In Europe, 777 and the 787 has a common type rating. But, do pilots in the fleet actually fly both? Like you fly a 777 today, 787 on Monday, 777 again on Thursday and so on. Or does the common type rating just mean, a 777 pilot can be converted to a 787 pilot only with a short differences training and vice versa, but they typically are assigned to just one fleet depending on demand. Which one is it? I'd be surprised if it's the first, because if you look at other aircraft with common type rating, like A320 series or the 757/767, you can see that flight deck layout is practically the same so is the human interaction with the systems, but not the case with the 777/787.

Trimeresurus wrote:

In Europe, 777 and the 787 has a common type rating. But, do pilots in the fleet actually fly both? Like you fly a 777 today, 787 on Monday, 777 again on Thursday and so on. Or does the common type rating just mean, a 777 pilot can be converted to a 787 pilot only with a short differences training and vice versa, but they typically are assigned to just one fleet depending on demand. Which one is it? I'd be surprised if it's the first, because if you look at other aircraft with common type rating, like A320 series or the 757/767, you can see that flight deck layout is practically the same so is the human interaction with the systems, but not the case with the 777/787.

Pilots can fly both, even on the same day. That's what the common type rating enables. If you required differences to go between them after the initial differences course, it would not be a common rating.

Same as we fly the A330 and A350, even on the same day. Sure, there are systems differences and cockpit differences, but the basic principles are the same. The A350 has a few more modes and other widgets, but most of that stuff is evolutionary, not completely different. In the end, the MFD is basically a much more advanced MCDU, and the flight plan page is still the flight plan page even if it looks fancier and has more features..

Starlionblue wrote:

Trimeresurus wrote:

In Europe, 777 and the 787 has a common type rating. But, do pilots in the fleet actually fly both? Like you fly a 777 today, 787 on Monday, 777 again on Thursday and so on. Or does the common type rating just mean, a 777 pilot can be converted to a 787 pilot only with a short differences training and vice versa, but they typically are assigned to just one fleet depending on demand. Which one is it? I'd be surprised if it's the first, because if you look at other aircraft with common type rating, like A320 series or the 757/767, you can see that flight deck layout is practically the same so is the human interaction with the systems, but not the case with the 777/787.

Pilots can fly both, even on the same day. That's what the common type rating enables. If you required differences to go between them after the initial differences course, it would not be a common rating.

Same as we fly the A330 and A350, even on the same day. Sure, there are systems differences and cockpit differences, but the basic principles are the same. The A350 has a few more modes and other widgets, but most of that stuff is evolutionary, not completely different. In the end, the MFD is basically a much more advanced MCDU, and the flight plan page is still the flight plan page even if it looks fancier and has more features..

Why is the A330 not a common type rating with the A320? They look so similar

Trimeresurus wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Trimeresurus wrote:

In Europe, 777 and the 787 has a common type rating. But, do pilots in the fleet actually fly both? Like you fly a 777 today, 787 on Monday, 777 again on Thursday and so on. Or does the common type rating just mean, a 777 pilot can be converted to a 787 pilot only with a short differences training and vice versa, but they typically are assigned to just one fleet depending on demand. Which one is it? I'd be surprised if it's the first, because if you look at other aircraft with common type rating, like A320 series or the 757/767, you can see that flight deck layout is practically the same so is the human interaction with the systems, but not the case with the 777/787.

Pilots can fly both, even on the same day. That's what the common type rating enables. If you required differences to go between them after the initial differences course, it would not be a common rating.

Same as we fly the A330 and A350, even on the same day. Sure, there are systems differences and cockpit differences, but the basic principles are the same. The A350 has a few more modes and other widgets, but most of that stuff is evolutionary, not completely different. In the end, the MFD is basically a much more advanced MCDU, and the flight plan page is still the flight plan page even if it looks fancier and has more features..

