Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Gets Common Type Rating With 777  
User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26349 times:

FAA has released the Standardization Board Report for the 787-8 type certificate and per the FAA, the 787 and the 777 share a common type rating.

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/b-787_fsb.pdf

this is good news for Boeing

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3207 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26356 times:

What? I never saw that one coming? Surely they would have pushed that in promo material etc? Seriously? I never saw it happening or read a thing about it at all! I mean great for boeing, Airbus long realised the advantage this offered, and definately something that will help existing 777 operators chose the 787. But I just never even heard a wishper of it.

User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26283 times:

I know Boeing was working towards that from the beginning. Common rating was granted as part of the initial type certification granted on August 26th

Quote:
2. PILOT TYPE RATING REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Type Rating. The Boeing 787 is designated B-787. In accordance with the provisions of FAA Order 8900.1 and AC 120-53A, the B-777 and B-787 are assigned a common pilot type rating.


User currently onlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26210 times:

This is great news for the big three, all of who already operate the 777 and are getting the 787. This means that with the same type rating, all the crews will be required to do is differences training which is a lot cheaper and takes less time. That being said, because of the differing layouts of the 777 and 787 flight deck, I don't expect airlines to have one list for both types, but separate lists.

I agree with other posters though, Boeing should have marketed this if it was going to happen. Though I don't think it would have made any difference in terms of sales.


User currently offlineChrisba777er From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26114 times:

I'd have thought the reason they didnt market it was because they werent sure they were going to be able to do it, and it would be a poor thing to have to backtrack on, so would not have wanted to release the information until they were sure they were going to be able to make it happen.


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25949 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 1):
What? I never saw that one coming? Surely they would have pushed that in promo material etc? Seriously? I never saw it happening or read a thing about it at all!

Really? I definitely heard this before today. I'm surprised it wasn't more common knowledge. Maybe it wasn't released with a lot of fanfare, but I'm pretty sure that Boeing previously announced that the 787 would have the same type-rating as the 777.


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25900 times:

OK, it looks like the previous spec was "cockpit commonality" with the 777, requiring only 5 days training for a pilot to switch to the 787.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...e-data-access-and-familiarity.html

Even with the common type-rating, wouldn't 777 pilots still need a bit of training to be able to fly the 787?


User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25663 times:

yes. Training is about 5 days. Seat time in a 777 counts in a 787, all you need is the differences training. HUD, system differences etc.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21552 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25552 times:

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 7):
system differences

Which seem like they'd be pretty significant when it comes to the electrics and pressurization systems. Not to mention the avionics differences. Five days seems like a bit too little - I'd think a week or a week and a half to get properly up to speed. Still better than a full type, though - similar to what Airbus can do with crews of the 320 series and the 330/340 series.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25326 times:

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 7):
yes. Training is about 5 days. Seat time in a 777 counts in a 787, all you need is the differences training. HUD, system differences etc.

5 days of what? CBT training? On top of that there must be some simulator time.


User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25081 times:

The 5 days does include simulator time. Time in training depends on the pilot's existing training levels and time in seat and the specific aircraft configuration they are transitioning from. The 5 days is how long it takes to take a current 777 PIC or SIC to a 787 PIC or SIC and includes sim time.

The specific training depends on the airline's aircraft configuration and something called the Master Differences list and what type of operations the airline is certified for. If the airline is using the HUD on the 787, for example, for limited visibility takeoffs, the differences training would need to include that.. if they don't... the HUD training would be less extensive. The certification document I linked to discusses all this and provides an example of the things that need to be considered when the airline determines their training requirements for differences. A pilot changing airlines with different configurations of 777-2ERs still needs differences training to fly the different configuration at the new airline. That can be small or large depending on the differences in question.


User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 24588 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 3):
I don't expect airlines to have one list for both types, but separate lists.

Any particular reason? The 757/767 operate with a single pilot list at CO.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5208 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23172 times:

A friend of mine flew 757/767 with AA for 16 years. And for the first 10 years, it wasn't uncommon to fly both types on one trip. While the cockpit in both aircraft are almost identical, the performance and procedures are vary different.

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21500 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21851 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 12):
A friend of mine flew 757/767 with AA for 16 years. And for the first 10 years, it wasn't uncommon to fly both types on one trip. While the cockpit in both aircraft are almost identical, the performance and procedures are vary different.

Seems like that would be more likely to confuse if you aren't paying attention than the 777/787 where the cockpits are more dissimilar.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6369 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21644 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 13):
Seems like that would be more likely to confuse if you aren't paying attention than the 777/787 where the cockpits are more dissimilar.

I'll say. Not to mention that the 787 has many more electric systems than the 777, and much less hydraulic...   I can't believe Boeing pulled this one off. 757/767 were designed from the outset to be matched twins (well, from a type rating perspective anyways). The 787 and 777 weren't   About the only similarities I can think of OTOH are that Boeing probably used identical control laws and envelope protection techniques between the Triple 7 and the 787...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1629 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21162 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 12):
A friend of mine flew 757/767 with AA for 16 years. And for the first 10 years, it wasn't uncommon to fly both types on one trip. While the cockpit in both aircraft are almost identical, the performance and procedures are vary different.

