Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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..
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
LH707330 wrote:Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LH707330 wrote:Any reason the 330 and 340 are not the same type rating? They're the same plane with different engines.
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
Trimeresurus wrote:In Europe, 777 and the 787 has a common type rating.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Starlionblue wrote:Another thing that might make a A320+A330 common rating difficult is the rather different heights of the cockpit.
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.
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.
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.