b737 endorsements
 

Just wondering if anyone could tell me what a B737 endorsement entails? How many hours of lectures, is their any materials that you have to study before starting the endorsement. Is it self study or are you guided through it. What level of knowledge do you need to know before you start. How much sim time you get, and any other relevant details.

I would imagine it is a large leap forward coming of a turboprop. Any insight would be great.

I know there will be difference depending on who and where you do the endorsement.

Cheers

Gravox,

I did the ETA 737 course in Melbourne this year

How many hours of lectures? They require 80 hrs of self study before you tackle the ground school component.

is their any materials that you have to study before starting the endorsement? Yes your sponsor airline will give you a FCTM, VOL 1, VOL 2 and the ETA pre study guide book which guides you throught the required course material needed to do the rating.

Is it self study or are you guided through it? It is CBT based training when you get to groundschool, then about 25 or so individual "mini" systems exams closed book 80% pass mark (papers consist of about 5-10 questions on each system). The ground school instructor will give you a briefing before the exam, then you do the exam, you really should know the system/s to a very polished standard before you arrive at ground school.

What level of knowledge do you need to know before you start? A good grasp of heavy jet systems, and a intimate working knowledge of the VOL 1, VOL 2 FCTM.

How much sim time you get? 36hrs ie 9 sessions 18hrs pnf/pf,
then sessioon 9 is a assesment check out for the rating in your licence.

and any other relevant details? Lots of hard study but can be done if motivated and you listen to the instructor/s. ETA all have very good instructors with a wealth of expirience on real 737-200/500's so they will steer you in the right direction.

73
 

Downwind,

How much did you pay for your rating???
I've heard that it cost AUS $21.000, is it true???

Anyone interested in an type rating should go to the States, you get a COMMAND type rating that can be transfered to your Aussie licence, (cost AUS $21) not bad!!!:cool:

I don't know much about the training in Melbourne but I hope that you've did NOT get an FO endorsement as this is pretty useless!

Cheers....:p

The cost was $21,500 dollars with a COMMAND rating! with ETA.

The ETA course is FAR superior to any in the USA. It is a Boeing syllabus and the ETA instructors include pilots with more B737 experience than any found in the USA and that includes Boeing! And, yes, you most definitely get a command rating.

56p.....

Exactly how much experience do YOU have training in the US? I would suggest approximately f*kc all! you have no idea what you are talking about!

Before you make a clearly uninformed comment like you have consider how arrogent you make us ALL look by your condescending attitude toward the US training standards. Do yourself a favour find out how many hours are flown commercially in Oz and the US each year then compare accident rates.....

mjbow2

Sorry if my statement appeared to be of a condescending nature -I certainly did not intend it to be.

I have experienced jet training at several US centres, including Boeing, over a period of many years. My post referred to B737 endorsement training and the points that I wished to make were:

1. ETA is producing a superior product than those coming out of Pan Am, Premair etc. The ETA simulator training syllabus comprises more sessions than offered by most US (except Boeing) training venues.

2. The ETA simulator instructors include pilots with considerable (in some cases, vast ) airline experience on the type and THAT is certainly not matched by most US training operators - even by Boeing!

The above points, however, merely represent the humble opinion of someone with many years training and checking on the type. Why don't you ask Virgin Blue their opinion of ETA training Vs the US operators?

56P Totally agree,

Be carefull of the US Courses. For starters you have to do a 45 Day Security check and then you have to acquire the correct visa. After this, its down to the course. Which encompasses a 25-26 Sim hour syllabus. If further sessions are required it is charged at around $450.00usd/hour can get expensive.

Myself I would be wanting to do a course with the most Sim hours , like ETA in Melbourne with 36 hrs.

Sure the US Courses are cheaper, but after all the hassles to get over there and get back youll probably spend the same cash.

You want to get more more value for your money get get as much Sim as possible. 25-26 hours is the bare minimum offered by the US Companies.

The security checks and the notion that the DOJ(Department of Justice) can can your training at anytime ( belive me its happened all that cash down the drain), also shun me away from the states these. Pity really they must be still losing money in Foreign Pilot Training.

733?- 763?
 

Sorry gents but all this talk of a 73 rating has got me thinking, wouldn't you just be better off doing a 76 rating or something along those lines.