Not to mention that now the crews have to deal with some aircraft being equipped with the MAUI flat-panel upgrade and some without.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 14):
I can't believe Boeing pulled this one off.

That's what I've been thinking the whole time. I couldn't believe they were trying and now I can't believe it worked. The systems and cockpit displays are so different that it will be interesting to see how adequate the five-day differences training will be, even for (or especially for) what traditionally are the most senior pilots at many airlines.

I would imagine that Boeing did a lot of work to replicate the 777 feel with the 787 FBW to achieve this goal, very similar to the tweaks that they made to the 747-8 to keep the similarity with the -400.



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21500 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 20931 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 14):
I'll say. Not to mention that the 787 has many more electric systems than the 777, and much less hydraulic...

I think you missed my point. With the 757 and 767 being so similar inside, a tired pilot might "forget" where he was sitting if he flew the 767 earlier that day and is now in a 757, but the flight characteristics are so different, you'd realize it soon after making the wrong inputs. The 787 and 777 are less similar visually so it would be harder for a pilot to make such an error. Though one assumes that the 777NG will gain more commonality with the 787...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinesimpilot459 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 20625 times:

The 787 flight deck was designed for 777 pilots. It was always Boeing's intention to be able to transition 777 pilots to the 787 in as little as 5 days. The layout and interface is very similar to the 777, all the buttons and displays are in the same place. What does it matter how the plane is pressureized if the interface controls are the same?


Take off: Optional Landing: Mandatory
User currently offlineUPS757Pilot From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 20619 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 16):
I think you missed my point. With the 757 and 767 being so similar inside, a tired pilot might "forget" where he was sitting if he flew the 767 earlier that day and is now in a 757, but the flight characteristics are so different, you'd realize it soon after making the wrong inputs. The 787 and 777 are less similar visually so it would be harder for a pilot to make such an error. Though one assumes that the 777NG will gain more commonality with the 787...

Actually it's not that different. I fly both with 5X and other than some flap speed differences, obvious weight differences, the airplanes fly very similarly, including the landing. The 767 has a roomier cockpit and a better oven! The 787/777 common type rating sounds much more complicated than what the 757/767 is for us.


User currently offlineBoxBoy From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 50 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20115 times:

And a DA 2000 EX-Easy is not common with the 900 EX-Easy. Common types have nothing to do with common and everything to do with politics and money. Sold to the highest bidder.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19794 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 1):
Surely they would have pushed that in promo material etc?
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 1):
I never saw it happening or read a thing about it at all!
Quoting apodino (Reply 3):
Boeing should have marketed this if it was going to happen.

They've been marketing it for years, to the people that matter: the airlines. They only bother publicly pushing those features the public cares about (mostly cabin comfort and environmental footprint). Passengers don't care about common type ratings.

Quoting apodino (Reply 3):
Though I don't think it would have made any difference in terms of sales.

If you have a 777 fleet already, common type rating makes a significant difference in the cost to add the 787. It might not have swung any sales from Airbus to Boeing (although it may have), but it probably resulted in some extra units sold.

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
Which seem like they'd be pretty significant when it comes to the electrics and pressurization systems. Not to mention the avionics differences. Five days seems like a bit too little
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 14):
Not to mention that the 787 has many more electric systems than the 777, and much less hydraulic...   I can't believe Boeing pulled this one off. 757/767 were designed from the outset to be matched twins (well, from a type rating perspective anyways). The 787 and 777 weren't
Quoting N243NW (Reply 15):
The systems and cockpit displays are so different that it will be interesting to see how adequate the five-day differences training will be

They were designed for commonality from the start. The two aircraft have the same normal procedures and checklists. Same display symbology (the bigger displays allows more simultaneous data but the format is the same). Same handling.

Almost all of the systems differences are invisible to the pilots...for example, the electrical and pressurization panels are basically identical. The bleed panel from a 777 is obviously absent on a 787, but in almost every case the 787 panel is the same or simpler than the equivalent 777 panel.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 14):
About the only similarities I can think of OTOH are that Boeing probably used identical control laws and envelope protection techniques between the Triple 7 and the 787...

The control laws and envelope protections aren't actually the same. But the handling is, which is enough.

Tom.


User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19266 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 5):
Really? I definitely heard this before today.

I was in the dark on this also.

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 11):
Any particular reason? The 757/767 operate with a single pilot list at CO.

A friend flew both and said the only difference to him was that in one (I forget which) you step down a tiny little to get into the cockpit.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1629 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18542 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
They were designed for commonality from the start. The two aircraft have the same normal procedures and checklists. Same display symbology (the bigger displays allows more simultaneous data but the format is the same). Same handling.

