Tn55337
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:36 pm

Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:16 am

How large of a size difference in aircraft can you have a common type rating on. Would it be possible to have the new 797 and possibly even a new 737 replacement share a common type rating with the 777/787? If it were possible it could make pilot staffing very flexible for airlines with large Boeing fleets.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12594
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:35 am

It all depends on the regulator, the 777/787, A330/A350 are common type ratings under EASA however they are not under the FAA.

I suspect the 797 will have 787 style avionics suite which will make it more likely to have a common type with the 787. The 737 has too much history (older generation 737s) there to be a common type with newer aircraft. A new 2030 737 replacement will be more likely to have common type.

With larger fleets its is more practical to just have pools of pilots flying one or two types. The real saving is the reduced training required from one to the other like Airbus pioneered with the cross crew qualification concept.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
hitower3
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:48 am

I always wondered about the rationale behind some common type ratings. While I can understand the common rating for Boeing's 757 and 767 (the former's flight deck was even adjusted to match the view you get from the latter's), there are also examples of common type ratings I find doubtful: The MD11 for ex. shared the type rating with the DC-10, while there are significant differences in "user interface" (2 vs. 3 crew, CRT displays, etc.) and flight characteristics (approach speed, control authority, center of gravity).

Just my 0,02€...
Hendric
 
calt03
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:38 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:52 am

hitower3 wrote:
I always wondered about the rationale behind some common type ratings. While I can understand the common rating for Boeing's 757 and 767 (the former's flight deck was even adjusted to match the view you get from the latter's), there are also examples of common type ratings I find doubtful: The MD11 for ex. shared the type rating with the DC-10, while there are significant differences in "user interface" (2 vs. 3 crew, CRT displays, etc.) and flight characteristics (approach speed, control authority, center of gravity).

Just my 0,02€...
Hendric


I wonder if its pilots association, OEM or a combo of both that lobby for the MD11 case?
 
mmo
Posts: 1603
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:20 am

hitower3 wrote:
I always wondered about the rationale behind some common type ratings. While I can understand the common rating for Boeing's 757 and 767 (the former's flight deck was even adjusted to match the view you get from the latter's), there are also examples of common type ratings I find doubtful: The MD11 for ex. shared the type rating with the DC-10, while there are significant differences in "user interface" (2 vs. 3 crew, CRT displays, etc.) and flight characteristics (approach speed, control authority, center of gravity).

Just my 0,02€...
Hendric



Just speaking for the FAA's rationale on type ratings. It really has very little to do with "user interface" as you call it. The FAA looks at flight characteristics. If you look at the 747 vs. 747-400 they are different type ratings. Granted the 400 was a "glass" cockpit but that battle was fought with the 737 family. However the 400 flies very differently than the Classics. Thus the different type rating for the 400 and the same reason why the 400 and the 8 share the same type rating.

Unless I am mistaken, and I could very well be, I think the MD-11 is a different type rating than the DC-10 as they don't fly the same due to differences in the horizontal stab.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:04 am

The MD11 and MD10 can be operated with a common type rating (Fedex)), despite the very different aircraft handling (especially during landing), caused by the reduced sized horizontal stabilizer of the MD11.
IMHO a wrong decision of the FAA, contributing to several incidents/accidents, caused by the pitch unstability of the MD11(F) and main landing gear design issues of both the MD11 and DC(MD)10.

MD 11 (2 man) and DC10 (3 man) have a different type rating.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:47 am

747classic wrote:
The MD11 and MD10 can be operated with a common type rating (Fedex)), despite the very different aircraft handling (especially during landing), caused by the reduced sized horizontal stabilizer of the MD11.
IMHO a wrong decision of the FAA, contributing to several incidents/accidents, caused by the pitch unstability of the MD11(F) and main landing gear design issues of both the MD11 and DC(MD)10.

MD 11 (2 man) and DC10 (3 man) have a different type rating.


Expand a little if you would on the differences between the DC/MD-10 landing gear and the MD11 landing gear. I assume you may be referring to the dual chamber strut ont he MD11 vs. the older single chamber on the early DC10-30 designs, although I think later sn DC10-30's may have shared the dual chamber design. Not aware of any strut issue causing an MD11 accident in and of themselves?
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:06 am

mmo wrote:
... However the 400 flies very differently than the Classics. Thus the different type rating for the 400 and the same reason why the 400 and the 8 share the same type rating.