Why is the A330 not a common type rating with the A320? They look so similar

They're quite different in size for one thing, which has an impact on handling. But the A320 and the A330 can indeed be flown together with "mixed fleet flying", which is kind of a step below common type.

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... l#benefits

Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.

LH707330 wrote:

Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.

That's a very good question. I don't know. You can do "Mixed Fleet Flying" with A330 and A340, simply alternating the checks between them. In practice, that is not much different compared to a common rating.

I just fly the things, though. I'm sure there are a lot of finicky regulatory details I don't know about.

They're certainly more alike than A330 and A350, which do have a common rating.

Starlionblue wrote:

Trimeresurus wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Pilots can fly both, even on the same day. That's what the common type rating enables. If you required differences to go between them after the initial differences course, it would not be a common rating.

Same as we fly the A330 and A350, even on the same day. Sure, there are systems differences and cockpit differences, but the basic principles are the same. The A350 has a few more modes and other widgets, but most of that stuff is evolutionary, not completely different. In the end, the MFD is basically a much more advanced MCDU, and the flight plan page is still the flight plan page even if it looks fancier and has more features..

Why is the A330 not a common type rating with the A320? They look so similar

They're quite different in size for one thing, which has an impact on handling.

Interesting. I would have thought any Airbus after the A310 would feel the same regardless of type given the FBW and sidestick with no feedback.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Trimeresurus wrote:

Why is the A330 not a common type rating with the A320? They look so similar

They're quite different in size for one thing, which has an impact on handling.

Interesting. I would have thought any Airbus after the A310 would feel the same regardless of type given the FBW and sidestick with no feedback.

I would say they are very similar, but not exactly the same. Of course, the FBW system adjusts for differences, but we're still talking aircraft of different sizes and weights, with different wings.

Compared to the A330, the A350 needs slightly less flare input, especially the -1000, as the pitch attitude on touchdown is lower.

In the engine out on the runway case, The A350 puts in rudder automatically to help counteract yaw, while the A330 does not. You need much more pedal in the A330.

We're talking very small differences, to be fair.

I've never flown the smaller 'buses, but I have read that even between A320 and A321 there is slightly different handling on approach and landing.

Starlionblue wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.

That's a very good question. I don't know. You can do "Mixed Fleet Flying" with A330 and A340, simply alternating the checks between them. In practice, that is not much different compared to a common rating.

I just fly the things, though. I'm sure there are a lot of finicky regulatory details I don't know about.

They're certainly more alike than A330 and A350, which do have a common rating.

Yeah, weird for sure. Maybe it's a regulatory thing....

Starlionblue wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

They're quite different in size for one thing, which has an impact on handling.

Interesting. I would have thought any Airbus after the A310 would feel the same regardless of type given the FBW and sidestick with no feedback.

I would say they are very similar, but not exactly the same. Of course, the FBW system adjusts for differences, but we're still talking aircraft of different sizes and weights, with different wings.

Compared to the A330, the A350 needs slightly less flare input, especially the -1000, as the pitch attitude on touchdown is lower.

In the engine out on the runway case, The A350 puts in rudder automatically to help counteract yaw, while the A330 does not. You need much more pedal in the A330.

We're talking very small differences, to be fair.

I've never flown the smaller 'buses, but I have read that even between A320 and A321 there is slightly different handling on approach and landing.

They do try to make them handle similarly, by, for example, giving the same roll or pitch rate for a given input. That said, wing loading, inertia, and other factors will govern how the aircraft responds to those inputs. If you have a light A319 at 60 tons and you haul back on the stick, the plane will behave more sprightly than a 100t A321 with the same wing. The 321 will want to keep going the same way before it responds.

