4 ms·

It isn't just the FAA and Boeing. Where I work many of us have a "common type rating" between the A330 and A350 (-900 and -1000). While I commend Airbus for ma

It isn't just the FAA and Boeing. Where I work many of us have a "common type rating" between the A330 and A350 (-900 and -1000). While I commend Airbus for making them similar they are in no way common enough to justify the minuscule training course. Flying the A350 you get lots of brilliant features like brake-to-vacate, auto wing leveling during a crosswind landing (when you de-crab), differential flap setting in the cruise for CP control and better fuel efficiency. And so on. However, coming back to the 330 after lots of 350 flying it's very easy to forget just what you have and don't have. Both have very different cockpit layouts. Even something simple like cockpit lighting is totally different. They have significantly different limitations, speeds and procedures for dealing with abnormal situations. Additionally, the A350 still has a fair share of teething problems. The list of Temporary Abnormal Behaviors is quite long and hasn't shortened much in the last couple of years. Throw some fatigue into the mix and it's not much fun. My company's error rates have increased on the "common fleet" by almost triple. Yet our regulator thinks it's all good.

poof131 8y ago
> My company's error rates have increased on the "common fleet" by almost triple. That is Terrifying. It seems like the FAA has optimized for allowing the Manufacturers and Airlines to streamline changes and operations while slowly letting safety deteriorate. Perhaps these accidents will force what seems like a needed change in type ratings.
- sib 8y ago
  From GP's comment, it appears that s/he is not referring to the FAA. "It isn't just the FAA and Boeing."
  - keko039ndnfm 8y ago
    He/she is saying “It’s the FAA and $plane_manufacturers.”
  - OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago
    "they" is a historic and accepted gender neutral pronoun.
  - av_throwaway_20 8y ago
    It isn't the FAA. It's a country in Asia to give you a hint. If you google for the fleets mentioned you can probably work it out!
raverbashing 8y ago
> However, coming back to the 330 after lots of 350 flying it's very easy to forget just what you have and don't have. Yeah that seems to be an important issue. You easily "get used" to a feature and I wouldn't be surprised if a pilot used to the 350 got in a bad situation on the 330. Are those error rates taken from FOQA? And is the company raising the issue?
- av_throwaway_20 8y ago
  They come from a regular internal audit and QAR data. They can set triggers on certain items. For example, certain configurations (or lack of) at certain altitudes can trigger a data point for the safety department.
improbable22 8y ago
I'm curious to hear more. I understand that common type means that much less training is required to fly the new plane for the first time. But once you are trained for several kinds of aircraft, does the airline treat them differently? For instance, will they happily schedule you to fly anything you are type-certified for, tomorrow? Or do they keep you on one type for a block of time, perhaps with a simulator day to remember before switching?
- av_throwaway_20 8y ago
  They treat them as the same type with only a few conditions regarding recency. For example, out of three simulator checks you need to do one in each type (330/330/350 or 350/350/330 for example). Also need to do at least one takeoff and landing in each (in addition to the three takeoffs and landings in 90 days), in 60 days. Otherwise they treat them the same. I routinely get rostered to fly one type on a short sector, get in, change aircraft to the other type and fly it somewhere else. Literally only an hour to adapt to the other type.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
Temporary Abnormal Behaviors, now there is a nice piece of jargon
- av_throwaway_20 8y ago
  My favorite: Controlled Sunlight Blocking System (CSBS) aka: window shades
carlmr 8y ago
>Both have very different cockpit layouts. Even something simple like cockpit lighting is totally different. They have significantly different limitations, speeds and procedures for dealing with abnormal situations. This sounds like a UX design problem. Things that are the same should be the same, things that are different should be different. The most dangerous thing from a UX perspective is always the slightly different, especially in sequences. Everybody knows if their way to work and way to the store is partially the same it's easy to take the wrong fork when you want to go to the store. So if the things are slightly different, it often makes sense to make the sequence different from the beginning. Otherwise people often make these common path mistakes.

poof131 8y ago

> My company's error rates have increased on the "common fleet" by almost triple. That is Terrifying. It seems like the FAA has optimized for allowing the Manufacturers and Airlines to streamline changes and operations while slowly letting safety deteriorate. Perhaps these accidents will force what seems like a needed change in type ratings.

sib 8y ago
From GP's comment, it appears that s/he is not referring to the FAA. "It isn't just the FAA and Boeing."
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  He/she is saying “It’s the FAA and $plane_manufacturers.”
- OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago
  "they" is a historic and accepted gender neutral pronoun.
- av_throwaway_20 8y ago
  It isn't the FAA. It's a country in Asia to give you a hint. If you google for the fleets mentioned you can probably work it out!

raverbashing 8y ago

> However, coming back to the 330 after lots of 350 flying it's very easy to forget just what you have and don't have. Yeah that seems to be an important issue. You easily "get used" to a feature and I wouldn't be surprised if a pilot used to the 350 got in a bad situation on the 330. Are those error rates taken from FOQA? And is the company raising the issue?

av_throwaway_20 8y ago
They come from a regular internal audit and QAR data. They can set triggers on certain items. For example, certain configurations (or lack of) at certain altitudes can trigger a data point for the safety department.

improbable22 8y ago

I'm curious to hear more. I understand that common type means that much less training is required to fly the new plane for the first time. But once you are trained for several kinds of aircraft, does the airline treat them differently? For instance, will they happily schedule you to fly anything you are type-certified for, tomorrow? Or do they keep you on one type for a block of time, perhaps with a simulator day to remember before switching?

av_throwaway_20 8y ago
They treat them as the same type with only a few conditions regarding recency. For example, out of three simulator checks you need to do one in each type (330/330/350 or 350/350/330 for example). Also need to do at least one takeoff and landing in each (in addition to the three takeoffs and landings in 90 days), in 60 days. Otherwise they treat them the same. I routinely get rostered to fly one type on a short sector, get in, change aircraft to the other type and fly it somewhere else. Literally only an hour to adapt to the other type.

xkcd-sucks 8y ago

Temporary Abnormal Behaviors, now there is a nice piece of jargon

av_throwaway_20 8y ago
My favorite: Controlled Sunlight Blocking System (CSBS) aka: window shades

carlmr 8y ago

>Both have very different cockpit layouts. Even something simple like cockpit lighting is totally different. They have significantly different limitations, speeds and procedures for dealing with abnormal situations. This sounds like a UX design problem. Things that are the same should be the same, things that are different should be different. The most dangerous thing from a UX perspective is always the slightly different, especially in sequences. Everybody knows if their way to work and way to the store is partially the same it's easy to take the wrong fork when you want to go to the store. So if the things are slightly different, it often makes sense to make the sequence different from the beginning. Otherwise people often make these common path mistakes.