That's interesting. Did the FAA have their own pilots who flew them and reported on the flight characteristics and thus decided to request different ratings or how has it done technically?
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:25 am

BravoOne wrote:
Not aware of any strut issue causing an MD11 accident in and of themselves?


Put an MD-11 down on the runway too hard, and the MLG will cause failure of the wing spar, which is why the MD-11s have a tendency to turn over onto their backs and explode. Yes, I'm using hyperbole here, but, this fits into the category of 'design flaw'. If designed properly, the landing gear attachment points should fail, and cause failure of the landing gear if the structural limits are exceeded. This isn't the case with the MD-11 - the landing gear strut stays firmly attached, and the entire assembly gets punched through the wing spar, causing failure of the wing.

There have been 4 hull loss accidents due to this behavior (FedEx 14, FedEx 80, Mandarin 642, Centurion 425), and several more landing accidents thanks to the lack of pitch authority from the undersized stabilizer (one additional hull loss that I'm aware of, LH Cargo 8460)...

On the last point: the MD-11s are also difficult to handle at slow speeds. I've heard anecdotally that air traffic controllers hate to deal with the MD-11s due to their high minimum approach speeds. The handling of the airframe is completely different than the DC-10, which is much easier to handle at slow speeds. A common type rating was a mistake, in my view...

So, to the original question: You can take 'common' type ratings pretty far - even if there's little commonality. A good example of the reverse of the MD-11/MD-10 type rating snafu is the common type rating applied to the 737 Classic vs the NG. You can have full analogue flight decks on the Classics - glass was an option on them that many airlines did not take. Yet, they granted the 737s a common type rating. Look at a steam gauge -300 versus a -700, and you'll see what I mean. The planes may handle similarly, but the flight decks and crew interfaces are completely different....
Siren: single white female based @ KLAX. Aviation nerd, political wonk, disability rights activist, German car enthusiast
 
mmo
Posts: 1603
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:49 pm

BartSimpson wrote:
mmo wrote:
... However the 400 flies very differently than the Classics. Thus the different type rating for the 400 and the same reason why the 400 and the 8 share the same type rating.


That's interesting. Did the FAA have their own pilots who flew them and reported on the flight characteristics and thus decided to request different ratings or how has it done technically?
]

Not sure just what pair you are talking about, but the 400 was flown by the FAA before it was certified and the FAA pilots certainly had their input to the certification branch. The 748 is partially FBW, so the flight characteristics can be tweaked to be exactly like the 400.

I was at NW at the time and involved with the launch. The FAA's big worry was going from a 3 to 2 man cockpit and the conversion from Steam gauge to Glass.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:53 pm

mmo wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
mmo wrote:
... However the 400 flies very differently than the Classics. Thus the different type rating for the 400 and the same reason why the 400 and the 8 share the same type rating.


That's interesting. Did the FAA have their own pilots who flew them and reported on the flight characteristics and thus decided to request different ratings or how has it done technically?
]

Not sure just what pair you are talking about, but the 400 was flown by the FAA before it was certified and the FAA pilots certainly had their input to the certification branch. The 748 is partially FBW, so the flight characteristics can be tweaked to be exactly like the 400.

I was at NW at the time and involved with the launch. The FAA's big worry was going from a 3 to 2 man cockpit and the conversion from Steam gauge to Glass.


Thanks - yes, I was refering to the B747-Classic to -400 transition.
 
Tn55337
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:36 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:48 pm

zeke wrote:
It all depends on the regulator, the 777/787, A330/A350 are common type ratings under EASA however they are not under the FAA.

I suspect the 797 will have 787 style avionics suite which will make it more likely to have a common type with the 787. The 737 has too much history (older generation 737s) there to be a common type with newer aircraft. A new 2030 737 replacement will be more likely to have common type.

With larger fleets its is more practical to just have pools of pilots flying one or two types. The real saving is the reduced training required from one to the other like Airbus pioneered with the cross crew qualification concept.

I was thinking of a clean sheet 737 might work (808?) not the current 737.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:28 pm

Siren wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Not aware of any strut issue causing an MD11 accident in and of themselves?


