767 Production Question

Then let us compute the currency requirements.

A pilot cannot fly over 1000 hours per year:
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-503-FAR.shtml

Which means 250 hours in 3 months on average.

With 16 hour legs, it means 15 flights in 3 months.

Between a crew of 4, each of them needs 3 landings in 90 days: 12 total in 90 days.

But a 4 pilot crew cannot possibly fly over 16 hours. I cannot find flight time restrictions for a crew of 5 pilots.

We are diverging far from the original topic, but hey….what the heck.

Getting enough landings for long haul crews is actually a very complex topic, and one that has been the subject of considerable conversation for the last few years. A bit of history: One fine day approximately 10-12 years ago, a heavily loaded UAL 747 departed KSFO and experienced an engine failure very shortly after takeoff. The Pilot Flying(PF) was a relief First Officer and he did not fly the airplane properly. In short, he corrected for the yaw with aileron instead of rudder, which is a big no-no (it causes the flight spoilers to deploy). The airplane’s climb performance was severely restricted due to heavy weight and the poor manipulation of the flying controls. The airplane almost hit San Bruno Mountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_Mountain

In the subsequent investigation, it became apparent that the subject First Officer had not conducted an actual (non simulator) takeoff in a B747 in almost three (3) years! UAL researched their pilot qualification database and found that as many as 50 were in a similar situation, with the record holder being eight (8!!) years. It seems that there is a pilot subculture that finds relief flying appealing and purposely bid it. In a normal rotation, the “A” Captain gets first choice on takeoff/landing, then the “A” FO, then the “B” Captain, and finally, the lowly relief “B” FO. Turns out there are almost no landings or takeoffs left over for them. The problem is exacerbated when particular pilots fly only very long flights all the time (correspondingly fewer takeoffs/landings).

It was also found in the ensuing investigation this type of engine failure (it was accompanied by high vibration) was not easy to reproduce in a simulator, and furthermore, when attempted, was very damaging to the simulator! One other quick hit: how much attention should be given to the whole topic given the increasingly remote chance of engine failure due to the engines getting more and more reliable?

Airlines scrambled to amend their requirements in the wake of this incident. Some chose to make their pilots go back to the simulator more often. Others worked with their unions to include some short hops in more rotations. (This was problematic becuase there are only a limited number of short haul wide body trips). Others chose to start counting very closely the number of tkofs/ldgs that individuals had recently, and required the “a” crews to give up some to a relief crew member when necessary.

Long story short, this is a very complex topic, but I hope I have illustrated how complex seemingly simple issues can become for operators (airlines). Often, the manufacturers (both A and B) seem to overlook these in their glowing press releases about the capabilties of their wonderful new birds.

One final point: The UAL incident clearly illustrates that simply adding more pilots does not necessarily increase safety, a point apparently lost on the “5 pilot crowd” in the unions at the carriers that are doing Ultra Long Haul Flying.

Final final point: Sometimes, wedging in a short flight for a long haul airplane can be very productive. For example, lets say a 777 comes into ATL and is scheduled to be down for 8 hours prior to it’s next long haul flight. A round trip to KMCO can easily be accomplished in less than half that time. Doing so generates additional revenue (getting more revenue out of the airframe), provides a lot of seats to a popular vacaction destination, and facilitates pilot training/qualification. Thus, Singapore may have “other” reasons for relative short haul, apparently un-economic flying for their A340-500’s.

Then let us compute the currency requirements.

A pilot cannot fly over 1000 hours per year:
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-503-FAR.shtml

Which means 250 hours in 3 months on average.

With 16 hour legs, it means 15 flights in 3 months.

Between a crew of 4, each of them needs 3 landings in 90 days: 12 total in 90 days.

But a 4 pilot crew cannot possibly fly over 16 hours. I cannot find flight time restrictions for a crew of 5 pilots.

Singapore Airways is said to fly their A340-500s between Singapore and Jakarta because otherwise the pilots would forget how to land.

Now you’re just being silly. :rolleyes:

Keep in mind also, that pilots flying very long haul flights, with augmented/extra crew, don’t often get to log landings, because there are so few landings and extra pilots on to facilitate rest time. Being qualified on a smaller type allows them to get some actual practice (non simulator) between long haul legs on the widebody. So some of the pilots like this concept also.

Singapore Airways is said to fly their A340-500s between Singapore and Jakarta because otherwise the pilots would forget how to land.

FYI, from the Airbus website:

“Another advantage of Airbus commonality is a pilot’s ability to be current on more than one Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft type at a time. This is known as Mixed Fleet Flying and enables a pilot rated on an A340 to switch from very long-haul operations to short- or medium-haul flights at the controls of the A320 Family. This opens new crew scheduling possibilities and provides a mix of flying opportunities that is highly appreciated by pilots.”

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/commonality.html

I suppose that might be theoretically possible some day. Its pretty doubtful to happen any time soon though. Thats a pretty big difference in size.

