747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1779 posts, RR: 11 Posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7124 times:
What are the certification requirements for a common type rating on the 747-400 and 747-8 ?
- near duplicated cockpit lay-out.
- same flight characteristics (the same pilot feel) in all axis.
- other requirements ?
Boeing wanted the 747-8F to handle the same way as a 747-400, which has necessitated a move to partial fly-by-wire for lateral flight control, because of the increased aircraft weights without increase in wing area. The partial FBW controls the outboard ailerons and six spoilers on each wing. Both aircraft have identical handling characteristics now, claims Boeing. Removal of the mechanical actuation is a weight saver and an extra benefit is load-maneuver alleviation, which gives greater structural efficiency.
Seen all expensive modifications above to obtain a common type rating for both 747 versions, it strikes me that the FAA approved the common type rating on the MD10 and MD11 aircraft, seen the different handling characteristics of both aircraft.
andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6967 times:
If Boeing are trying to bypass the certification process by piggy-backing on the existing 747 (just an uneducated observation) then type commonality makes sense.
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6283 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6905 times:
I think it will be a commong type rating. Just as the 757-200/300 and 767's are. Same cockpit and very simular flying seems like that should be enough in simple terms.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6853 times:
Quoting andz (Reply 1): If Boeing are trying to bypass the certification process by piggy-backing on the existing 747 (just an uneducated observation) then type commonality makes sense.
What part of the certification process do you think a common type rating would bypass?
A common type rating invites more stingent cert requirements, not less.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1779 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6754 times:
With FBW aircraft, manufacturers can create relative easily equal flight characteristics via flight control software changes on different aircraft types to create a common type rating.
But for non-FBW aircraft it's not that easy :
So, let me rephrase the two questions :
What extra requirements have to be fulfilled to certify a non-FBW aircraft with a common type rating ?
Or, how equal must both aircraft types be ?
Seen the huge extra effort Boeing has put in the certification of the 747-8 (partial FBW added !) to gain the same flight characteristics as the 747-400, to satisfy the FAA for obtaining a common type rating.
How can it be that the MD10-MD11 common type rating has been certified, with the large difference in flight characteristics of both types.
Or are the rules changed, after certifying the MD10-MD11 common type rating?
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6706 times:
Quoting 747classic (Reply 4): Or, how equal must both aircraft types be ?
Common type ratings are subjective in nature, given that Cert agency pilots must make a value judgement on the handling characteristics of the two types. There is no absolute pass/fail criteria.
The closer the similarities between the two types, the better the chances for a common type rating. It's up to the manufacturer how much money/effort is put into getting a common type rating if there are significant initial handling characteristic differences between two aircraft.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7722 posts, RR: 73 Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6692 times:
Quoting 747classic (Thread starter): What are the certification requirements for a common type rating on the 747-400 and 747-8 ?
Similar systems is a big requirement, if the systems are significantly different, e.g. between the 747-300 to 400, it would be hard to do a common type rating.
We have been told there is approximately only 15% parts commonality between the -400F and -8F, so on the maintenance front, they are different aircraft.
Quoting 747classic (Thread starter): - near duplicated cockpit lay-out.
- same flight characteristics (the same pilot feel) in all axis.
- other requirements ?
Handling characteristics are only part of it, when they look at the -400, they will be looking at the earliest -400s not just the recent 400ER/400ERFs. Checklist commonality is a must, I know for example when we looking at having pilots fly the 777 and 744 at the same time, there were far too many differences in the QRH for emergencies if just was not safe.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6256 posts, RR: 39 Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6638 times:
Don't all 737's have the same type rating? The differences between the Jurassics, Classics, and NG's must be much more than between the 744 and 748. I believe they have a "difference training" requirement; obviously the more the difference the more training required. What Boeing may be doing is catering to customers; Airbus may well have made significant inroads with their common cockpit strategy, and Boeing is doing their best to match it. They are also doing all they can to make the 787 handle like the 777. There certainly is no certification reason for doing it, but it vastly reduces transition training for pilots qualified on the 777 to fly the 787. The only problem is that I suspect most 787 pilots will be transitioning from smaller planes, not the 777, as pilot pay generally increases with larger planes. I do not expect this to change, and I suspect few pilots will willingly take a pay cut to fly the 787.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6619 times:
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 3): What part of the certification process do you think a common type rating would bypass?