Put an MD-11 down on the runway too hard, and the MLG will cause failure of the wing spar, which is why the MD-11s have a tendency to turn over onto their backs and explode. Yes, I'm using hyperbole here, but, this fits into the category of 'design flaw'. If designed properly, the landing gear attachment points should fail, and cause failure of the landing gear if the structural limits are exceeded. This isn't the case with the MD-11 - the landing gear strut stays firmly attached, and the entire assembly gets punched through the wing spar, causing failure of the wing.

There have been 4 hull loss accidents due to this behavior (FedEx 14, FedEx 80, Mandarin 642, Centurion 425), and several more landing accidents thanks to the lack of pitch authority from the undersized stabilizer (one additional hull loss that I'm aware of, LH Cargo 8460)...

On the last point: the MD-11s are also difficult to handle at slow speeds. I've heard anecdotally that air traffic controllers hate to deal with the MD-11s due to their high minimum approach speeds. The handling of the airframe is completely different than the DC-10, which is much easier to handle at slow speeds. A common type rating was a mistake, in my view...

So, to the original question: You can take 'common' type ratings pretty far - even if there's little commonality. A good example of the reverse of the MD-11/MD-10 type rating snafu is the common type rating applied to the 737 Classic vs the NG. You can have full analogue flight decks on the Classics - glass was an option on them that many airlines did not take. Yet, they granted the 737s a common type rating. Look at a steam gauge -300 versus a -700, and you'll see what I mean. The planes may handle similarly, but the flight decks and crew interfaces are completely different....


Well I still don't know where you're going with this theme. Don't think the landing gear was the cause of the wing spar failure, but rather the spar it's self? I assume you have some experience in the airplanes handling qualities? It does make we wonder when you talk about low speed handling and then go on to take issue with the high approach speeds? Which is it?
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:24 pm

BravoOne wrote:
747classic wrote:
The MD11 and MD10 can be operated with a common type rating (Fedex)), despite the very different aircraft handling (especially during landing), caused by the reduced sized horizontal stabilizer of the MD11.
IMHO a wrong decision of the FAA, contributing to several incidents/accidents, caused by the pitch unstability of the MD11(F) and main landing gear design issues of both the MD11 and DC(MD)10.



Expand a little if you would on the differences between the DC/MD-10 landing gear and the MD11 landing gear. I assume you may be referring to the dual chamber strut ont he MD11 vs. the older single chamber on the early DC10-30 designs, although I think later sn DC10-30's may have shared the dual chamber design. Not aware of any strut issue causing an MD11 accident in and of themselves?


The basic design features of the MLG the DC/MD10 and the MD11 are the same (only beefed up for the highrer operating weights of the MD11).

The MLG design doensn't cause incidents or accidents but in a hard landing (beyond design loads) the MLG design aggrevates the situation and structural wing damage or even a total wing failure may occur.

The main landing gears of both the DC10 and MD11 are overdesigned and not fused for vertical loads. In an overload condition (very hard landing exceeding design loads) the gear will bottom and all loads will be transferred to the rear spar. Conseq. part(s) of the wing will fail and the aircraft may flip-over. Comparable aircraft (747,767,757, A300, etc) are vertical fused or break, without damaging the main wing spars.

NTSB AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT of FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD-11, N611FE at NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT at JULY 31, 1997

See : https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR0002.pdf

Landing Gear Certification.

