Licences on following aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: none of your business
Age: 51
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Licences on following aircraft
Is it possible, according to international regulations, to be certified and licenses on following aircraft at the same time:
Airbus A330 (200 and 300 series)
Airbus A340 (500 and 600 series)
Boeing 747 (400 serie)
Boeing 777 (200 and 300 series)
The doors on A330 and A340 are the same. Boeing 777 (both series) also have the same doors and the only difference is that the 300 is a bit longer than the 200.
Thanks!
Airbus A330 (200 and 300 series)
Airbus A340 (500 and 600 series)
Boeing 747 (400 serie)
Boeing 777 (200 and 300 series)
The doors on A330 and A340 are the same. Boeing 777 (both series) also have the same doors and the only difference is that the 300 is a bit longer than the 200.
Thanks!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: YPPH
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would depend on the aviation authority where the aircraft are registered.
My take on with would be that the A330 and A340 (all series) would count as one license. The 777-200 and -300 also count as one license. With the 747 making a third license.
If this was the UK, then yes, it would be legal. I can't think of any countries off the top of my head that would not allow 3 licenses. Happy to be corrected though.
My take on with would be that the A330 and A340 (all series) would count as one license. The 777-200 and -300 also count as one license. With the 747 making a third license.
If this was the UK, then yes, it would be legal. I can't think of any countries off the top of my head that would not allow 3 licenses. Happy to be corrected though.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible in the UK as Airbus A330/340 are classed as one aircraft, then 747 and 777 would be two different types.
Im not sure about "international" regulations, I had a friend years back from Continental and he worked on B737 (300/500) /757/767/777 and at one point even DC10 all at same time.
Im not sure about "international" regulations, I had a friend years back from Continental and he worked on B737 (300/500) /757/767/777 and at one point even DC10 all at same time.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As VS-LHRCSA noted, it will depend on what the local civil aviation authority requirements are. At the international level, ICAO does not limit the number of types that cabin crew can be qualified to operate.
Similarly, here in Canada and in the US, there is still no regulatory limit on the number of aircraft types that cabin crew can operate.
Similarly, here in Canada and in the US, there is still no regulatory limit on the number of aircraft types that cabin crew can operate.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Promotion..Doors 4 lol
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope CO had all the emergency equipment in the same or simliar stowages then!
I think the 3 limit is a good idea, considering how many differences we then have within that 3!
I think the 3 limit is a good idea, considering how many differences we then have within that 3!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
richxby...
That is one of the arguments in favour of limiting the number of aircraft types on which cabin crew may be qualified. A 3-type limit was proposed here in Canada in 2004 but was part of a larger initiative to change the ratio from 1:40 passengers to 1:50 configured seats. The initiative was shelved due to opposition from the cabin crew associations. However, I feel that the rationale for limiting qualification remains valid. Here is some of the background on the issue:
That is one of the arguments in favour of limiting the number of aircraft types on which cabin crew may be qualified. A 3-type limit was proposed here in Canada in 2004 but was part of a larger initiative to change the ratio from 1:40 passengers to 1:50 configured seats. The initiative was shelved due to opposition from the cabin crew associations. However, I feel that the rationale for limiting qualification remains valid. Here is some of the background on the issue:
The limitation on the number of aircraft types on which an individual crew member may be qualified was identified by the Risk Assessment as a means to mitigate a residual risk where there could be a lack of familiarity with aircraft systems as the flight attendant ratio is reduced. However, this risk also exists in the current regulatory environment where there is no restriction on the number of aircraft on which a flight attendant may be qualified. While training may be capable of addressing this issue in part, the qualification limitation and standardization of equipment types, locations and procedures better satisfies the intent of the mitigation.
The Society of Automotive Engineers, Cabin Safety Provisions Committee published an aerospace recommended practice relating to the installation and stowage provisions for emergency equipment in the transport aircraft passenger cabin. ARP 997 is intended to establish criteria for the installation and stowage of emergency equipment in the cabin to ensure its effective use in routine as well as emergency situations.
The goal is to promote expedient access to equipment in normal and emergency situations by encouraging standardization and reducing reorientation of crew members to alternate stowage provisions when changing type, series and model of aircraft within an operators fleet.
...
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has also identified risks associated with flight attendants being qualified on numerous aircraft types and the lack of equipment standardization in a Special Investigation Report relating to Flight Attendant Training and Performance During Emergency Situations.
Specifically, the NTSB noted the following:
Knowledge and Skill Deficiencies:
"…The Safety Board believes that some flight attendants may not have been given enough information about and/or practice with equipment and situations to master the skills they need in an emergency. Or conversely, they may be given so much information, such as multiple locations of equipment on several types of airplanes, that these locations cannot be readily recalled during an emergency…"
Location of Equipment:
"…Three accidents demonstrated that some flight attendants were unsure of, or could not recall without assistance, the location of emergency equipment. In two accidents, the flight attendants reacted immediately to the situations and sought but could not find the needed equipment…"
"…In the B-747 decompression… the flight attendant, who was qualified on seven airplane types, went to a location where she believed she would find an oxygen bottle; however, the accident aircraft was not among the B-747 models that had an oxygen bottle at that location…"
"… The stress of an emergency situation, and the infrequent use of emergency equipment, may cause a flight attendant to become confused about the location of equipment. Therefore, the more aircraft types for which flight attendants are qualified, the greater the need for standardized equipment location within aircraft types…"
"…The Safety Board believes that each operator should strive for the standardization of equipment location in order to facilitate flight attendant recall of emergency equipment location…"
The Society of Automotive Engineers, Cabin Safety Provisions Committee published an aerospace recommended practice relating to the installation and stowage provisions for emergency equipment in the transport aircraft passenger cabin. ARP 997 is intended to establish criteria for the installation and stowage of emergency equipment in the cabin to ensure its effective use in routine as well as emergency situations.