The 320 and 330 actually handle quite differently - you may put all computers you want, but you can't beat physics... They are different enough to warrant a separate type-rating in my opinion and moving from one to another requires some training. Though the 320/330 combination is successfully operated by many airlines in Mixed Fleet Flying - I think more than any other type. Technically mixed fleet flying between 737NG and 767/777/787 is possible as well - but I haven't heard of anyone doing it (I think except TUI)

Coming back to the original question - 777 and 787 cockpits are actually much more similar than they look - the 787 just has larger displays, but that's pretty much it. All the procedures, checklists, manoeuvres etc. are the same and the cockpit layout is almost identical. The biggest difference is the HUD on the 787 and lack thereof on the 777. Other differences are just details (different tiller, no VSD and IAN function on the 777) and a 787 pilot feels right at home in the T7 and vice versa. The 777X cockpit will be almost identical to the 787

Can't vouch for handling, never flown the T7 - it can't be too different though. I was told the 777 needs very little flare during landing, compared to the 787. Otherwise - same thing.

LH707330 wrote:

Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.

If I had to bet (no documents to support), I'd say it's 2 vs 4 engines. Different architecture for hydraulics, electric, resulting differences in case of abnormal procedures. Cockpit is one thing, procedures make up a different story.

Cheers,
Adam

gloom wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.

If I had to bet (no documents to support), I'd say it's 2 vs 4 engines. Different architecture for hydraulics, electric, resulting differences in case of abnormal procedures. Cockpit is one thing, procedures make up a different story.

Cheers,
Adam

I think that's the likely explanation.

That being said, the A330 and A350 are way more different in systems like hydraulic and electric than the A330 vs the A340.

ECAM is pretty good at giving a common structure to follow for the non-normals.

Trimeresurus wrote:

In Europe, 777 and the 787 has a common type rating.

I believe the numbers of 787 and 777 in a fleet can not be too different for it to work. For instance KL can operate their 29 777 and 18 787 as a mixed fleet, while AF with 68 777 and only ten 787 can not. Pilots would not be operating a 787 frequently in that case.

Actually, proficiency requirements for operating The 787 and 777 are very lax. As per OSD document (which is the basis of all MFF/SFF programs in EASA world), landings are entirely cross-credited between those two and there is only a requirement to do 1 flight with the HUD every six months - so technically you could fly the 777 all the time and the 787 only once in 6 months... Or you could fly only the 787 and be legal to fly the 777 whenever required. Unless the airline chooses to impose stricter requirements.

thepinkmachine wrote:

Actually, proficiency requirements for operating The 787 and 777 are very lax. As per OSD document (which is the basis of all MFF/SFF programs in EASA world), landings are entirely cross-credited between those two and there is only a requirement to do 1 flight with the HUD every six months - so technically you could fly the 777 all the time and the 787 only once in 6 months... Or you could fly only the 787 and be legal to fly the 777 whenever required. Unless the airline chooses to impose stricter requirements.

Thanks, maybe AF did just that.
https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/air ... 81.article
It could change in the future though.

Starlionblue wrote:

gloom wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.

If I had to bet (no documents to support), I'd say it's 2 vs 4 engines. Different architecture for hydraulics, electric, resulting differences in case of abnormal procedures. Cockpit is one thing, procedures make up a different story.

Cheers,
Adam

I think that's the likely explanation.

That being said, the A330 and A350 are way more different in systems like hydraulic and electric than the A330 vs the A340.

ECAM is pretty good at giving a common structure to follow for the non-normals.

I'd also be curious to see how different the systems are between A330/340 and the 757/767, which were common-type. I'd think that latter pair had more differences than the former.

LH707330 wrote:

I'd also be curious to see how different the systems are between A330/340 and the 757/767, which were common-type. I'd think that latter pair had more differences than the former.

When you look at A330 system schematics, you can easily tell they were originally designed for a 4-engine airplane and adopted into a twin. Especially the electrics, hydraulics and fuel - their architecture just cries out for an extra pair of engines!

The end result is pretty good though - A330 has a lot of redundancy and is very reliable. They just work.

thepinkmachine wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

I'd also be curious to see how different the systems are between A330/340 and the 757/767, which were common-type. I'd think that latter pair had more differences than the former.