The MD-11 MLG was designed to break from the wing (fuse) in a drag overload
condition but not in a vertical overload condition. Boeing has stated that this design was
implemented because data indicated that the most likely landing gear overload condition
would occur as a result of striking an obstruction. This “sacrificial shedding” of MLG
assemblies in the aft direction was intended to prevent catastrophic loads being
transmitted to the wing box and causing rupture.
During its investigation of the FedEx Newark accident, the Safety Board reviewed
the circumstances of several accidents involving other wide-bodied airplane types that
greatly exceeded aircraft structural limits. A Martinair DC-10 touched down at Faro,
Portugal, with a sink rate of 17 fps, at vertical energy loads 2.6 times greater than energy
certification requirements for a single MLG. A TWA L-1011 landed in New York at
14 fps, exhibiting vertical energy loads more than twice its certification requirements.
Current landing phase structural design requirements only require consideration of
1.0 g vertical acceleration, small roll angles, and sink rates up to 12 fps. Manufacturers are
also required to consider landing gear overloads in the up and aft directions but have the
option of either fusing or overdesigning the gear for such loads. Several major landing
accidents have now occurred as a result of pilots allowing their airplanes to land with
more adverse combinations of lift, roll angle, and sink rate than those specified in the
regulations. In each accident, a wing broke and a fuel fire erupted. Each of these accidents
involved aircraft whose landing gear were not fused for upward (vertical) acting loads,
which concerns the Safety Board. The Safety Board concludes that the failure modes and
effects for vertically fused and overdesigned landing gear designs may have been
inadequately researched to identify whether, under overload conditions, one design might
provide a safer break-up sequence for the airplane than the other design. Therefore, the
Analysis 67 Aircraft Accident Report
Safety Board believes that the FAA should conduct a study to determine if landing gear
vertical overload fusing offers a higher level of safety than when the gear is overdesigned.
If fusing offers a higher level of safety, the FAA should revise 14 CFR Part 25 to require
vertical overload fusing of landing gear
.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:31 pm

BravoOne wrote:
It does make we wonder when you talk about low speed handling and then go on to take issue with the high approach speeds? Which is it?


747classic gave the perfect technical explanation of my main contention with the MD-11 design...

And to answer your question, "which is it?", it's both. High approach speeds exist because the aircraft's low speed handling characteristics are such that the aircraft will stall out if you slow it further. This is still poor "low speed handling", despite high relative speeds to other airliners.
Siren: single white female based @ KLAX. Aviation nerd, political wonk, disability rights activist, German car enthusiast
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:49 pm

Siren wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
It does make we wonder when you talk about low speed handling and then go on to take issue with the high approach speeds? Which is it?


747classic gave the perfect technical explanation of my main contention with the MD-11 design...

And to answer your question, "which is it?", it's both. High approach speeds exist because the aircraft's low speed handling characteristics are such that the aircraft will stall out if you slow it further. This is still poor "low speed handling", despite high relative speeds to other airliners.


Stall? A little bit of drama me thinks. FedEx fly many thousands of hours every month in he MD11 without screw ups. When they do, they are dramatic for sure but to knowledge no authority has blamed the airplane for the accidents themselves. I do agree that you need to bring you best game to town when you fly it but then that's true for any number of airplanes.

How much experience do you have flying the DC10 or MD11, or is your information mostly just from websites like this one?
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:28 pm

BravoOne wrote:
Stall? A little bit of drama me thinks. FedEx fly many thousands of hours every month in he MD11 without screw ups. When they do, they are dramatic for sure but to knowledge no authority has blamed the airplane for the accidents themselves. I do agree that you need to bring you best game to town when you fly it but then that's true for any number of airplanes.

How much experience do you have flying the DC10 or MD11, or is your information mostly just from websites like this one?


No drama. MD-11 approach speeds are typically 10-15 knots faster than another aircraft of equivalent weight.

My ex-boyfriend (and still friend) is a UPS MD-11 driver who has racked up a couple thousand hours in type. I trust what he has to say about it. How much flying experience do you have, and on which equipment? Or is your information mostly just gleaned from websites like this one?
Siren: single white female based @ KLAX. Aviation nerd, political wonk, disability rights activist, German car enthusiast
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:15 pm

Well I only have a little more than 5000+ in the MD11 and another 4500 in the DC10 which hardly make me an expert in todays world although much of it was in the airplane giving OE. Probably sat through more than a few landings for the first time with a new pilot. I will agree that freighter weights can significantly increase approach speeds but everyone recognizes that issue and plans accordingly.

Since asked, I have another 4,500 on the 1011 and 3,500 on the 777. You see I'm old guy but still learning new ticks once and awhile:) Most pilots on the MD11 like or liked the airplane. Some did not, none the less it was a good ride unless you were afraid of your shadow.

Obviously you have an interest in aviation. That's good. Are you a pilot??
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:07 pm

hitower3 wrote:
I always wondered about the rationale behind some common type ratings. While I can understand the common rating for Boeing's 757 and 767 (the former's flight deck was even adjusted to match the view you get from the latter's), there are also examples of common type ratings I find doubtful: The MD11 for ex. shared the type rating with the DC-10, while there are significant differences in "user interface" (2 vs. 3 crew, CRT displays, etc.) and flight characteristics (approach speed, control authority, center of gravity).

