there was no ability to hook the VNAV to the flight director and all you could really do is enter an angle. Am I off on that?

If you have winds programmed into the 767 MCDU the computer computes and flies and idle descent and does so really well. There are some intricacies (recruising) but it seems to work about as well as you'd expect if you are into idle descents.

I'm curious where our difference of opinion is.

I flew the 767 for about 12 yrs. Wonderful aircraft and very solidly built. In reading about its design and testing I found out an interesting fact. During the wing stress test it is a Boeing tradition to see how far beyond the requirements the wing will bend before it breaks the spar. The 767 test exceded the requirements but never got to breaking point because it pulled the anchors that were cemented into the ground! It gave me many warm feelings on those nights at 40 W.

I was referring to the guidance of the VNAV..., but you are correct in the sense that it is not engaged to the automation.., you have to follow it with some other sub mode...!

Now on regards to the VNAV on the 76 being pretty good..., you are by far the only pilot I know that says that:confused:

I'll join him. 767 VNAV is far superior the the CRJ VNAV in my opinion.

In the CRJ you have to manually adjust the angle of descent based on ground speed in an attempt to get close to a flight-idle descent. Otherwise you're constantly descending with power. Also, it doesn't build in your speed reductions for you.

At max takeoff weight -

CRJ-200 thrust to weight is .33 to .34:1.

767's .30:1.

Flat panel upgrade to the 767 shows TCAS on the nav display.

767 was first generation glass. Follow-on Boeings were just further developments of the concepts the 767 pioneered. They got pretty close to today's design on their first attempt.

VNAV works fine. But not all the time so you have to 'trust but verify'. IMO Pegasus jets are better than the early jets. More computing power allowing more accurate wind computations?

With VNAV we're going down below 500' on RNAV/RNP approaches in mountain valleys. Unheard of capability a decade or two ago.

Thirded!

Don't forget the stupid buttons on the MCDU in the CRJ. Get 3-4 numbers or letters for the price of one push many times!

On both aircraft it only takes one loose screw aft of the control yoke attach bolt to totally discombobulate any or all aircraft systems.

(And to think I have only flown one of the two chosen aircraft) !!!

wwwhhhaatt?

Is Schumacher still teaching that class? I know when I went through in 04, I got the Airbus 320 or 330, can't remember. Everyone else showed slides of schematics and tried to fumble through the systems boring everyone. I went with the Pilot-centric approach and threw up a picture of the overhead panel and highlighted each system on different slides and walked through the systems as a pilot would see it. It kept the class engaged, and Schumacher ate it up. To the point he pulled me aside when he saw me at the airport and told me how much he enjoyed it, but apologized because he had to give me a lower grade due to my partner (who had the history portion) stinking it up. FWIW

haha Yep Schumacher's still teaching it. That's what I was planning to do. The last few groups were unbelievably boring. The group today spent almost their entire presentation talking about the different "laws" on the A320 such as normal, alternate, etc. Even Pete was nodding off! So anything to make it interesting I'll use.

Never flew the CRJ or 767... But more than a few in between.

If it is presentation on correlating CRJ to 767's, both are regulated under part 25. This will allow for many common designs. Whether a CRJ/ERJ/MD88/747.

Such as single pack operation limits, passenger O2, anti-ice (maybe), etc.... Point is, since they are all certified under part 25 (and others), certian system will work the same regardless. So once you figure out your CRJ, some of the same limitations/operating philosophy's with the 767 would be the same or closely similar.

Make sure you point out to the class where the "Fly" button is... but do NOT talk about the Chemtrail dispersal systems or show them where those switches are.

Does the CRJ have CWS(Command Wheel Steering)? It's almost the grandfather to have the 777 flies - yoke controls A/P roll and pitch function, set an attitude and it just stays there.

I've flown both and the MOST important distinction is that one generally PAYS a whole lot more than the other!! 😜

Sorry... Couldn't resist