How difficult.

[fast55]

I am sorry if this is the wrong forum.

There have been many discussions on whether a PPL could land an Airliner etc, but I would like to put a twist on that, this has a technical slant, hence this forum.

Assume you are type-rated on one type of airliner (say Boeing 7x7 EFIS) and you were confronted with a situation whereas you had to land an aircraft from altitude of a completely different (and unfamiliar) type, say an A320.

Would it be difficult?

I for one would not be able I feel successfully conclude this (FAA CPL/IR, 737-300 Rated, 240TT, newbie) but perhaps inexperience plays a large part here.

Cheers!

[Otterman]

I have flown several different types. Ranging from Boeing 747 classic to the 767, and before that many smaller planes. But I can answer your question a little bit. I participate in simulator experiments at our national air and space research instituut. They have simulators that can be setup for aircraft ranging from a Boeing 747-400 to the Airbus series (none of which I have flown). The experiments that I have recently done involved the next phase of "free flight", and simulator "feel" research in both take-off rotation, and landing dynamics. Although I could not pass a proficiency check in the simulators there, I can make it do what I want it to do. Even did an experiment in workload pressure byhand flying an A320 setup using raw data between London-Amsterdam-London single pilot. Failures are not part of the deal there, and they don't judge your flying abalities too closely. But I feel in a pinch (and the conditions aren't too crazy) I can fly almost any transport catagory aircraft from cruise to a "safe" landing.

[icemanalgeria]

After flying the Beoings for 8 years I went to Airbus for a fly by wire type rating.

After a coffee on the first day they gave us a circuit in the sim.
We all flew the aircraft from takeoff to touch down no problems.

Then we spent the next 4 weeks of ground school before going back to the sim.

A great course.

[PlaneTruth]

A friend of mine was doing recurrent 737 sim training with a local airline a few years back. At the completion of their sim late one night, they asked what was in the big America West hangar. The instructor, who happened to be an AW instructor, mentioned the hangar housed their 757 and Airbus sims. Interested in the 757, my friend asked if they could stop by and see the cockpit. "Sure," said the instructor.

The two students wandered over to the hangar and found the 757 sim. Peeking inside they found it unoccupied. While they were peeking in the door, a sim instructor walked up and asked them if they were here for a sim ride. They told him they were doing contract 737 training and wanted to see the 757. "Fly it if you want, just don't go on-motion," said the instructor. "We don't know jack about the 75," said my friend. "Simple" said the instructor and with a few simple instructions, left them to start up a dead cold aircraft by themselves. (I secretly believe the sim instructor went down to the lab to watch the screens remotely to have a good laugh!)

In a few minutes they had the engines running and got the busses powered. Using reverse, they backed away from the LAX gate and found their way to the runway. They took off and commenced to fly 3-4 touch and gos each with quite decent landings each (according to them!!!). When done, they taxiied back to a jetway and shut the aircraft down.

Pretty neat for having no training in the aircraft type.

PT:ok:

[Eff Oh]

Reversed a B757 off stand? Mr Boeing would be slapping wrists if he knew that! :D I think you would be able to land another type without any problems.

[mono]

Eff Oh,

Power back or reversing a 757 is an approved and acceptable proceedure!!

It is a little tricky (for gods sake don't use the brakes) but it can be done.

[mstram]

>Power back or reversing a 757 is an approved and acceptable proceedure!!

Interesting.

I wonder if all jets are capable (approved) of/for doing that, but don't, strictly to save fuel ?

Mike

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

MD-80's can pushback using reverse.

American Airlines MD-83 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/184632/M/)

BAe 146-100

[Phoenix_X]

As far as I understand it, it's not so much fuel that's the problem. It's jetblast towards the terminal, jetties and ground personnel, and even worse Foreign Object Damage caused by all the junk that's usually on stands being blown into the intakes.

[DustDevil]

mstram,
power back is not used for jets wich have air intakes near ground, to avoid foreign object ingestion when reverse thrust is applied.
but this is only a non-pilot point of view :8

[Eff Oh]

I agree you can do it, but in any company manuals I have seen it is forbidden. Also a good chance of FOD damage/ingestion. Aint that also why it is not recommended to use reverse at low speeds? Also as pointed out I don't think the airport would be pleased about you doing it. I have never seen or heard of a B757 powering back, not saying it hasn't been done though!

Just checked the Boeing B757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual:
Backing with Reverse Thrust. (Page 2.2)
Backing with reverse thrust is not recommended and may be prohibited by the AFM.

Eff Oh.

[BigGreenPleasureMachine]

Even if it were allowed, how the hell would you see where you're going?

Bearing in mind most pilots I know have trouble parallel parking, I would imagine the ground engineers would have to add panel beating to their myriad skills:D

Regards, BGPM.

[PlaneTruth]

Eff Oh,

I have never heard of any FOD damage in the simulator.

We used to back the 737-200 on occasion (approved in FM) as well as the C-130 (because the Brits are so stingy with asphalt at Mildenhall :O --Parking head-in with a nifty front wheel parking well (depression). The winter of '87 was so cold one of the planes froze its brakes solid. I was trying to back out the aircraft and the plane wouldn't move. At full reverse, the nosewheel was hovering off the ground. After 30 minutes with a heater cart on them, we backed out no problemo.)

FOD is the main reason wing mounted engines do not back routinely. Sliding sleeve reverse systems are not very effective at low speed anyway. The JT-8 was super because ALL the engine thrust was diverted slightly forward.

PT

[Aussierotor]

Think a PPL holder would have more chance than a non pilot.

As posted before on a similar topic,one of my sons who has a PPL and spent years playing on his home computer flying different sims etc doesnt seem to have a problem.

He has the oportunity at work to go into the flight simulator section and spend a bit of time(if any are not in use).All he was showed is how to set up which airport he wanted.
Since then has flown a dash 8 ,various 747,s and 767 with a total of about 100 take offs and landings etc.
Only problem he,s encounted was landing with a set of wheels in the grass,but thats because he was playing silly b#ggers and set the cloud level too low .
You need the basics of a PPL ,but i wouldnt like to be in the plane unless the guy had comp. sim time and knew the speed and flap settings etc
Having said that i would sh1t myself anyway.

[Eff Oh]

Agreed, no FOD in the sim. :D
How effective would it be in a B757 at MTOM? Any ideas anyone?

[Dan Winterland]

For my current job, I had a sim assessment in an A320, while at the time I was rated on a B747-400. I had no previous experience of an Airbus and no breifing on the landing from my assessor. I managed a reasonable landing with out a snag.

But if a pilot was faced with an emergency landing in an unfamiliar type, he would probably opt for an autoland. This is asuming he could work out how the automatics worked. But the differences between Airbus and Boeing Master Control Panels aren't too great, and you could probably get someone on the radio who could guide him through the setup.

[SuperRanger]

imho, handling shouldn't pose too much of a prob to most who have sufficient experience. as for the landing itself, i think there will be a bit of judgement prob if one currently flies the widebody (747) were to land a narrowbody (737) manually :) I know i did!!

SR