Thanks for the good info...makes me feel better about the type rating.

Quoting flylku (Reply 21):
A friend flew both and said the only difference to him was that in one (I forget which) you step down a tiny little to get into the cockpit.

The 757 is a step down and the 767 a step up. There are also some minor differences to the overhead panel, such as knobs vs. push buttons, fuel jettison controls, cargo heat controls, and (depending on the engine manufacturer) EICAS readings.



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently onlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 17510 times:

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 11):

Any particular reason? The 757/767 operate with a single pilot list at CO.

That is true, and it is operated that way at most airliners. In this case though the flight decks are almost identical. The comparison I had in mind was actually the 767-200/300 to the 767-400, which have somewhat different cockpit layouts, and I believe have separate lists at CO and DL (Someone correct me if I am wrong). There are other cases where you have one single type rating, but you can have completely different cockpits as well, such as 737 Classic vs Next Gen, 747 early models vs 400, DC-9 vs 717 (Yes they are actually the same type rating), etc.

In the case of the 777 and the 787, while the type rating may be the same, the cockpits have very different layouts, especially with the FMS design and the flight display design. For the types of flights that these aircraft will all fly, I think because of the very different layout of the cockpit that the airlines will keep the lists separate. I could be wrong though.


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14739 times:

Question: Does the 767-400 and 777 have a common pool of pilots? I saw that because their cockpits look to be almost identical.

Sounds very strange that 777 and 787 will have a common type rating considering the layout of the cockpits are pretty different.



Next Flights: LGW-SVG (738-DY), SVG-LHR (319-BA), LHR-HKG (388-BA), HKG-SYD (333-CX), SYD-HKG (333-CX), HKG-LHR (388-BA)
25 homsar : I thought I've read that 747 Classic and 747-400 had different type ratings. Not basing that on certain knowledge, just what my memory is telling me.
26 DashTrash : No. The 767-400 is still the 757/767 type even though the -400 has a 777 cockpit. It's all about differences training. The -400 at Delta is a separat
27 tdscanuck : The FMS UI is identical. The only difference on a 787 is that the whole FMS is displayed on a screen while in a 777 part of it is physical buttons. A
28 ikramerica : Other than Aloha I can't think of any airline that flew 737-100/200 and 737NG at the same time
29 KPDX : Alaska Airlines did for awhile.
30 shufflemoomin : I have a sort of off topic question since people were talking about 787 sim time. At what point in an aircraft's development does the manufacturer mak
31 Gunsontheroof : As did FR, DL and WN.[Edited 2011-09-09 12:51:01][Edited 2011-09-09 12:55:26]
32 OldAeroGuy : Well, the 747 Classic did have this Flight Engineer fella to give the pilots a hand.
33 JoeCanuck : I believe Westjet did as well. ...applause for a good landing...?
34 nomadd22 : Ah, yes. Victor.
35 thegeek : A 737 pilot can't fly a 767 the next day, and once converted to a 767, they can't fly the 737 in revenue service any more (for example). What this an
36 Post contains images KELPkid : Sure they can. The pilot just needs to keep both the 737 and 767 ratings current. Of course, that can become a headache quickly... Does it happen in
37 thegeek : Hmm, I didn't know that. I'm not sure if this is possible in Australia though.
38 mffoda : What about the military Reserve and ANG pilots that fly a variant of a commercial A/C in military service, But another type in commercial service...
39 tdscanuck : Full motion 787 sims have been available for several years. The big manufacturers are Thales and CAE, although there are others. Obviously the simula
40 RobertS975 : Didn't DL operate 737-200s, 737-300s, and -800s at the same time?
41 Post contains images KELPkid : Military aircraft and flight requirements are totally separate from civil requirements...a military pilot can finish their career in the service with
42 Viscount724 : Yes, for quite a few years.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing And The Common Type Rating posted Wed Sep 19 2001 17:47:04 by SouthernCRJ
Significance Of 757/767 Common Type Rating? posted Wed Sep 12 2001 00:36:43 by SFOintern
757-777 Type Rating posted Fri Nov 8 2002 00:52:26 by Manuel
AA with 777 on MIA-JFK - Summer 2010 posted Sun Jan 31 2010 16:45:12 by Flyguy1
CO Plans Common IT Platform With UA posted Tue Jul 28 2009 08:20:58 by BNAtraveler
BA Multi-Type Rating And Aircraft Retirement posted Sat May 2 2009 12:39:22 by Virginblue4
BOC Aviation Gets Into PLB Deal With Alaska Air posted Tue Feb 24 2009 12:46:40 by CARNOC
UA LAX-SFO With 777/747, When? posted Fri Jan 16 2009 16:32:51 by B747forever
AF To Mumbai With 777-300ER posted Fri Sep 19 2008 16:00:10 by CDG
FAA Part 65 Type Rating posted Tue Mar 4 2008 17:47:17 by Rissee01