However, as I have said, Airbus has greatly streamlined and standardized pilot qualification between the 320/330/340 already. It is a great selling point for them to convince an airline to purchase the entire product line. It’s not quite the “common rating” that the 757/762,3 have but its pretty good nonetheless.

Keep in mind also, that pilots flying very long haul flights, with augmented/extra crew, don’t often get to log landings, because there are so few landings and extra pilots on to facilitate rest time. Being qualified on a smaller type allows them to get some actual practice (non simulator) between long haul legs on the widebody. So some of the pilots like this concept also.

Hope this was helpful.

Indeed it was, so in theory you might find yourself flying an A318 one day and an A380 the next… ?

I’m sure I read somewhere that the 764 flight deck was kept pretty much like that of the 763/2 and 757 for commonality. Just updated slightly. The 757/767 family is, AFAIK, the only family where you truely can hop from one cockpit to another on one typerating?! I think Delta and Continental wanted that to remain true for the 764 also.

The 764 cockpit displays are larger than the 757/767 legacy cockpits, and they are laid out similar to the 777, ie., side by side on the EFIS, and one on the pedestal on the EICAS. The 764 also has more modern and updated FMS, with GPS and RNP RNAV capabilities, but it’s systems are still not as modern as the 777. Thus the 764 is a hybrid.

I have been informed that at DL, the 757/763 is one crew category, the 764 another, and the 777 another. I am told that at Continental they were able to combine the 764 cockpit qualification with one of the others, I don’t know which (the 777 or 757/767), thus helping in cross utilisation.

It is accurate that the 757/763 has a dual cockpit qual that allows pilots to “hop” from on to the other. This has been very useful for the airlines. It is my understanding that Airbus has taken it one step further and greatly standardized displays and procedures all the way from the A320 to the A330 to the A340. I am not sure if any airlines are actually cross crewing all three types concurrently, but even in a transition scenario, the training time to switch types is greatly reduced.

Hope this was helpful.

The 764 also has a much less advanced cockpit technology than the 777. Boeing updated it from the 757/767 cockpit but refused to do a complete upgrade ala the 777. I’m talking about things like FMS functionality (stuff that pilots like).

I’m sure I read somewhere that the 764 flight deck was kept pretty much like that of the 763/2 and 757 for commonality. Just updated slightly. The 757/767 family is, AFAIK, the only family where you truely can hop from one cockpit to another on one typerating?! I think Delta and Continental wanted that to remain true for the 764 also.

I don’t have the data for the DC-10-10 right in front of me but it would seem that it would be rather easy to find on the internet.

I tried and could not. If you knew where to look, it´d be nice.

Having said that, since LGA flights are domestic, the fuel load is considerably less, hence the weight is less.

They are not required to be domestic, I think. There IS a perimetre rule – except for Denver, and Saturdays, and charters.

What is the wing area of DC-10-10? The wing areas are 368 sq m for DC-10-30, 329 sq m for Tristar 500, 321 sq m for Tristar 1, and mere 297 sq m for B767-400ER.

Also, how will 767-400ER handle with one engine out at Denver or La Guardia?

I don’t have the data for the DC-10-10 right in front of me but it would seem that it would be rather easy to find on the internet. The other numbers you quote seem about right but I can’t vouch for their veracity.

My statement was that the wing loading was too high on the 764, ie., the wing is too small for the weight, compared to other airliners, so I think we agree.

The engine out scenario you mention is well defined in the regulations and commonly referred to as climb limit weight. A heavy 764 on a hot day would have problems at hot/high airports. Airlines routinely handle that scenario, sometimes by restricting payload, other times by planning a fuel stop. As I stated, the 764 is a dog (comparatively). Having said that, since LGA flights are domestic, the fuel load is considerably less, hence the weight is less. I would think runway allowable weight would be the more limiting factor in LGA for a 764 due to the short runway length.

FYI

The empty weight of the 764 is about 226,000 lbs and the 772 is about 320,000 lbs.

I believe the airlines mentioned didn’t want a plane as large as the 772 and so Boeing built the 764 for them. The 764 is a dog…..it will fly 9-10 hours but will spend the first 3-4 hours at 28-30,000 feet due to high wing loading and low power loading. The 763 is much better balanced (lower wing loading/more power loading) for 9ish hour flights, giving flexibility to top weather and fly higher for turbulenc avoidance when necessary.

What is the wing area of DC-10-10? The wing areas are 368 sq m for DC-10-30, 329 sq m for Tristar 500, 321 sq m for Tristar 1, and mere 297 sq m for B767-400ER.

Also, how will 767-400ER handle with one engine out at Denver or La Guardia?

As I understand it, Boeing offered an upgraded version of the 764ER, with Trent 600 engines, increased take off weights and operational range, branding it the 764ERX (Extra Range). Apparently there was also a plan for a similarly upgraded 300 series (763ERX). Both projects were cancelled, despite Kenya Airways placing an order for the 764ERX.

FYI

The empty weight of the 764 is about 226,000 lbs and the 772 is about 320,000 lbs.

