A Company Oral for Boeing 767
Grandpa Aerotart
That's exactly what mine says under the list of individual aircraft registrations that equate to the PW powered 767s we own.
Under the list of individual aircraft registrations that equate to the GE powered 767s we own it states;
Autopilot engagement requires at least one FCC and pushing one of the MCP autopilot engage switches.
Now I really don't think this is a point worth argueing over...perhaps it's a matter of whether the aircraft are relatively new build or early serial numbered aircraft....the amendment date of the page 4.20.2 is February 14, 2001.
How about we move on from this minor point and start challenging each other, purely from a fun and educational POV, with some other technical questions...after all I think you would agree that the level of systems knowledge Boeing seems to want us to have is hardly conducive to truly understanding the aircraft when things go pear shaped....thankfully a remarkably rare event given the miles of wiring, hyd pipes etc etc in a modern widebody...I am amazed they don't break more often.
Under the list of individual aircraft registrations that equate to the GE powered 767s we own it states;
Autopilot engagement requires at least one FCC and pushing one of the MCP autopilot engage switches.
Now I really don't think this is a point worth argueing over...perhaps it's a matter of whether the aircraft are relatively new build or early serial numbered aircraft....the amendment date of the page 4.20.2 is February 14, 2001.
How about we move on from this minor point and start challenging each other, purely from a fun and educational POV, with some other technical questions...after all I think you would agree that the level of systems knowledge Boeing seems to want us to have is hardly conducive to truly understanding the aircraft when things go pear shaped....thankfully a remarkably rare event given the miles of wiring, hyd pipes etc etc in a modern widebody...I am amazed they don't break more often.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ..now for the punchline!
Yes, you're all correct. The changes were divided among serial numbers that equated to a popular engine variance, but not confined to same.
The only way to be sure is to check the Airplane Flight Manual and Quick Reference Handbook.
Just as part of your pre-flight, look up "Loss of Left AC Buss" and see what it says.
I did seven type ratings in seven years. I never did fly the 767 or 757. I just taught systems, did sim and did the orals.
At the moment I fly domestic and international on the Hawker 1000 for Netjets. I have been scheduled to go to Flight Safety for the Citation X in February. I never knew such a job existed when I started to learn to fly in Port Macquarie in 1983. I can't ever remember feeling this happy. I have just returned from St Maarten in the Carribean. My driveway is under six inches of snow and my three boys are watching a movie next to the fire place.
I enjoyed my time at Boeing Flight Safety in Seattle teaching the 757 and 767 on behalf of USAir, evn though it will be all for naught when they go out of business. People wonder why I didn't pursue Qantas more seriously, but my American bride would not have been happy that far from her family.
I will say this though... judging by the selection process at Qantas, (I've been through it three times), I think that the QF HR have a very distorted view of what makes a good pilot.
"Would you spend more on street lighting...or the arts?"
Here it is, some of you have been flying the 767 since 1983, the year it was certified, the year I was in the Year 10 in High School... and probably just discovered you can't engage an autopliot if you lost the left AC buss on your 76'.
Somebody needs to realign the QF training department ...and recruitment back to things that are just a little bit more relevant to what we actually do up "there".
The only way to be sure is to check the Airplane Flight Manual and Quick Reference Handbook.
Just as part of your pre-flight, look up "Loss of Left AC Buss" and see what it says.
I did seven type ratings in seven years. I never did fly the 767 or 757. I just taught systems, did sim and did the orals.
At the moment I fly domestic and international on the Hawker 1000 for Netjets. I have been scheduled to go to Flight Safety for the Citation X in February. I never knew such a job existed when I started to learn to fly in Port Macquarie in 1983. I can't ever remember feeling this happy. I have just returned from St Maarten in the Carribean. My driveway is under six inches of snow and my three boys are watching a movie next to the fire place.