The goal is to promote expedient access to equipment in normal and emergency situations by encouraging standardization and reducing reorientation of crew members to alternate stowage provisions when changing type, series and model of aircraft within an operators fleet.
...
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has also identified risks associated with flight attendants being qualified on numerous aircraft types and the lack of equipment standardization in a Special Investigation Report relating to Flight Attendant Training and Performance During Emergency Situations.
Specifically, the NTSB noted the following:
Knowledge and Skill Deficiencies:
"…The Safety Board believes that some flight attendants may not have been given enough information about and/or practice with equipment and situations to master the skills they need in an emergency. Or conversely, they may be given so much information, such as multiple locations of equipment on several types of airplanes, that these locations cannot be readily recalled during an emergency…"
Location of Equipment:
"…Three accidents demonstrated that some flight attendants were unsure of, or could not recall without assistance, the location of emergency equipment. In two accidents, the flight attendants reacted immediately to the situations and sought but could not find the needed equipment…"
"…In the B-747 decompression… the flight attendant, who was qualified on seven airplane types, went to a location where she believed she would find an oxygen bottle; however, the accident aircraft was not among the B-747 models that had an oxygen bottle at that location…"
"… The stress of an emergency situation, and the infrequent use of emergency equipment, may cause a flight attendant to become confused about the location of equipment. Therefore, the more aircraft types for which flight attendants are qualified, the greater the need for standardized equipment location within aircraft types…"
"…The Safety Board believes that each operator should strive for the standardization of equipment location in order to facilitate flight attendant recall of emergency equipment location…"
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: YPPH
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with 3 licences, it can be hard to keep up, especially with variants.
For example at BA, we have had a variety of 777-200 layouts over the years. Some have the defib at the SCCM station, others have it mid cabin. Other differences are related to IFE, which in turn has an impact on the fire fighting drill.
Get these things confused and you are wasting valuable seconds. Back in the day, the 747-100/200 and 747-400 counted as one licence and yet worlds apart in so many ways.
I would hate to think what it is like in the US/Canada, especially during recurrent training. I spoke to girl from Delta once, a few years ago, she was licensed on the A310, MD80/90, MD11, 727, 737, 757, 767-200/300/400, 777 (I think) and the L1011-1/250/500. The mind boggles.
For example at BA, we have had a variety of 777-200 layouts over the years. Some have the defib at the SCCM station, others have it mid cabin. Other differences are related to IFE, which in turn has an impact on the fire fighting drill.
Get these things confused and you are wasting valuable seconds. Back in the day, the 747-100/200 and 747-400 counted as one licence and yet worlds apart in so many ways.
I would hate to think what it is like in the US/Canada, especially during recurrent training. I spoke to girl from Delta once, a few years ago, she was licensed on the A310, MD80/90, MD11, 727, 737, 757, 767-200/300/400, 777 (I think) and the L1011-1/250/500. The mind boggles.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Promotion..Doors 4 lol
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, can you imagine the yearly SEP/SOPs on 3+ aircraft with all the variations as well....welcome to day 14 of the recurrent course!
And then you have all the galley, cabin and seating differences etc! Its hard enough having to think about 3 aircraft, with 5 differences sometimes! Especially when you get rostered different aircraft every day in the week.
Guess we're lucky to have the 3 limit rule in place?
And then you have all the galley, cabin and seating differences etc! Its hard enough having to think about 3 aircraft, with 5 differences sometimes! Especially when you get rostered different aircraft every day in the week.
Guess we're lucky to have the 3 limit rule in place?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: none of your business
Age: 51
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies!
I also thought of the three aircraft type rule! The flight attendant (American expression, sorry!), was she licensed on all those aircraft at the same time? Because it does sound a bit too much!
I also thought of the three aircraft type rule! The flight attendant (American expression, sorry!), was she licensed on all those aircraft at the same time? Because it does sound a bit too much!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: YPPH
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, she was licensed on all aircraft. I remember because we were at breakfast in Orlando and I was whining that my airline at the time had just picked up the A321, which meant that I had to be licensed on the 757, 767, A320 AND the A321. She mentioned that she had to learn all of Delta's aircraft types, so I kinda felt better about it. Mind you, she was horrified to learn that we squeezed 327 pax on to a 767-300 in a 2-4-2 configuration with no crew rest, seniority or bidding, so it's horses for courses.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was with Qatar I was trained on the A300-600 (of which we had several different configurations and galley layouts which was very confusing), A330's (all basically the same so it was not too bad) and the A319,320,321 all of which differed slightly. Now the doors on the A300's and A330's were very similar but the internal configs and locations of equipment varied so much that it would be impossible to be sure exactly where everything was.
Now in BA I am trained on the 747-400 (2 types of basic configs with a few other variations depending on which aircraft you are on on the day), B777 with 4 basic different configs and galley layouts and finally the 767 which fortunately are all the same but are so different from the rest of the fleet right down to the doors.
Now in BA I am trained on the 747-400 (2 types of basic configs with a few other variations depending on which aircraft you are on on the day), B777 with 4 basic different configs and galley layouts and finally the 767 which fortunately are all the same but are so different from the rest of the fleet right down to the doors.