Just my 0,02€...
Hendric


I won't say you are totally wrong because I can only speak for the airline I flew with BUT we never had a common type between the MD-11 and the DC-10 just for the reasons you point out. We did have a common type between the MD-11 and the MD-10 because the MD-10 had the same cockpit (small differences) and of course no S/O. The big problem a lot of guys including me had was that once you were out of the cockpit it was just a DC-10 so it handled very differently than the -11. For me I flew the -11 99% of the time so that odd flight or a sim ride in the MD-10 was interesting. One of the biggest differences was the A/T between the two. When I flew the MD-10 I always disconnected the A/T on final.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:24 pm

Siren wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Not aware of any strut issue causing an MD11 accident in and of themselves?


Put an MD-11 down on the runway too hard, and the MLG will cause failure of the wing spar, which is why the MD-11s have a tendency to turn over onto their backs and explode. Yes, I'm using hyperbole here, but, this fits into the category of 'design flaw'. If designed properly, the landing gear attachment points should fail, and cause failure of the landing gear if the structural limits are exceeded. This isn't the case with the MD-11 - the landing gear strut stays firmly attached, and the entire assembly gets punched through the wing spar, causing failure of the wing.

There have been 4 hull loss accidents due to this behavior (FedEx 14, FedEx 80, Mandarin 642, Centurion 425), and several more landing accidents thanks to the lack of pitch authority from the undersized stabilizer (one additional hull loss that I'm aware of, LH Cargo 8460)...

On the last point: the MD-11s are also difficult to handle at slow speeds. I've heard anecdotally that air traffic controllers hate to deal with the MD-11s due to their high minimum approach speeds. The handling of the airframe is completely different than the DC-10, which is much easier to handle at slow speeds. A common type rating was a mistake, in my view...

So, to the original question: You can take 'common' type ratings pretty far - even if there's little commonality. A good example of the reverse of the MD-11/MD-10 type rating snafu is the common type rating applied to the 737 Classic vs the NG. You can have full analogue flight decks on the Classics - glass was an option on them that many airlines did not take. Yet, they granted the 737s a common type rating. Look at a steam gauge -300 versus a -700, and you'll see what I mean. The planes may handle similarly, but the flight decks and crew interfaces are completely different....



Actually it was not just a hard landing that would cause main gear failure; it was a hard landing with a side load on the gear. We were grilled in the sim when doing x-wind landings to 0 out ALL drift. I can say of the crashes I know off personally it was always a side load and not necessarily the first touchdown but the subsequent bounce with a side load. If you research it there are at least 2 MD-10s that had the same gear failure on landing with a side load. As far as approach speeds yes it was high but not such a big deal unless you were close to max ldg wgt. At max Vapp was 168. When light it could be close to 140. I never considered it difficult at all, you just flew the speed and that was it regardless of it being a -11 or MD-10. The -11 was certainly more sensitive on the controls than the MD-10. I much more preferred the -11 than the MD-10 especially in landing but like I said I flew it 99% of the time. The worst situation I think is one where a pilot flies the MD-10 99% of the time then hops in an -11.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:30 pm

From the NTSB Accident report. "Captains over-control of the airplane during the landing and his failure to go-around fro a de-stabilized flare."

This was the cause of the accident, and the wing spar failure occurred when the load exceeded the original Part 25 design criteria. As someone once said, the airplane has a glass chin. and does not tolerate less than ideal airmanship.

Flying with the AT engaged, and clicking them off at 100 AGL is just begging for trouble IMO
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:54 pm

CosmicCruiser wrote:

Actually it was not just a hard landing that would cause main gear failure; it was a hard landing with a side load on the gear. We were grilled in the sim when doing x-wind landings to 0 out ALL drift. I can say of the crashes I know off personally it was always a side load and not necessarily the first touchdown but the subsequent bounce with a side load. If you research it there are at least 2 MD-10s that had the same gear failure on landing with a side load. As far as approach speeds yes it was high but not such a big deal unless you were close to max ldg wgt. At max Vapp was 168. When light it could be close to 140. I never considered it difficult at all, you just flew the speed and that was it regardless of it being a -11 or MD-10. The -11 was certainly more sensitive on the controls than the MD-10. I much more preferred the -11 than the MD-10 especially in landing but like I said I flew it 99% of the time. The worst situation I think is one where a pilot flies the MD-10 99% of the time then hops in an -11.


