737 goes down off Hawaii

mikecweb said:
Laughs in LR-JET and HS125. Even my MD type. The avionics are mostly the same between the MD10 and MD11 but that's about it. I mean yes they both have three engines. But all that being said I know which airplanes I can fly. I don't think that's too out there to be expected of a holder of said type rating.
Click to expand...


But you’re still company limited, so you will fly what FedEx has. Say I leave and go to Delta, get the 737. Am I getting a short course for already being typed? Or am I going through the entire full course, full sims, and full final rides (MV, LOE, etc)? And since that’s the case, what good was having the type?

There’s legal to do, and then there’s whether it’s smart to do. I won’t be jumping into any classics without training (differences at least).
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Meh. I’ve worked at only two airlines (3 if you want to call the buying airline as separate), and they were single types. I’ve never studied different types ratings or what you need to fly what plane. Stuff like flying a 717 shows up as a DC9 on your certificate is not something I knew, instead learned from an AirTran guy. For the 737, the MAX training was a requirement as part of the re-certification for flight and that was a strict/regiment program consisting of ground school and sim time.

It was a forced displacement and we fly NGs only and then this year the MAX. That’s what my training consisted of and I don’t know about the classics. In the same way I flew the CRJ-200, have the CL65 designation on my license, but do not know the full extent of what that type covers. Never flew the CRJ-900, I believe was differences only, but I don’t know if the CL65 covers any Bombardier business jet. Didn’t apply to me, so never found out.

If that makes me a lesser pilot to you, “whoops - my bad.”
Click to expand...
For somebody that spends as much time posting on this site as you do, this is a little surprising considering how many times this topic has been covered here.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
It is a nice illustration of how ridiculous type ratings vice “is this a good idea” is, too.

I am legally (by the FAA) permitted to fly a King Air 300 (presumably EFIS 85), a King Air 350 (EFIS 85), the King Air 350i (ProLine), the ProLine Fusion 350i model, the Garmin-fitted 350s and presumably the 360 because nothing ever changes according to either the Kansas farm boys (or the whiz kids in Seattle, in the case of the 737; same gripe, although the flight characteristics of none of the airplanes I listed here which enjoy a common type have been as bastardized or radically altered as the 737Max). That’s despite having the brain stem power only for the ProLine 21 avionics.

@MikeD pointed out he’d have little idea how to work the NG avionics (paraphrasing slightly), but is still allowed to fly it. And, with differences and sim after only two smoking craters, the MAX.

It’s pretty ri-god-damn-diculous.
Click to expand...

To be even more specific, the 737s are sufficiently the same as is comes to the basic jet. I’m sure I could hop into a -700 and get it started up and take it around the VFR pattern just fine. But operating it in the NAS and/or in IMC efficiently or safely, is where the problem and absolute need for differences training comes. Like you said, the avionics. Sure, I can look at the NG glass screen and know what I’m seeing, but how to specifically use them and operate them in any efficient manner is something I wouldn’t know.

Like you mention the KA350. My agency has both PR21 and Fusion. Why they didn’t standardize, I have no idea. Pilots go to training based on what their location has, since they’re not mixed in individual locations. Great cost savings having to go to only one course. But no one seemed to have thought about crews being sent TDY to other locations and oops…..they didn’t get differences training. They look the same on the outside, but inside is a whole another story.
 
Going to try to get this thread back on track.

What are the odds of cutting out the FDR/CVR, if at all? Has an (almost, the front did fall off) intact plane ever sunk in this deep of water requiring divers to cut out a FDR from a intact plane before? With two surviving crew will they even bother with salvage?
 
MikeD said:
To be even more specific, the 737s are sufficiently the same as is comes to the basic jet. I’m sure I could hop into a -700 and get it started up and take it around the VFR pattern just fine. But operating it in the NAS and in IMC efficiently or safely, is where the problem and absolute need for differences training comes. Like you said, the avionics. Sure, I can look at the NG glass screen and know what I’m seeing, but how to specifically use them and operate them in any efficient manner is something I wouldn’t know.

Like you mention the KA350. My agency has both PR21 and Fusion. Why they didn’t standardize, I have no idea. Pilots go to training based on what their location has, since they’re not mixed in individual locations. Great cost savings having to go to only one course. But no one seemed to have thought about crews being sent TDY to other locations and oops…..they didn’t get differences training. They look the same on the outside, but inside is a whole another story.
Click to expand...
Right. Yay for the same basic flight characteristics, as regards the 737 (more or less; sometimes more, sometimes, well, smoking craters times two).

I’m sure I can jump in the things and fire them up and do passably, but I also don’t think it’s the best idea as, again, the missed approach brain-stem power is not tuned for anything other than the PL21. I’d want to at least sit on the ground and twiddle the knobs some before blasting off into the weather alone, if nothing else. “Not crashing” is a very low level of proficient and safe operations.

The “half our fleet is X and half our fleet is Y” does seem like a bone-head procurement decision or a procurement goof more than anything else.
 
mikecweb said:
Laughs in LR-JET and HS125. Even my MD type. The avionics are mostly the same between the MD10 and MD11 but that's about it. I mean yes they both have three engines. But all that being said I know which airplanes I can fly. I don't think that's too out there to be expected of a holder of said type rating.
Click to expand...

