JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 21560 times:
It looks as though Boeing may have over-promised a tad on this: "Boeing touted the ease of transition to the 787 as a selling point saying 777 pilots could make the switch in about a week. ANA says it's spending five weeks...."
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5892 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 21386 times:
ANA added what they thought was necessary to the transition process, how does this figure into your and Airbus theory of the cockpit commonality of Airbus a/c versus Boeing's claim on the 777 transition to the 787?
We already know that only the Boeing a/c with the same type rating was the 757 / 767.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5147 posts, RR: 49 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 21291 times:
The FAA/EASA has certified the Boeing training program for 787 pilots transitioning from the 777. ANA is adding material to their training curriculum so if they're adding training time I don't see how that is Boeing's fault.
dirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 155 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 21173 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 2): The FAA/EASA has certified the Boeing training program for 787 pilots transitioning from the 777. ANA is adding material to their training curriculum so if they're adding training time I don't see how that is Boeing's fault.
Well, from reading this article it seems like ANA disagrees with Boeing as to what is an acceptable amount of training for pilots going from the 777 to the 787. ANA is very conservative in general so I wouldn't be surprised to see if some of the training is "overkill". At the same time, I also would not be surprised if Boeing was overly aggressive in their promises and that it does take more than 1 week for pilots to get the amount of training they need to transition successfully.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19686 posts, RR: 56 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21107 times:
Having to properly learn all the new systems and procedures involved in moving to an all-electric airplane (not to mention the different avionics) takes more than a week? Say it ain't so....
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Sean-SAN- From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 752 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21062 times:
ANA takes 6 months just to train Q400 pilots! The rest of the world is 6 weeks max!
eaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 956 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20966 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter): It looks as though Boeing may have over-promised a tad on this: "Boeing touted the ease of transition to the 787 as a selling point saying 777 pilots could make the switch in about a week. ANA says it's spending five weeks...."
Plus the pilots are probably used to the gear coming down when directed on the B777. That must be quite an adjustment.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5147 posts, RR: 49 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20945 times:
No when UA (or any other airline that will use a pool of 777 pilots to fly the 787) starts training its 777 pilots to fly the 787 next year, if the training takes 1 week then the truth will be known.
chuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15089 times:
Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 15): There was a glitch with the indicator lamp which required the pilots to deploy the gear manually.
Ahem, that indicator lamp worked fine. the nosewheel was out but not locked, and the main landing gear hadn't deployed.
There's a photo of the tower flypast on the related thread.
Good news is, the backup systems worked just fine!
flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1052 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12622 times:
Haven't seen it mentioned, but for comparison's sake the original WSJ article also stated:
"Officials at United Continental Holdings Inc., for example, have said they are planning 11 days of training for many of their new 787 cockpit crews."
Not letting me link to the WSJ, but the link is also found in the initial article posted by OP. Requires subscription.
col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2039 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9696 times:
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 7): Plus the pilots are probably used to the gear coming down when directed on the B777. That must be quite an adjustment.
Now this was funny.
Also, I do believe Airbus people have been on the street touting their FBW and crew commonality for at least a week or two, or could it be 25 years!!
The reality is that transitioning from the 777 to 787 takes 1 to 5 weeks depending where you live, so Boeing can change their peperwork. In Malaysia, at present it is zero time, cos we ain't got any coming, so no concern here.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9317 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
It looks as though Boeing may have over-promised a tad on this: "Boeing touted the ease of transition to the 787 as a selling point saying 777 pilots could make the switch in about a week.
It's not Boeing, it's FAA/EASA. Boeing proposed it, FAA/EASA accepted it. The fact that JCAB (or maybe ANA, can't really tell) aren't accepting it has nothing to do with Boeing.
Quoting flood (Reply 11): "Officials at United Continental Holdings Inc., for example, have said they are planning 11 days of training for many of their new 787 cockpit crews."
Where are their new 787 crews coming from? If from 777 then they're obviously adding extra...if from 767, maybe not.
Quoting par13del (Reply 1): We already know that only the Boeing a/c with the same type rating was the 757 / 767.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19686 posts, RR: 56 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8992 times:
Quoting flood (Reply 11): "Officials at United Continental Holdings Inc., for example, have said they are planning 11 days of training for many of their new 787 cockpit crews."
I'd expect 10-14 days to be the average (not counting the self-study of the systems beforehand). There seems to be just too much difference in the systems to realistically pack it into a week, regardless of what the FAA might approve.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8305 times:
Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 9): There was a glitch with the indicator lamp which required the pilots to deploy the gear manually.
I wonder which pixel that was.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
It's not Boeing, it's FAA/EASA. Boeing proposed it, FAA/EASA accepted it. The fact that JCAB (or maybe ANA, can't really tell) aren't accepting it has nothing to do with Boeing.
What did Boeing propose ? i.e. the detail. I would not be able to go through the 787s FCOMs in 5 days, let alone the checklists, MEL, QRH, and the simulator work.
I suspect that the whole process Boeing has proposed is not 5 days at all, I suspect that is only one aspect if it, I suggest that is the simulator component only.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
maxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 854 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8145 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 1): We already know that only the Boeing a/c with the same type rating was the 757 / 767.
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1187 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4411 times:
Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 3): ANA is very conservative in general so I wouldn't be surprised to see if some of the training is "overkill".