As mentioned before, the main gear is fused for an excessive side load at the both the DC(MD)10 and the MD11 and could cause a main gear failure in an overload condition.
However a (bounced) landing with an excessive vertical load (beyond certification limits) can cause a wingbox failure, with the possibilty of a fuselage flip over, as demonstated at several DC10 / MD11 accidents..
On simular accidents with other aircraft of the same era only the main gear failed but the the wingbox was not compromised.

But back on topic. What about the FAA decision to grant one type rating for the MD10 and the MD11, despite large aerodynamic (and handling) differences, especially during landing.
Economy first, safety second ?
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:12 pm

This maybe a dumb question but doesn't the MD10, fly like the DC10, albeit with the two pilot flight deck?
I have worked with a few FedEx pilots and there seems to be mixed opinions of this rating issue?
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:38 pm

BravoOne wrote:
This maybe a dumb question but doesn't the MD10, fly like the DC10, albeit with the two pilot flight deck?
I have worked with a few FedEx pilots and there seems to be mixed opinions of this rating issue?


The MD10 is a converted DC10 with a 2 pilot flight deck.
Several Fedex DC10-10 and DC10-30 aircraft were converted to produce a "one type rating"fleet together with the MD11, to save cockpit crew costs and maintenance costs.
On the MD10 the original 3 crew flight deck lay-out of the DC10 has been changed into the 2 crew MD11 "look alike" flight deck, but with a few hardware and operational differences..
However the aerodynamical differences between the two airframes could not be altered, resulting in different flight handling of both sub-types. (Note : in modern FBW aircraft the aircraft handling can be tweaked to produce the same "aircraft feel".)
Especially during the most critical landing phase the aircraft handling of both subtypes differs, a receipe for pilot error at the wrong moment.(bad weather, fatique, time zones, previous flights performed at the other subtype, etc.)
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:52 pm

I know the difference between the airframes, just wanted to know about the different handling qualities. The 757/767 share a common type and while Boeing has done a lot to mitigate the differences there is no way a 400K 767-300ER flies the same as 245K 757-200.

As I mentioned earlier there seems to be a significant difference of opinion between the FedEx pilot regarding the significance of these handling qualities?

You say "Several" when describing the number of MD11;s converted. I thought it was a significant number of the existing DC10 fleet?
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:37 pm

BravoOne wrote:
From the NTSB Accident report. "Captains over-control of the airplane during the landing and his failure to go-around fro a de-stabilized flare."

This was the cause of the accident, and the wing spar failure occurred when the load exceeded the original Part 25 design criteria. As someone once said, the airplane has a glass chin. and does not tolerate less than ideal airmanship.

Flying with the AT engaged, and clicking them off at 100 AGL is just begging for trouble IMO


I don't know what accident you're referring to so I'll just say of the 2 I know, they hit hard for 2 different reasons and came down with a slight yaw. The next contact was gear failure and as I also said our trg stressed very heavily to have no drift in a x-wind ldg as well as changes to a bounced ldg being a mandatory go around.

I never said I would click off the A/T at 100' but any way I had better landings in the MD-10 without A/T because I retarded them slower and got the nose up before idle. And as far as your comment, we actually were told because of the dependance on automation we should select low work load flights and fly totally manual landings as often as we could. I had no problem with the MD-11 A/T.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:39 pm

BravoOne wrote:
This maybe a dumb question but doesn't the MD10, fly like the DC10, albeit with the two pilot flight deck?
I have worked with a few FedEx pilots and there seems to be mixed opinions of this rating issue?


yes the MD-10 flies like a DC-10.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:39 pm

BravoOne wrote:
I know the difference between the airframes, just wanted to know about the different handling qualities. The 757/767 share a common type and while Boeing has done a lot to mitigate the differences there is no way a 400K 767-300ER flies the same as 245K 757-200.

As I mentioned earlier there seems to be a significant difference of opinion between the FedEx pilot regarding the significance of these handling qualities?

You say "Several" when describing the number of MD11;s converted. I thought it was a significant number of the existing DC10 fleet?


