Flying the 747-200
 

What is it like flying the 742? I am currently on a "modern" heavy TP and may be moving to type soon, I was wondering what your thoughts on flying it are considering it's antiquated, more than 20 years old etc etc as far as a safety aspect is concerned, I know this is all down to specific company maintainance & safety culture etc etc but take the lifestyle aside I would love to convert, but as always having a family puts you in touch with your mortality so I have a very small reservation about it.
Comments on the positives would be most welcome :ok:

Also what's the bird like to fly in general?

Thanks in advance

CC

CC,

You're making some fairly broad brush assumptions...namely that there's a safety issue associated with the -200. There isn't. It's hardly "antiquated," and hardly performance limited. The airplane is still in active use all over the world, making money, on a daily basis.

20 years old is antiquated???

It flies just fine.

SN

I resent what you said, I didn't make any assumptions, I merely asked what it was like from a safety aspect considering it is antiquated (yes, 20yrs old in my eyes is antiquated, that makes me a relic then). Not once did I assume it has a chequered past. However, I didn't want to say it but I will now, the company has had a bit of history that's all (hence my comments regarding company specifics).

Thanks for your input anyway :ok:

CC

I think it is not a great a/c to fly for a first officer, since you are really a bit out of the game, all non-normals are handled by the cpt and the engineer, you fly the holding..

In the left hand seat a different story, probably your last chance to experience the old technique.. but be prepared for getting used to a few pages of MEL reading before the flight, plus it is a steep learning curve coming from a glass cockpit:}

It is a great airplane, very safe and very redundant.

Airforce 1 is a 747-200 and if they are not changing it is for a reason.

Flyingwise is absolut classic , I mean R.M.I. , H.S.I. and attitude indicator , if you are not able to maintain your situation awareness picture you will have difficulties, there is no navigation computer or fms showing your position on a moving map.

However some have been upgraded with fms but for what I know they still interface with an H.S.I. .

You will have a FE who is a valid crewmember and learn how to use him at his maximum potential.

I have limited experience but I will not change it with anything and I heard from many very experienced aviators and pilots that if they could choose an aircraft in which to experience any system failure or malfunction or serious emergency they would choose the 747-200.

Guys exactly what I was looking for, pos - neg.

Thank you for your comments, appreciated

You resent what I said? Rather thin skinned, don't you think? I said nothing objectionable, nor insulted you in any way, shape, or form.

You did. You insinuated that having a family makes you question the safety, gives you concerns, gives you a small reservation. How do you suppose an internet conversation will change that? First you indicated you want to know how it flies, with a small reservation about safety...your second post indicates your primary concern,and your primary reason for asking, is safety.

The record of the Classic speaks for its' self. If you want to know about the specific company's safety record, then you'll have to either name the company and ask for insight, or research it separately. The 747 is simply a design. It's a good design. It's a proven design. It's a universally recognized design that has a lot of good service left in it. What you're not going to find is that anyone can tell you about risk based on the design; it doesn't really have bad habits. Any risks you might face will exist in the way it's operated and maintained, and as you've noted twice, yourself...that's most certainly company-specific.

The thing about the Classic is that they're all different. Vastly different in the instrumentation, displays, nav, etc. We have moving maps, EFIS, etc. We have FMS plus INS and GPS.

The systems design is very well thought out, with redundancy on many levels. It's very much a hydraulic airplane, and there's no manual reversion for the flight controls. With four different systems and each major control served by two systems, in different ways, it's a safe airplane.

The airframe has had a number of years and a lot of hours of operation...long enough for problems to become manifest. It's proven. It's also far from antiquated.

I totally agree with your comments SN. I personally didn't think you wrote anything harsh or questionable. I think you have been very helpful as I'm also curious on what it's like to fly the classic!:ok:

What is it with this forum? I'm not saying you said anything harsh, I would of asked should the type have been the L10-11 etc, you are reading into it too much, my first post asked both questions, my second was answering your comments regarding the safety aspect of it from my first post. As you gave no constructive comments as to how she is to fly I was answering your reply.

SNS3Guppy

Just to clarify and put it to bed, I have, as stated slight reservations about converting to an old type, hence why I asked, that's what this forum is for isn't it? It is vastly different in all areas to what I fly now hence why I asked in the first place about what she's like to fly plus the safety etc etc.

Thank you for taking the time to type the rest though, it's all useful information :ok:

CC

Actually I did...it flies fine. The thing is this...if it were a dangerous airplane, would it be in service around the world today with the history it has? Of course not. Have you ever seen any statement that it's a challenging airplane to fly? Of course not, because it isn't. It is a very straightforward airplane.