When you look at A330 system schematics, you can easily tell they were originally designed for a 4-engine airplane and adopted into a twin. Especially the electrics, hydraulics and fuel - their architecture just cries out for an extra pair of engines!

The end result is pretty good though - A330 has a lot of redundancy and is very reliable. They just work.

Probably for parts commonality as well. Now I'm curious about the 75 and 76.

Another thing that might make a A320+A330 common rating difficult is the rather different heights of the cockpit. The bottom of the windshield is over a metre higher on the A330 compared to the A320. On the other hand, the A350 is only just over 50cm higher than the A330.

The 757 and 767 cockpits are specifically designed to be at the same height. That's why you step down into the 757 cockpit and up into the 767.

Starlionblue wrote:

The 757 and 767 cockpits are specifically designed to be at the same height. That's why you step down into the 757 cockpit and up into the 767.

Not sure how important that is, the height in the flare between a -200 and -300 is different because of the fuselage length and landing attitude relative to the runway.

zeke wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

The 757 and 767 cockpits are specifically designed to be at the same height. That's why you step down into the 757 cockpit and up into the 767.

Not sure how important that is, the height in the flare between a -200 and -300 is different because of the fuselage length and landing attitude relative to the runway.

Never flew the 767-200 but if you tried to flare a 767-300 like any 757 you weren’t going to like the results. The sweet spot to flare the 757 (smooth TD and no float) would be a controlled crash on the 767.

DualQual wrote:

Never flew the 767-200 but if you tried to flare a 767-300 like any 757 you weren’t going to like the results. The sweet spot to flare the 757 (smooth TD and no float) would be a controlled crash on the 767.

Makes sense, different cockpit heights, and inertia.

Starlionblue wrote:

Another thing that might make a A320+A330 common rating difficult is the rather different heights of the cockpit.

I may be missing something but I had thought that the A320 and A330 were indeed a common rating. I have a friend who flew for WOW air of iceland and i met him during one his layovers at BWI. He came in on a A321 then flew back on a A330 the next day. It may have been part of a mixed fleet operation that you had mentioned earlier.

N47 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Another thing that might make a A320+A330 common rating difficult is the rather different heights of the cockpit.

I may be missing something but I had thought that the A320 and A330 were indeed a common rating. I have a friend who flew for WOW air of iceland and i met him during one his layovers at BWI. He came in on a A321 then flew back on a A330 the next day. It may have been part of a mixed fleet operation that you had mentioned earlier.

I don't think MFF or common type matters much day-to-day. As you say people fly the types pretty much mixed.

The devil is typically in the details though. Probably differences regarding training and check events, certification of the types at the airline etc.

N47 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Another thing that might make a A320+A330 common rating difficult is the rather different heights of the cockpit.

I may be missing something but I had thought that the A320 and A330 were indeed a common rating. I have a friend who flew for WOW air of iceland and i met him during one his layovers at BWI. He came in on a A321 then flew back on a A330 the next day. It may have been part of a mixed fleet operation that you had mentioned earlier.

I don't think MFF or common type matters much day-to-day. As you say people fly the types pretty much mixed.

The devil is typically in the details though. Probably differences regarding training and check events, certification of the types at the airline etc.

N47 wrote:

I may be missing something but I had thought that the A320 and A330 were indeed a common rating. I have a friend who flew for WOW air of iceland and i met him during one his layovers at BWI. He came in on a A321 then flew back on a A330 the next day. It may have been part of a mixed fleet operation that you had mentioned earlier.

That is known as mixed fleet flying, two different type ratings, the A330/A350 and 787/777 under EASA regulations (Europe) are considered “common type rating”, like the 757/767.

In the US, the A330, A350 and 787, 777 are not common type ratings, the only way to currently fly both at the same time is mixed fleet flying. In the US, the 757/767 is a common type rating.