Lear 23/24, then go hop into a Lear 55.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
Going to try to get this thread back on track.

What are the odds of cutting out the FDR/CVR, if at all? Has an (almost, the front did fall off) intact plane ever sunk in this deep of water requiring divers to cut out a FDR from a intact plane before? With two surviving crew will they even bother with salvage?
Click to expand...

don’t know why they can’t just recover it, at least the empennage or even the engines, if not the whole thing. The NTSB can make a request to the USN supervisor of salvage for that. They can even dive to it as a gas dive.

we’ve recovered aircraft and munitions, and even parts of submarines, from far far deeper locations.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
I’d actually argue (and the examiners at the big box school all agree) that it’s actually a requirement to know your limitations of what you can and can not fly with a type rating.

My C525S rating allows me to fly the old CJ, CJ1, CJ2, CJ3, 3+, CJ4, M2, and 2+. All with wildly different performance, avionics etc. all single pilot. Same with the CE500, BE350…or how about the fact my Astra type rating got me a G-100 type rating at the same time even though I don’t know anything about it.

Doing a quick logbook check I have flown 35 different types of aircraft. But I actually enjoy flying and consider my self an aviator. The more types the better.

I can see how someone who doesn’t know what 737 they can fly probably doesn’t consider themselves the same.
Click to expand...

I don’t consider myself an aviator? Sounds like an ego boast. The more types the better, the worst offender is Barry Schiff. That, along with his constant complaining of being forced out by the FAA at age 60. You can get a vanity plate with “aviat8r” or some other combination.
 
Last edited:
After flying the 737-300, 700/800, and MAX8 I would say the biggest jump in both flying characteristics, systems and avionics was the Classics to the NG. The wing is totally different, different limitations and the company had dumbed down the 300 so it could be flown like a 200. Think physically removing the auto throttle servos, and for a long time not using LNAV/VNAV, etc. The only really noticeable physical difference I remember with the MAX is the speed brake lever being much lighter and more sensitive since they are fly-by-wire. MCAS was only added because at a very remote part of the flight envelope there was a difference in control feel in the flight controls, detected by a computer. (This is not me letting Boeing off the hook for how they managed the problem btw).

Easily the worst type I have for differences is the LR-JET, even within the 35 alone there are differences with pressurization, electrical, type of thrust reversers, and on and on. I got to fly a 25 once and it was a real freak, Calspan’s in-flight-simulator for their upset recovery and prevention training course in Buffalo. That thing was a blast!
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
But you’re still company limited, so you will fly what FedEx has. Say I leave and go to Delta, get the 737. Am I getting a short course for already being typed? Or am I going through the entire full course, full sims, and full final rides (MV, LOE, etc)? And since that’s the case, what good was having the type?

There’s legal to do, and then there’s whether it’s smart to do. I won’t be jumping into any classics without training (differences at least).
Click to expand...
I have no such restriction on my certificate
 
I mean, it’s mostly a mental excercise. Bottom line if you go to another airline here, you’re getting fully trained as if you had no experience on that same plane type.

Yes I can say I’m legally certified to fly all variants of 737s. But in actual day to day practice? No. And nor would I fly a classic unless I got differences training. “Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s wise.”
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
…
Yes I can say I’m legally certified to fly all variants of 737s. But in actual day to day practice? No. And nor would I fly a classic unless I got differences training. “Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s wise.”
Click to expand...
When you say “Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s wise” in the context that you did, it sounds like you think it is legal to fly a classic without differences training(?). I don’t know for a fact if that is true in the 737 or not, but I do know that my Learjet 45 type rating allows me to fly all variants (40, 45, 70, 75), but only with the appropriate differences training as spelled out (in excruciating detail) in the Flight Standards Board report. Admittedly I’m not sure if the FSB report requirements apply to purely Part 91 operations, but they sure do for 135, and I would assume something similar for 121 ops.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
I’d actually argue (and the examiners at the big box school all agree) that it’s actually a requirement to know your limitations of what you can and can not fly with a type rating.

My C525S rating allows me to fly the old CJ, CJ1, CJ2, CJ3, 3+, CJ4, M2, and 2+. All with wildly different performance, avionics etc. all single pilot. Same with the CE500, BE350…or how about the fact my Astra type rating got me a G-100 type rating at the same time even though I don’t know anything about it.

Doing a quick logbook check I have flown 35 different types of aircraft. But I actually enjoy flying and consider my self an aviator. The more types the better.

I can see how someone who doesn’t know what 737 they can fly probably doesn’t consider themselves the same.
Click to expand...
Are they all certified airplanes? Engines for thrust? wings for lift? Manipulation of four forces? Management of energy?

Act accordingly. Not to be a dick, but essentially and ultimately, an airplane is an airplane. All the stuff in between essential and ultimate is critical for commerical NAS operations, but really just a bit of book work and rather insignificant to the bigger picture of understanding and controlling a flying machine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top