From what I have read on some other threads, using the existing 747 certification helps the 747-8 get through regs it would not get through otherwise. Like I said, an uneducated observation.
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1779 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6609 times:
Quoting andz (Reply 8): From what I have read on some other threads, using the existing 747 certification helps the 747-8 get through regs it would not get through otherwise. Like I said, an uneducated observation.
We are not discussing here the "grand father rights"of previous 747 versions, but the EXTRA amount of certification criteria to obtain a common type rating between in this case the 747-400 and the dash 8.
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 5): Common type ratings are subjective in nature, given that Cert agency pilots must make a value judgement on the handling characteristics of the two types. There is no absolute pass/fail criteria.
Everything in aviation seems to be exactly regulated, but a common type rating approval seems to be in a grey area and may depend on the daily mood of the certifying pilots, agency or other subjective reasons.
If this is correct, the test pilots that allowed the certification of the MD11 and MD10 common type rating must have been in a very optimistic mood, to say the least.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6579 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 6): Similar systems is a big requirement, if the systems are significantly different, e.g. between the 747-300 to 400, it would be hard to do a common type rating.
For common type rating, they only need to be similar to the pilots (controls, flight deck effects, checklists). They can be totally different in actual implementation. This is how the 737NG can have a totally different set of avionics but share a type rating with the 737CL.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2511 posts, RR: 45 Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6567 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10): Quoting zeke (Reply 6):
Similar systems is a big requirement, if the systems are significantly different, e.g. between the 747-300 to 400, it would be hard to do a common type rating.
For common type rating, they only need to be similar to the pilots (controls, flight deck effects, checklists). They can be totally different in actual implementation. This is how the 737NG can have a totally different set of avionics but share a type rating with the 737CL.
Not to mention that the 757 and 767 have markedly different handling characteristics (and a great number of systems dissimilarities). They are, as Tom says, similar, but at the same time different. They don't have to be identical.
flybaurlax From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6555 times:
As far as I know almost all of the pilots training to fly the 787 are current 777 pilots. I know that the systems and the flight deck layout are very similar to the 777, and it will only take 777 pilots 5 days to train in the 787. I talked to a few Boeing engineers and learned a lot about the -87 flight deck and procedures. There's a cool thing called Integrated Approach Navigation, and I googled it one time and came up with this cool presentation. It explains a lot about the training program, which I was told by the head of the sim department at Boeing Longacres. This explains a lot of cool things about the transition times for type ratings.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10): This is how the 737NG can have a totally different set of avionics but share a type rating with the 737CL.
Avionics upgrades by themselves do not warrant a new type rating, many classic Boeing aircraft have "glass" cockpit upgrades via STC without the need for a new type rating.
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 11): Not to mention that the 757 and 767 have markedly different handling characteristics (and a great number of systems dissimilarities). They are, as Tom says, similar, but at the same time different. They don't have to be identical.
As far as I am aware, the 757 and 767 are different types, you do the one type rating on one and then do the differences onto the other. Similar to going for the EFIS 737 to the 737NG.
Quoting flybaurlax (Reply 12): I know that the systems and the flight deck layout are very similar to the 777, and it will only take 777 pilots 5 days to train in the 787.
Maybe 5 days of simulator, but that will be after completing 3-6 weeks of ground school and a systems exam.
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 14, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6511 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): People who had a 737CL rating could not just jump into a 737NG without training when they arrived
If it's got the EFIS, rather than PFD/ND, I think they actually can, but I'm not positive about that.
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): Avionics upgrades by themselves do not warrant a new type rating
That was my point. You're the one that said
Quoting zeke (Reply 6): if the systems are significantly different, e.g. between the 747-300 to 400, it would be hard to do a common type rating.
The avionics on the 737NG aren't an upgrade, they're totally different boxes. They just look the same to the pilots, which is how you can have a common rating.
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): As far as I am aware, the 757 and 767 are different types, you do the one type rating on one and then do the differences onto the other.
They're different types (different type certifications), but they are a common type rating:
"Because the 757 and 767 were developed at the same time, a basic design criteria was that the two airplanes be part of a "family," having common pilot type rating" http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_fltdeck.html
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): Quoting flybaurlax (Reply 12):
I know that the systems and the flight deck layout are very similar to the 777, and it will only take 777 pilots 5 days to train in the 787.