65 DC-10's are converted to MD10, see : https://www.planespotters.net/productio ... type=MD-10
39 MD10's are still active, together with 59 MD11's

Within the combined MD10/MD11F Fedex fleet the MTOW varies from 440K (MD10-10) to 630,5K (MD11F), the MLW varies between 375K (MD10-10) and 491,5 (MD11F, but additional to the weight variations there are also aerodynamical differences.
Last edited by 747classic on Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:45 pm

BravoOne wrote:
As I mentioned earlier there seems to be a significant difference of opinion between the FedEx pilot regarding the significance of these handling qualities?

You say "Several" when describing the number of MD11;s converted. I thought it was a significant number of the existing DC10 fleet?


Dc-10s were converted not MD-11s.

I said the handling was different being that the MD-11 was much more sensitive. Like I said I think the worst case scenario would be the guy that flew the MD-10 mostly and rarely saw an MD-11. I actually flew left and right seat in the DC-10 and thought it was great but once I moved to the MD-11 it felt so much better that I had to work at a good ldg in the MD-10.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:54 pm

CosmicCruiser wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
From the NTSB Accident report. "Captains over-control of the airplane during the landing and his failure to go-around fro a de-stabilized flare."

This was the cause of the accident, and the wing spar failure occurred when the load exceeded the original Part 25 design criteria. As someone once said, the airplane has a glass chin. and does not tolerate less than ideal airmanship.

Flying with the AT engaged, and clicking them off at 100 AGL is just begging for trouble IMO


I don't know what accident you're referring to so I'll just say of the 2 I know, they hit hard for 2 different reasons and came down with a slight yaw. The next contact was gear failure and as I also said our trg stressed very heavily to have no drift in a x-wind ldg as well as changes to a bounced ldg being a mandatory go around.

I never said I would click off the A/T at 100' but any way I had better landings in the MD-10 without A/T because I retarded them slower and got the nose up before idle. And as far as your comment, we actually were told because of the dependance on automation we should select low work load flights and fly totally manual landings as often as we could. I had no problem with the MD-11 A/T.


That report was from the EWR accident. The only NRT report I have see was by the Japanese which was very well don IMO. I did accuse you of anything so get over that, please.:)
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2826
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:56 pm

CosmicCruiser wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
As I mentioned earlier there seems to be a significant difference of opinion between the FedEx pilot regarding the significance of these handling qualities?

You say "Several" when describing the number of MD11;s converted. I thought it was a significant number of the existing DC10 fleet?


Dc-10s were converted not MD-11s.

I said the handling was different being that the MD-11 was much more sensitive. Like I said I think the worst case scenario would be the guy that flew the MD-10 mostly and rarely saw an MD-11. I actually flew left and right seat in the DC-10 and thought it was great but once I moved to the MD-11 it felt so much better that I had to work at a good ldg in the MD-10.


Sorry, I meat to say MD11''s
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: Common type rating, how far can you go?

Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:52 pm

BravoOne wrote:
CosmicCruiser wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
From the NTSB Accident report. "Captains over-control of the airplane during the landing and his failure to go-around fro a de-stabilized flare."

This was the cause of the accident, and the wing spar failure occurred when the load exceeded the original Part 25 design criteria. As someone once said, the airplane has a glass chin. and does not tolerate less than ideal airmanship.

Flying with the AT engaged, and clicking them off at 100 AGL is just begging for trouble IMO


I don't know what accident you're referring to so I'll just say of the 2 I know, they hit hard for 2 different reasons and came down with a slight yaw. The next contact was gear failure and as I also said our trg stressed very heavily to have no drift in a x-wind ldg as well as changes to a bounced ldg being a mandatory go around.

I never said I would click off the A/T at 100' but any way I had better landings in the MD-10 without A/T because I retarded them slower and got the nose up before idle. And as far as your comment, we actually were told because of the dependance on automation we should select low work load flights and fly totally manual landings as often as we could. I had no problem with the MD-11 A/T.


That report was from the EWR accident. The only NRT report I have see was by the Japanese which was very well don IMO. I did accuse you of anything so get over that, please.:)


didn't take anything as an accusation, no issues here. the EWR crash was, let's say, pilot induced and I'll leave it at that. again no problem here.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: planemechanic, QuarkFly, RandallStephens, rmilstre, Wacker1000 and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos