Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilots: Most Difficult Acft On Single Type Rating?  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3205 posts, RR: 13
Posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

So I wasn't able to get my full question into the topic header. My question is as follows:

Per all your own opinions, what aircraft have the most difficult transition - in regards to flying the two different types - that are on a shared type-rating certificate.

Just a couple examples:

CRJ-200 vs CRJ-700/900

737-200 vs 737-300 vs 737-700

757 vs 767

A340-300 vs A340-600

A319 vs A321


I'm not so much interested in the systems differences, just mostly the flight characteristics. It always seems to me that despite a near identical cockpit, the CR2 and CR7 fly *very* differently, especially on landing with the CR2 lacking leading edge devices.

So what do you all think?? What are some of the most difficult similar-types to 'learn', that share a common type-rating??

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5154 times:

I'll start with the MD-11/MD-10

User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1630 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717 must be an interesting transition. I'm sure several of our resident airline pilots can elaborate on the training involved.

I would think the A319-A321 is the simplest of transitions - identical cockpit and very similar control laws and handling qualities. I've heard similar from 757/767 crews - the two aircraft are both easy to fly and train for.



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offline330guy From Ireland, joined Nov 2010, 453 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 1):
I've heard similar from 757/767 crews - the two aircraft are both easy to fly and train for.

Iv heard that so long as you remember which one your in you'll be fine, They handle very differently, the 757 being a lot more "hands on" when flying manually (iv never flown either im only going on what ive been told)



Aircraft flown: a300/10/20/21/30/40, b727/37/47/57/67/, DC9, MD80-90, l1011, f50, atr42/72, shorts360, pc12
User currently offlineKPWMSpotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4762 times:

Quoting N243NW (Reply 2):
I've heard similar from 757/767 crews - the two aircraft are both easy to fly and train for

One of my flight instructors is a 757/767 captain with DL, he described the difference between the two as "power steering vs. no power steering". He claims that the hydraulically boosted controls on the 767 make the control inputs much lighter and subtle, while the 757 requires much greater control inputs to gain the same results. He claims that he's had a few instances of momentary panic upon rotation when he's gently tugged the yoke on a 757 expecting to leap off the ground, only to have nothing happen until he gave the wheel a good heave towards his chest.

I can imagine that the CRJ-700 to CRJ-200 transition can be tricky too. I've felt plenty of very hard CRJ-200 landings, probably caused by an insufficient flare and landing flat.

If you consider "no type rating required" as a single type rating, I'm sure that there are plenty of GA aircraft types which would take the cake for the most difficult transition. Theoretically, with a Private SEL you could step out of an old Cessna 150 and straight into a glass cockpit Cirrus SR20 without any legally required additional training. Add a few more ratings and you could go from Piper Cubs to Piper Navajos without being typed. I think that's a bit outside the scope of your question though...



I reject your reality and substitute my own...
User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

Quoting KPWMSpotter (Reply 4):
Cessna 150 and straight into a glass cockpit Cirrus SR20

Or from a 150 to a PC-12, assuming you have a high performance, complex, and high altitude endorsement. Scary thought, indeed!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tango3 - Team Ninervictor



[Edited 2011-11-01 13:13:34]

User currently offlinemrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4558 times:

I'm most interested in the feedback amongst the *seasoned* 737 drivers out there as to what it feels like to switch from the 737-200 to a 737NG (excl. the -900). My experience has been limited to the classics.


"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlineseven3seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 318 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

The NG is like driving a Cadillac after driving nothing but a 1972 Honda all your life.

The seats are comfortable and easily adjustable.
The throttles are smooth and instantly responsive.
The plane is solid and doesnt rattle around.
Tons of information on the 6 screen EFIS is easily referenced in a single visual sweep.
The power is great and climb rate much higher.
We can fly 4,000 feet higher.
We can fly a lot farther.
We can fly a lot faster.

One of the biggest differences is it sits a bit higher and because its longer it has a slightly different center of rotation around the gear making it a little more difficult to make a nice touchdown.

But all systems are basically the same compared to the classic

[Edited 2011-11-01 20:17:59]


My views are mine alone and are not that of any of my fellow employees, officers, or directors at my company
User currently offlinemrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 7):
The seats are comfortable and easily adjustable.
The throttles are smooth and instantly responsive.
The plane is solid and doesnt rattle around.
Tons of information on the 6 screen EFIS is easily referenced in a single visual sweep.
The power is great and climb rate much higher.
We can fly 4,000 feet higher.
We can fly a lot farther.
We can fly a lot faster.

This all makes sense (plus the NG's are much quieter thanks to those vortex tabs up front), but what does it feel like when you've got your hands on everything and the FCU isn't tracking anything? How does she fly manually? What's the trim-tab response like? Equitable? When you say the throttles are more responsive, can you elaborate? All the JT8D's I've ever pushed around have been quick on the response rate to rapid throttle adjustments.

I've heard that the differences in seat-of-your-pants flying a classic -200 vs. an NG is the difference between an 80's model Nissan and a late 90's model Mercedes, in that both drive great but one feels more in contact with the road despite the road noise (Nissan), and the other is slightly more "disconnected" and quieter/smoother (Mercedes). This made sense to me because a late 90's model Mercedes was a slick ride at the time, but the drive-by-wire steering and throttle made it feel like you were driving the car in a simulator.

Thoughts?



