Perhaps this is a silly question but are the FAA inspectors pilots themselves and type-rated for the aircraft whose crew procedures they are monitoring?
Not every inspector who rides in the cockpit is a pilot - I've had maintenance inspectors sitting up there before. Even the pilots usually have no more than a general aviation background, with a few exceptions of former military pilots or maybe a Continental pilot who didn't go back after the 1983 strike.
Most of them are not type rated on the aircraft and really have very little idea about what's going on with the airplane. You're much more likely to get critique like "try not to let your shoulder harnesses release so fast" than "you were about 1,000' late in selecting managed speed"...
As everyone has said, great thread and thanks to the pilots! After two to three days of reading I have made it to page 45!
Here is my question, is it possible for a commercial airliner to fly upside down? I think I read of an emergency incident of a flight over the pacific headed to SFO where this happened. Is all the cargo secured for such an event?
DBack, we train for a lot of scenarios in the simulators. We do things that you wouldn't want to do on purpose in an airplane. The sims fly pretty true to life, in fast they're so good that we can train up through becoming fully certified to fly as a Captain in them without ever flying the real airplane.
One scenario we train for is inadvertent wake turbulence encounters, which can turn any airplane upside down if they're strong enough. Training used to include those severe wake turbulence encounters, and we would, in some cases, continue a wake-induced roll all the way around, rather than fight the roll. Kind of "go with the flow".
When we have a little extra sim time after completing required maneuvers, we occasionally get to do things beyond the training program (you could call it messin' around), and in the past I've rolled 727s, 737s, 757s, 767s, and Airbus A319/320s. Sims, I mean, not the real airplane. Of course, the sim itself won't rotate all the way around, so we turn off the motion feature of the sim for rolls, but it demonstrates that the airplane can quite easily be rolled.
Years ago, a crew was ferrying a 737-200 somewhere with only themselves and some flight attendants on board, and the Captain decided to roll the plane. He did so, against the will of the copilot, and without telling the F/As, and they got a little banged up. They reported it to the company, and the pilots got a little time on the beach for that one.
About 20 years ago, I flew with a 727 Captain whom had been that copilot! He said it rolled just fine, no more than about 1.5 Gs coming around the bottom, but the "unpaid vacation" made it a little inconvenient.
Sustained inverted flight would be pretty much impossible.
FreshAirborne
__________________
These are my own observations and/or opinions, and not necessarily those of the Air Line Pilots Association or UAL Corp.
Here you're confusing VNAV with the inertial navigation system. VNAV (vertical navigation) is a function of the FMC (Flight Management Computer) and is independent of the IRUs.
How do you get the glide slope on a non-precision approach then for the VNAV? Or does the FMC simply determine the CDI position based on actual altitude relative to the target altitude based on the current position of the a/c along the approach path? I'm guessing the latter. I never looked up how the glide slope is determined for the new GPS WAAS VNAV approaches whether it is internally generated or externally.
I know UA pilots are qualified by arcraft model (A319/320, 757/767, etc.) but it is based on the same versions of each plane.
So here is my question: If UA took on a new aircraft version... lets say the 777-200, would UA's pilots be able to fly the 777-300 without too much "re-training" or would it require any training at all??
__________________
Lots of people go to school for 7 years......
Location: 5 min. from ITH, 1:20 from SYR, but will drive for E+
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhayes_1780
I know UA pilots are qualified by arcraft model (A319/320, 757/767, etc.) but it is based on the same versions of each plane.
So here is my question: If UA took on a new aircraft version... lets say the 777-200, would UA's pilots be able to fly the 777-300 without too much "re-training" or would it require any training at all??
I have a related question I've always wondered about. As a GA pilot, I know things feel a bit differently, particularly in the landing flare, in airplanes that are otherwise quite similar (like a C152 and C172). Is that true also for common-cockpit airliners, like A319/A320's, or 757/767? I know there's a common type rating for these planes, but as a practical matter is it hard to switch back and forth between them? Are there subtle feel differences between, say A319's and A320's?
I know UA pilots are qualified by arcraft model (A319/320, 757/767, etc.) but it is based on the same versions of each plane.
So here is my question: If UA took on a new aircraft version... lets say the 777-200, would UA's pilots be able to fly the 777-300 without too much "re-training" or would it require any training at all??
The exact training requirements I wouldn't know, it depends on the differences in the two models of 777. My guess is it wouldn't require new training for the 777, just a differences training before you flew it as folks went through training.