I believe the airlines mentioned didn’t want a plane as large as the 772 and so Boeing built the 764 for them. The 764 is a dog…..it will fly 9-10 hours but will spend the first 3-4 hours at 28-30,000 feet due to high wing loading and low power loading. The 763 is much better balanced (lower wing loading/more power loading) for 9ish hour flights, giving flexibility to top weather and fly higher for turbulenc avoidance when necessary.

The 764 also has a much less advanced cockpit technology than the 777. Boeing updated it from the 757/767 cockpit but refused to do a complete upgrade ala the 777. I’m talking about things like FMS functionality (stuff that pilots like).

I have heard that Boeing offered 777-100 instead of 767-400. Customers asked for 767.

Not quite.

Boeing offered the B777-100 to Delta and Continental as a DC10/Tristar replacement.

The economics of the proposed aircraft, eg, high projected seat mile cost, were not attractive and both airlines turned the offer down.

Boeing then designed the B767-400ER specifically to meet the specifications of Delta and Continental.

Interestingly, Kenya Airways also ordered the B767-400ER, but changed their order over to the B777-200.

I’m really not sure of the status of the 764 these days ? I know however that sales were affected by customers choosing to go the extra mile and order the 772 instead. I suspect the 772 put an end to it.

I have heard that Boeing offered 777-100 instead of 767-400. Customers asked for 767.

Why -300? Wouldn´t 767-400ER come closer to 787 capacity?

I’m really not sure of the status of the 764 these days ? I know however that sales were affected by customers choosing to go the extra mile and order the 772 instead. I suspect the 772 put an end to it.

That said I’d like to see advances made in the 764 put to good use in any further developments of the 767-200/300 line. As suggested in that Wiki article, the raked wing design adopted by the 764 may end up in freighter versions of the smaller 767’s.

AFAIK, the line is enjoying a stay of execution whilst the 787 languishes in delays. Apparently there is a plan by Boeing to offer new build 763’s to 787 customers as appeasement for delayed Dreamliners. There are some 763ER orders on the book as things stand.
[/I]

Why -300? Wouldn´t 767-400ER come closer to 787 capacity?

AFAIK, the line is enjoying a stay of execution whilst the 787 languishes in delays. Apparently there is a plan by Boeing to offer new build 763’s to 787 customers as appeasement for delayed Dreamliners.

ANA’s order for 767-300s was officially added to Boeing’s orderbook late last week…

Boeing adds ANA 767s to orderbook
Stephen Trimble, Washington DC (03Oct08, 22:24 GMT, 140 words)

Boeing’s order and deliveries web site confirms nine 767-300ERs were sold to All Nippon Airways in late September.

As previously reported, the Star Alliance carrier has reached an agreement with Boeing that provides the 767s as interim lift while it waits for 787 deliveries.

All Nippon anticipates the 767s will be delivered from 2010 to 2011.

Boeing has reached a similar agreement with Japan Airlines (JAL), which has announced buying 767s for interim lift. Boeing’s orders and deliveries site still lists an order for nine 767s as from an unidentified customer. JAL’s agreement also reportedly includes adding two 777s.

Boeing has delayed the first 787 delivery at least 15 months to the third quarter of 2009. However, the ongoing labour strike by Boeing’s machinists is nearly four weeks old, and is expected to cause a day-for-day delay to the programme.

Source: Air Transport Intelligence news

AFAIK, the line is enjoying a stay of execution whilst the 787 languishes in delays. Apparently there is a plan by Boeing to offer new build 763’s to 787 customers as appeasement for delayed Dreamliners. There are some 763ER orders on the book as things stand.

As for the 767-200, I don’t think it’s in active production anymore other than it’s KC767 tanker variant, there’s appears to be some proposal to relaunch it as freighter to compliment the 300 series and 777F designs.

From Wiki…

As of August 2008, Boeing has received two orders in 2008 for the 767-300ER,[16] but Boeing has been offering versions of the 767 to tide customers affected by the 787 launch delays, specifically to Japanese carriers All Nippon Airways & Japan Air Lines, who are said to be in serious talks for new build passenger airframes. Boeing has also kept the line open in hopes of winning the US Air Force’s competition for a tanker (the KC-767 tanker program, which uses the 767 airframe).

The renewed interest in the 767-300 freighter has Boeing considering enhanced versions of the 767-200 and 767-300 freighter, with increased gross weights, 767-400ER wing technology, and 777-200 avionics.[17] Boeing sees the advanced 767-200F and 767-300F as complementing the 777F, and allowing Boeing to compete more effectively against the A330-200F, which is larger than the proposed 767-200F and 767-300F, but smaller than the 777F.

The Boeing 767 has 1031 orders, with 967 of those delivered as of August 2008.[1] Delta Air Lines is currently the world’s largest 767 operator, with 103 airplanes as of 2008, consisting of 767-300, 767-300ER, and 767-400ER variants.[18] Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, their hub, has the highest number of Boeing 767 operations in the world.