? is it a bigger jump and how much more would that set you back in comparison to the 73 rating?????????????? and job ops

splat :)

Once again

THe we Australia do it better than the rest of the world attitude. Bollocks. I did a Boeing endorsement with FSB and found it to be a fantastic well run course. The instructors had a unbeleivable wealth of experience. eg 10000 hours command B747, military test pilots. Some flown all Boeing and MD types. It just went on.

Yeah sure the Americans can be laid back. But hey it bloody well works. You can not go wrong doing it in the states and will probably be cheaper if you shop around. The FSB course I beleive is pricey.

Splat,

If you are doing an endorsement on spec, the 737 is better because there are far more 737's in captivity in the world than 767's, which means that you have a better chance of snaring a job if you have no experience on type, particularly if you have no jet time.

The 767, which in reality is probably the same if not slightly easier to fly than the 737, seems to be a leap because of the "widebody" thing.

Those that have flown both types tell me that the 737 is harder to fly than the 767, which they tell me is a very nice machine to operate.

Cheers dedriver, thought that was the case just interested to her some thoughts on it. Know of a few people who went the 767 way with great sucsess.;)

Thumpa

No arguments re FSB endorsements but you're right, mate, they ARE pricey!

One problem that may (and I say MAY) be encountered at both FSB and Airbus is that, whilst the instructors may have heaps of experience and even on type, that experience is not always "airline operational experience." The best ex-military pilot instructors may be excellent but they may also be lacking in "airline" experience and THAT is why I plugged for the ETA sim instructors. The student who is paying for an endorsement is entitled to the best value for money and, if you want an "airline" job, then you should seek the benefits of "airline experienced" instructors.

No complaints against military experience (I'm an ex-military pilot with 25+ years airline experience) - it's just different courses for horses.

No complaints about laid back Yanks either - my best instructor on a jet conversion course was a US airline pilot who was a flying member of the USAF Reserve. And, boy, was he laid back!

My points are purely in the interests of best value for money for the modern pilot who has to pay for a jet endorsement - a sad sign of the times!

56p

The fact that you have had training in the US makes your comments all the more irresponsible.

Quote:
"FAR superior to any in the USA"

Quote:
"ETA instructors include pilots with more B737 experience than any found in the USA"

Your subsequent 'points' replace the words 'any' with: 'most' and 'pilots with more B737 experience than any found in the USA' with: 'pilots with considerable (in some cases, vast ) airline experience on the type'.

Without commenting on the merit of your arguments if these were the points you origionally wished to make then perhaps you should have made them instead of propagating what thumpa calls the 'we Australians do it better than the rest of the world attitude'

Again if you want to make a point about value for money then by all means make it. But you really dont help our image as Australians when you adopt that all too common tall poppy syndrome. The fact is the Yanks have a hell of a lot more experience in training crews than Australia probably ever will.

By virtue of your first comment my 737 ground instructor didnt give me value for my money because according to you, his 22 years of instruction on type doesnt compare to the instructor I could have had in Oz. My sim instructor only had 10k hours on type so I guess I really missed out there too.

A Virgin mate of mine who went to the US to do his 737 school before being taken on by Virgin said the course was slack, unprofessional and a ripoff.

Bloggs... CORRECT. We had a guy (in the US) with 300 hours on a 737 trying to teach us all about it. Every time we asked a question he had to leave the room to ask his boss the answer. I would never go to that crowd again. Sim was also average. Probably not representative of the US system but it certainly was not great.

sorry to have to say this Bow2, but if your Sim Instructor only had 10 hrs on type then you did get the short straw!

And you can't see that?

Both extremes of course quality in the US are accurate - as are the varying experience of the instructors.

In the US system the oral exam, which can last up to 2 or 3 hours, is the great leveler.

Like all aviation training it is a brutal case of caveat emptor. I would strongly suggest that you give weight to the opinions of those who have undertaken several type courses rather than the firstimers.

Human nature being what it is, those paying for a transport type rating (especially their first one) have stresses regarding money, time and future prospects that can colour any attempt to give an honest opinion. What may be an enthusiastic report might actually be internal justification of a large and risky capital outlay.

The chances are that those who done several factory or independent courses didn't have to pay for them and will be more likely to give a better qualitative assessment. They have several training experiences to compare and weren't subject to quite the same financial risks.

Regards
Rob

Amos you may have missread my post....10k hours not 10 hours....
MJB;)

Correction noted MJB2...thanks. That makes a difference!