Airbus fleets are much easier to train and fly since all airbus cockpits tend to be set up the same from what I hear. We are typed in the A320 but fly the 320 and 319 since there are really very few differences to the pilot. The 757and 767 pilots are dual type rated through training since the cockpits are pretty simular. At SWA, they are typed in the 737 (some in the old -200 models) yet fly everyone of them from the -300 to the NG -800's.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
I have a related question I've always wondered about. As a GA pilot, I know things feel a bit differently, particularly in the landing flare, in airplanes that are otherwise quite similar (like a C152 and C172). Is that true also for common-cockpit airliners, like A319/A320's, or 757/767? I know there's a common type rating for these planes, but as a practical matter is it hard to switch back and forth between them? Are there subtle feel differences between, say A319's and A320's?
I've flown the airbus and the 757 and 767 fleets. It really isn't difficult to move back and forth between aircraft flying wise. The airbuses have very few differences between them flying wise. Where it does affect us is knowing different FMC's or different limit numbers. I didn't have any problems landing a 757 and then a 767. Their trucks are different so you get different feels on landing, but other than that it's just landing a plane. The Airbus 320 doesn't tend to float as much as a 319, but really no difference in their landing feel.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
How do you get the glide slope on a non-precision approach then for the VNAV? Or does the FMC simply determine the CDI position based on actual altitude relative to the target altitude based on the current position of the a/c along the approach path? I'm guessing the latter. I never looked up how the glide slope is determined for the new GPS WAAS VNAV approaches whether it is internally generated or externally.
It doesn't use the same glideslope display, except on the Airbus, but even there the display is changed when an Approach Nav (Airbus for VNAV approach) is used. On the Boeings, there is a vertical deviation indicator on the map display. The display is calculated from the FMC, based on current aircraft height, distance to the runway, and the runway threshold crossing altitude.
To answer the other question, the differences between the flying characteristics of the 757 and 767 are definitely noticeable, but it's no problem switching between the two. The 757 has a much heavier feel in pitch, and if you're not used to a 767, you can tend to rotate too quickly on takeoff. They land somewhat differently as well, but the cockpit and procedures are very similar. The differences between the A319 and A320 are much more subtle.
Location: Nearly equidistant from EWR and PHL. Stranger in a strange land - a Devils fan in Phlyers country.
Programs: PWP Chief of Les Clefs d':rolleyes:, Sarcasm Diamond, Stupidity Hater Titanium, CO Silver
Posts: 13,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumpfs
the flying characteristics of the 757 and 767 are definitely noticeable, but it's no problem switching between the two. The 757 has a much heavier feel in pitch, and if you're not used to a 767, you can tend to rotate too quickly on takeoff.
Is the difference in feel that you cite because of the 757 having so much more power available? We've all seen that RNZAF 757 do show passes...
At SWA, they are typed in the 737 (some in the old -200 models) yet fly everyone of them from the -300 to the NG -800's.
SWA's fleet is made up of a roughly equal number of 737-300 and 737-700 aircraft plus 25 737-500s. The last 737-200 was retired a year or two ago. I was a passenger on SWA on the -200's last day and many of the agents and F/A were wearing pajamas for the occasion. (I guess because they were putting the -200 to bed?)
In addition to the upgraded avionics in the cockpit, the -700 fleet has nicer passenger seats and larger overhead bins. I definitely prefer the -700 as a passenger.
SWA's fleet is made up of a roughly equal number of 737-300 and 737-700 aircraft plus 25 737-500s. The last 737-200 was retired a year or two ago. I was a passenger on SWA on the -200's last day and many of the agents and F/A were wearing pajamas for the occasion. (I guess because they were putting the -200 to bed?)
In addition to the upgraded avionics in the cockpit, the -700 fleet has nicer passenger seats and larger overhead bins. I definitely prefer the -700 as a passenger.
In order to get hired by SWA, you must have a type rating in the 737 already. SWA won't pay for it or hire you without it. So most folks run up to a place in Dallas to get their type rating done on their own dime. Since they are paying, they usually do it in the 737-200 model. Glad SWA got rid of all the -200's though, what a rust bucket.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Could someone comment on this thread...particularly UA's "obligation" to let someone off...
Not sure if there is an FAA rule to this that I know of, but if a passenger makes a big deal that they want off the flight, I don't want them on my flight. Quicker to deplane them there, than to take off and have to divert into somewhere else to have them removed if they cause a disturbance. It could have been one of her kids was claustrophobic or afraid of flying and just couldn't do it. Who knows, but I don't want to take anyone up in the sky who doesn't want to be there.
Looks to me that the crew and United did everything right here. Let her off, but then you have to deal with the security issues of making sure her bags are off and that the back of the plane where she sat is swept for security.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