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4516 times:

My dad (a DL 757/767 pilot) said flying the 753 is hard because they just got them from NW and he hardly runs into them. Just longer though.

Aren't the 330s and 340s on the same rating? That must be hard...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4195 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4481 times:

The 757 and 767 was a simple transition in between aircraft- the 767 is a finger tip flying airplane while the 757 is more solid feeling on the controls.

The biggest difference is in the landing perspective. Make sure you mentally go over it in your head beforehand otherwise it could be a doozy.


The 737-700 and 800 are simple to transition in between. The 800 typically kind of plops down on a landing unless you get lucky. The 700 lands much smoother and performs way better, but going from flying the 757/767 to the ancient 737NG cockpit was absolutely depressing!

I'm now on the A319/320 which is an absolute dream to fly, every landing is a greaser with minimal effort, and a no brainer in between the two models we fly.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4420 times:

Quoting 330guy (Reply 3):
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 1):
I've heard similar from 757/767 crews - the two aircraft are both easy to fly and train for.

Iv heard that so long as you remember which one your in you'll be fine, They handle very differently, the 757 being a lot more "hands on" when flying manually (iv never flown either im only going on what ive been told)

Interestingly I didn't post this. My post was regarding the MD-11 vs. the MD-10. I don't know anything about the 757/767.


User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1527 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4376 times:

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 7):

What kind of ref speeds do you guys have on the heavier NGs? I've heard they were high, pretty much into CRJ-200 territory.


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4361 times:

I don't know about CRJ speeds, but 800s routinely approach at 140ish knots, compared to 130ish and lower speeds of 700s. I don't know about 900s.


The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4195 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4273 times:

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 12):
What kind of ref speeds do you guys have on the heavier NGs? I've heard they were high, pretty much into CRJ-200 territory.

For the 737-800, at normal weights, ref+5 is typically in the low 150's.

The 737-700 is typically in the upper 130's.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offline330guy From Ireland, joined Nov 2010, 453 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4232 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 11):
Interestingly I didn't post this.

I do apologise, I meant to quote reply 2, I must have hit quote on your post by accident.

Sorry for any confusion.



Aircraft flown: a300/10/20/21/30/40, b727/37/47/57/67/, DC9, MD80-90, l1011, f50, atr42/72, shorts360, pc12
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Quoting KPWMSpotter (Reply 4):
I can imagine that the CRJ-700 to CRJ-200 transition can be tricky too. I've felt plenty of very hard CRJ-200 landings, probably caused by an insufficient flare and landing flat.

I actually think the transition is much more difficult going the other direction as far as landing. The CRJ-200 has trailing link gear that softens the impact. You just need to get it close to the runway. The gear does the rest. It's like landing a big Beechcraft Duchess. The CRJ-700 doesn't have the trailing link gear. The other issue is the sight picture is vastly different, which can result in a late flare in the CRJ-700. You get stuck in a position where you need to flare more in order to decrease the rate of descent, but if you do you will drive the mains right into the pavement. The third issue is the approach speeds. If you've been flying the CRJ-200, the approach feels way too slow on the 700 and combined with the higher pitch attitude during the approach you really feel like you need to add power to avoid stalling. It takes a little getting used to.

The only other nice thing about the CRJ-200 is hand flying. The 200 is a great plane to hand fly. Stable but still light on the controls, with an amazing roll rate for a 25t aircraft. It's like a driving a sports car, where the 700 is like driving a bus.

Everything else is easier going from CRJ-200 to CRJ-700. The 700 is much more automated. You don't have to remember to turn the generators on, you don't have to remember to arm the ignition for engine start, you don't have to change the bleeds back and forth from engine to APU, you don't have to keep advancing the thrust levers during the climb (700 has FADEC), and it has enough power to not be a flying roadblock for Boeings and Airbuses.

Quoting Fabo (Reply 13):
I don't know about CRJ speeds, but 800s routinely approach at 140ish knots, compared to 130ish and lower speeds of 700s. I don't know about 900s.

140 knots is a typical ref for the CRJ-200. The CRJ-700 is about ten knots slower.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pilots: Most Difficult Acft On Single Type Rating?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cost Of A Type Rating Or Refresher Course On Busin posted Fri Mar 27 2009 12:56:20 by AirbusCanada
Maintanance On A Single Aircraft Of One Type? posted Tue Jan 2 2007 21:06:45 by Jetfan
B-747-800 Type Rating posted Sun Oct 30 2011 06:29:45 by jetskipper
747-8 Cockpit And Type Rating posted Sun Jun 26 2011 09:29:37 by RJSampson
Type Rating And Different Engines posted Wed May 18 2011 16:14:52 by A380Heavy
Largest Hour To Cycle Ratio On A Single Airplane? posted Sat Feb 12 2011 10:03:32 by c5load
Type-Rating posted Tue Jan 4 2011 08:00:07 by b741
DC3 Type Rating posted Wed Dec 22 2010 19:26:20 by Qantas747300
Which Type Rating? posted Fri Nov 26 2010 12:17:50 by DC18
Getting An SIC CE550 Type Rating With Low Time posted Fri Jun 18 2010 12:48:40 by Fly2HMO
Largest Hour To Cycle Ratio On A Single Airplane? posted Sat Feb 12 2011 10:03:32 by c5load
Type-Rating posted Tue Jan 4 2011 08:00:07 by b741
DC3 Type Rating posted Wed Dec 22 2010 19:26:20 by Qantas747300

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format