Maybe 5 days of simulator, but that will be after completing 3-6 weeks of ground school and a systems exam.
I said different systems (e,g, fuel, pneumatics, hydraulics), you said different avionics.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14): They're different types (different type certifications), but they are a common type rating:
Not here, you cannot go from one to the other without training. I guess it is the the same in many ICAO countries, they are different types, as you said different type certificates. Takeoff and landings on one type does not give you currency on the other type in the US either.
Keep is mind what Boeing says, and the FAA says, often does not apply to markets outside of the US. The FAA does not conform to many ICAO requirements, they think they know better.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14): No. 5 days of ground school, no full flight simulator time.
That would not be the case here, we will not even let a pilot go from 744 to 748 without ground school, exam, sim/ftd time, nor will our local regulator.
That article says they are in talks with the FAA, no FAA approval either.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6442 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 6): Similar systems is a big requirement, if the systems are significantly different,
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): I said different systems (e,g, fuel, pneumatics, hydraulics), you said different avionics.
Similar systems are not a requirement. The hydraulic systems on the 757 and 767 are completely different in both layout and components.
For instance, the 757 uses the left system as the utility system for landing gear operation and high lift system actuation. In the case of a left engine failure and loss of the associated engine driven pump, power is transfered from the right hydraulic system via power transfer unit (PTU). There is no pneumatically driven hydraulic pump on the 757. The center hydraulic system is used for primary lift controls only and has a RAT to maintain controlled flight in the event of an all engine failure.
The 767 uses the center hydraulic system as the utility system for landing gear operation and high lift system actuation, with its primary power being a pneumatically driven hydraulic pump. In the event of an engine failure, this pump can be driven by bleed air from the remaining engine. There is no PTU on the 767.
Despite these substantial differences, the 757 and 767 have a common type rating because, as Tom says, the pilot does not see the hydraulic system differences in terms of functionality on the flight deck.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10): For common type rating, they only need to be similar to the pilots (controls, flight deck effects, checklists). They can be totally different in actual implementation.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14): They're different types (different type certifications), but they are a common type rating:
"Because the 757 and 767 were developed at the same time, a basic design criteria was that the two airplanes be part of a "family," having common pilot type rating" http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767....html
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7722 posts, RR: 73 Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6361 times:
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 16): Despite these substantial differences, the 757 and 767 have a common type rating because, as Tom says, the pilot does not see the hydraulic system differences in terms of functionality on the flight deck.
Exactly what I was pointing out above, I am talking about the systems from a PILOTS perspective, not mechanics or a design engineer. We are discussing PILOT type ratings.
Systems (and now I have to dumb down my comments for the lowest common dominator) as a pilot uses them HAVE to be similar, so do the checklists that run on those systems. That is why we cannot have pilots flying the 744 and 777 at the same time.
Anyway this thread is about the 744 to 748, as far as our local regulator is concerned, they are not the "same" type, our pilots are required to do ground school, exams, and sim/ftd work.
It is not like any company would throw the keys to a new jet with a sticker price of 200-300 million and tell them to go fly it without some training anyway.
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 19, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6322 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 18): Anyway this thread is about the 744 to 748, as far as our local regulator is concerned, they are not the "same" type
Except the 747-8F *does* share a common type rating with the 747-400. The fact that your local regulator refuses to recognize that doesn't change the type rating the OEM has set and had approved by *their* regulator.
Quoting zeke (Reply 18): our pilots are required to do ground school, exams, and sim/ftd work.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with whether you have a common type rating or not.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6265 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 18): Systems (and now I have to dumb down my comments for the lowest common dominator) as a pilot uses them HAVE to be similar, so do the checklists that run on those systems.
You don't have to dumb anything down, just state the situation correctly. You didn't do that with your initial statement.
Quoting zeke (Reply 6): Similar systems is a big requirement, if the systems are significantly different
If you don't say things correctly, you mis-lead those who are unfamilar with common type rating issues.
Issac Asimov once said that if you can't explain your area of expertise to a layman in words of two or three syllables, then you don't understand it yourself.
[Edited 2010-06-20 06:30:04]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1779 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6283 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7722 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