Maybe ANA wants to ensure that its pilots don't do a barrel roll in the 787 like those 2 ANA pilots did with the 737 recently!
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4364 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): What did Boeing propose ?
Boeing proposed 5 days of actual training time for a 777 type-rated pilot to do the differences training (classroom + sim) to get a 787 type-rating.
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): I would not be able to go through the 787s FCOMs in 5 days, let alone the checklists, MEL, QRH, and the simulator work.
I'm pretty sure they don't count the self-study of the documents in the training time. If you have an Alteon course that's 7 days and Alteon says "read the FCOM before you come" that's generally still called a 7 day course. Although, in this case, part of the basis of the common type rating is that the QRH and normal procedures are the same so you shouldn't be learning anything new on that front.
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): I suspect that the whole process Boeing has proposed is not 5 days at all, I suspect that is only one aspect if it, I suggest that is the simulator component only.
It's definitely not just the sim time...depending on which source you look at it's either the classroom time, or the classroom time + sim time.
If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the FAA document on the subject...lots of great information on what the differences actually are: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/b-787_fsb.pdf
sf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4331 times:
I spoke to a KL 777-300ER captain the other week -who just finished his course- and he didn't even know what engines were on that plane... GE90 didn't sound familiar in any way... (I was flabbergasted, to say the least)
Maybe ANA wants their pilots to have a decent training.
trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4281 times:
Quoting sf260 (Reply 19): I spoke to a KL 777-300ER captain the other week -who just finished his course- and he didn't even know what engines were on that plane... GE90 didn't sound familiar in any way... (I was flabbergasted, to say the least)
Maybe ANA wants their pilots to have a decent training.
So the FAA approved training scheme is inadequate and lacking? Could it possibly be dangerous and put the crew and passengers at mortal risk? Maybe ANA should ground all 787's until all go through their training program since it is superior to the program developed by the OEM. I would suggest a halt in production as well until the training program is changed to ANA standards. Maybe the director of the FAA needs to resign.
Somehow I feel that the pilot knowing the nomenclature of the engines is far less significant as to how to control the engines while in flight.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4170 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18): If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the FAA document on the subject...lots of great information on what the differences actually are:
I had not seen that document before, however looking at the training footprint on page 57 I do not think that would not be acceptable here.
One would be expected to have done the theory first, being FCOMs/CBT (5 days), that would be followed by classroom work/IPT/exams (another 5 days). And then we would do at least six full flight sims, a couple of normal procedures, a couple of abnormal, an aircraft rating sim, and also and aircraft instrument rating sim (6 days).
That would be at least 11 days in at the office after completing at least 5 days worth of self study, in reality that self study would more likely be more like 10 days.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3818 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 21): looking at the training footprint on page 57 I do not think that would not be acceptable here.
That's entire consistent with what ANA/JCAB is saying...I gather they're much more stringent on all training. In which case the bias of the article, as some claim, seems even more assured because it sounds like JCAB would do this to *all* courses, not just 777-to-787 differences.
neutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3538 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter): It looks as though Boeing may have over-promised a tad on this: "Boeing touted the ease of transition to the 787 as a selling point saying 777 pilots could make the switch in about a week. ANA says it's spending five weeks...."
And this is Boeing's fault, how? Airlines and operators are allowed to adjust their training regimen however they want. It isn't "over-promising" on Boeing's part.
It would have been over-promising if Boeing had pitched a 5-day differences course and the regulators had rejected it...but that's not what happened. FAA/EASA, the ones who issued the type certificate, both accepted it. It's not clear if it was ANA or JCAB that lead the charge to make it longer in Japan buit that's not something Boeing, FAA, or EASA can control.
Tom.
25 ThrottleHold: Having flown for a Japanese airline and done a full type rating course with them in the past, this doesn't surprise me one bit. It took almost 6 month
26 cedarjet: BA have looked at this and have decided that the two are so different (777 vs 787) that they are now going to treat the 787 as a separate type with a
27 maxpower1954: That's interesting, because in the U.S. training in an actual aircraft hasn't been done in years. My F-28, 757/767, 737, A320 and E190 type ratings w
28 zeke: Operators have to meet the local regulators requirements, it was not that long back where normal and one engine out circuits, go-arounds, and landing
29 cedarjet: To clarify two points - 1. the "ten landings" is based on what a Nippon pilot told me. I was on a commercial flight in week one of ops, and it was th
30 tdscanuck: How so? Same symbology, functionally same overhead panel (where it is different it's simpler on the 787), same handling, same normal and non-normal p
31 lightsaber: From Which plane? Aren't the bulk of UA/CO 787 pilots coming from the 767? I just do not see the time ANA is demanding. Is that really the case?!? If
32 cedarjet: That may be in your opinion (and, I suppose, Boeing's intention), but both Nippon and British Airways - whose opinion carries rather more weight - ha
33 474218: Anyone that ever lived or worked in Japan would never question why, what the rest of the world does in one week takes the Japanese five weeks. Every w
34 MoltenRock: And that's the thing in the end. Boeing REPEATEDLY has been vastly over-optimistic on virtually every piece / part of the 787 program. Even now they
35 tdscanuck: It's also the opinion of the FAA and EASA...and their opinion sure counts more than mine. Nobody objects to that...it's totally up to each airline to
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5892 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5147 posts, 
From Liechtenstein, joined Mar 2001, 950 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2009, 561 posts, 
From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, 
From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2039 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 136 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