I enjoyed my time at Boeing Flight Safety in Seattle teaching the 757 and 767 on behalf of USAir, evn though it will be all for naught when they go out of business. People wonder why I didn't pursue Qantas more seriously, but my American bride would not have been happy that far from her family.
I will say this though... judging by the selection process at Qantas, (I've been through it three times), I think that the QF HR have a very distorted view of what makes a good pilot.
"Would you spend more on street lighting...or the arts?"
Here it is, some of you have been flying the 767 since 1983, the year it was certified, the year I was in the Year 10 in High School... and probably just discovered you can't engage an autopliot if you lost the left AC buss on your 76'.
Somebody needs to realign the QF training department ...and recruitment back to things that are just a little bit more relevant to what we actually do up "there".
I did once ask why the QRH stated
'all autopilots MAY be inoperative'
guess thats why.
no arguments CC, just thought you were wrong based on what is in our book. Guess its nothing to do with the engine fitted, but purely a model #.
Mr Higgins, just exactly what are you cr##pping on about??
'all autopilots MAY be inoperative'
guess thats why.
no arguments CC, just thought you were wrong based on what is in our book. Guess its nothing to do with the engine fitted, but purely a model #.
I will say this though... judging by the selection process at Qantas, (I've been through it three times), I think that the QF HR have a very distorted view of what makes a good pilot.
Somebody needs to realign the QF training department ...and recruitment back to things that are just a little bit more relevant to what we actually do up "there".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ftrplt
I'm sorry to have offended you, and I must admit it was flame bait to include that, but I have my reasons.
My family went to Australia twice this last twelve months and I ran into second officers that have not made it through upgrade.
One was recruited in 1988!
Sooooo, is the problem in upgrading training or recruitment? Or do you think there isn't a problem?
I'm sorry to have offended you, and I must admit it was flame bait to include that, but I have my reasons.
My family went to Australia twice this last twelve months and I ran into second officers that have not made it through upgrade.
One was recruited in 1988!
Sooooo, is the problem in upgrading training or recruitment? Or do you think there isn't a problem?
dont really know why I am bothering, but anyway. (getting OT)
not offended, just wondering about the relevance to the thread at hand.
Havent made it through or chosen not to?? Given there are 350 S/O's on the 400, dont you think you maybe drawing just a slightly long bow?
what was the problem again?
I'm sorry to have offended you, and I must admit it was flame bait to include that, but I have my reasons.
My family went to Australia twice this last twelve months and I ran into second officers that have not made it through upgrade.
Sooooo, is the problem in upgrading training or recruitment? Or do you think there isn't a problem?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, well, um?
You don't think that shows a general lack of ambition do you? I thought we were after ambitious people who felt comfortable with high levels of responsibility?
Are you saying that's not a recruitment objective?
I certainly understand the benefits of seniority with bidding lines and vacation, but American Airlines has always had a policy of, "up or out".
Do you think that it's healthy for senior crews to rest on the lower levels of responsibility, allowing others with less time and training cycles to be promoted?
I agree it's okay to use seniority to your advantage, but mate, there's gotta be a limit!
(To answer your question, he didn't make it through FO, and I sure hope that he does next time. Does that reflect on the quality of training? Quite possibly. Yes I've failed a flight test before, and no I don't think anyone's immune from a mistake.)
You don't think that shows a general lack of ambition do you? I thought we were after ambitious people who felt comfortable with high levels of responsibility?
Are you saying that's not a recruitment objective?
I certainly understand the benefits of seniority with bidding lines and vacation, but American Airlines has always had a policy of, "up or out".
Do you think that it's healthy for senior crews to rest on the lower levels of responsibility, allowing others with less time and training cycles to be promoted?
I agree it's okay to use seniority to your advantage, but mate, there's gotta be a limit!
(To answer your question, he didn't make it through FO, and I sure hope that he does next time. Does that reflect on the quality of training? Quite possibly. Yes I've failed a flight test before, and no I don't think anyone's immune from a mistake.)
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 20th Jan 2005 at 22:01.
