Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ANA 787 Pilot Transition Issue From 777  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22994 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...."

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...aining_Snags_Hit_ANA_205696-1.html

Is this likely to be a general issue or is ANA just being very very cautious as lead 787 customer?

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7296 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22820 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.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5774 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22725 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.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22607 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.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22541 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
User currently offlineSean-SAN- From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 770 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22496 times:

ANA takes 6 months just to train Q400 pilots! The rest of the world is 6 weeks max!

User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22400 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.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5774 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22379 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.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlines.p.a.s. From Liechtenstein, joined Mar 2001, 967 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 17615 times:

Quote:
Plus the pilots are probably used to the gear coming down when directed on the B777. That must be quite an adjustment.

Could you please elaborate on that one?

Cheers



"ad astra per aspera"
User currently offlineYYZRWY23 From Canada, joined Aug 2009, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16951 times:

There was a glitch with the indicator lamp which required the pilots to deploy the gear manually.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...liner-glitch-idUSLNE7A603L20111107

Just a poke at the incident.

YYZRWY23



If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16523 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!
 


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 14056 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.


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11130 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.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10751 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.

Not anymore...777/787 are a common type rating.

Tom.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10426 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
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9113 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9739 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
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1102 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9579 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
We already know that only the Boeing a/c with the same type rating was the 757 / 767.

And the 707/720.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1607 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5845 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!


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5798 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

Tom.


User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5765 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.


User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5715 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.

[Edited 2011-11-08 07:31:13]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9113 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5604 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
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5252 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.

Tom.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4972 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.

Much ado about absolutely NOTHING.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 23):
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
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...
ANA 787 Gear Down Trouble posted Sun Nov 6 2011 01:38:51 by SMOLT
ANA 787 First Commercial Flight Today posted Tue Oct 25 2011 18:33:41 by vulindlela744
ANA 787 Was Grounded After Being Hit By Lightning posted Sat Oct 22 2011 23:38:42 by MadameConcorde
ANA 787 Hits Boarding Bridge posted Wed Oct 19 2011 04:00:25 by Gonzalo
Inside The ANA 787 posted Sat Oct 15 2011 09:19:05 by MSN007
ANA's 787 Delivery Flight Airborne, Heading East. posted Tue Sep 27 2011 09:39:39 by netjetsintl
ANA B-787-8 Inaugural Flights Made Official posted Tue Aug 23 2011 10:31:22 by MadameConcorde
EK: 787 Problems Slow Development Of 777 Upgrade posted Mon Dec 6 2010 00:27:45 by mdword1959
No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements posted Wed Apr 21 2010 11:19:05 by CFBFrame
ANA 787 When Is The 1st Commercial Flight Expected posted Tue Dec 15 2009 12:08:11 by Jayeshrulz