You're correct that it's not a front runner in advanced technology. Many of the 747's out there are being navigated with INS models such as the Litton 92...if you haven't seen one, it looks like a 1970's calculator with a LED screen. It's not nearly as intuitive or clear as a modern FMS type system. Boeing delivered models set out specific to the airline that bought the airplane; the switches are different, the avionics different, the layouts different...one some airplanes the switches move one way to accomplish a function, but on other airplanes the switches move the other direction to do the same thing. Today with many of these airplanes having been bought and sold around the world, a 747 operator may have all kinds of differences between airplanes in the same fleet, as they've been bought from other companies.

As our training department likes to say, we had a uniform fleet...until we bought our second airplane. They also like to say "Get in, sit down, strap on, see what you've got, and go fly.

We fly the -100 and the -200. I don't have any reservations about flying either one, else I wouldn't fly it.

The 747 is a big, stable airplane that's more about numbers and mass management than it is about flying finesse. If you fly the numbers, the airplane will do what you expect it to do. Nothing happens fast in the airplane. Planning ahead and being stable are the keys to making it do what you want.

It's a crew airplane. A good flight engineer is a valuable part of the crew. When you handle an emergency, you fly...that's it. You ask for an engineer report, and a living, breathing professional is right behind you to come to your aid, to manage systems, run checklists, analyze the problem, take care of it. Worth his weight in gold. It's really the flight engineer's airplane...pilots pretty much just drive.

You do fall back to the basics...planning your descents with math in your head rather than waiting for the green arc to guide you down, and VNAV is in your mind rather than your fingertips...but it's no different than you'd do if you were flying a light twin, and no more complicated. Plan ahead, know the numbers you want, then apply them. The airplane will do what you want it to do.

I heard that the FE had to clean the spark plugs at the end of each flight, is that true?

Some of the -400s are now 19 years old - I wouldn't classify them as antiquated!
The -200 is a lovely, stable aircraft to fly, with good performance. How much handling you get will depend on the airline's operating culture. Mine was leg and leg-about, with more sectors on the -200 than the longer sectors of the -400. Go on, enjoy it!:ok: (21 years and 15,000 hrs+ B747's).

I flew the 744 as FO for 7 years before I transitioned to Classic Captain. It took about 2 sim sessions to get my old instrument scan back. It took about 2 years to more-or-less figure out most of the quirks of all the various configurations we have. I still learn something new almost every flight.

The Classic hand-flys MUCH better than the 400.

If you can't "turn off the magic" and keep your Situational Awareness, you don't belong in the Classic.

Ha!

Our cockpits are hardly standardized either. But I like to say, "You don't need a pilot's license to fly this airplane, you need a SEARCH WARRANT!"

:}

But Coffin Corner, my friend, you have to admit, with a name like that you seem a LITTLE preoccupied with disaster.

The Classic flies great. It's an incredible design. And if I can learn to fly it then all the credit goes to Boeing (and my very patient sim instructor).

Try this: Go to these sites and do a search for 747-200 accidents and incidents. You'll learn a lot about how OTHER crews found the Achilles Heel.

I do this for every new airplane I fly. Good pilots learn from OTHER'S mistakes, right?

:cool:

N T S B - Aviation Accidents - Index of Months
Aviation Safety Network >

Handling the Big Jets
 

If you want a Test Pilot's opinion, I recommend reading this (ancient) book.

It is both informative and objective and not only describes the handling characteristics, but also discusses the system redundancy etc .

Reading against the aircraft's history SINCE is a revelation because it shows how accurate the author's assessment was.

Now whether you're thick skinned, thin skinned or even leaking is immaterial - this book would fill in the information you asked for. What's more, you won't get abused either!

Handling the Big Jets (Hardcover) by D.P. Davies ISBN 0903083019

That's a good one. I haven't heard that before.

The classics are great to fly. Easy handling and easy to land just manage the mass. I transitioned into a 767 which is a "smarter" airplane, but prefer the 747. Safety is just fine-its the operator not the plane you need to be careful of.

If I could only ever fly one more type the classic would be it, she is well named.

B747 Classics
 

RSFTO & SNS3Guppy. Thank you both for your comments regarding the role of the F/E on the Classic, which of course is just as important on other aircraft which carry a F/E. Although retired for quite a while now I still miss "going to the office" and spending my working hours doing a very fulfilling job in the company of professional and skillful pilots. My military and civil careers were very different in most ways, but the crew environment was just as enjoyable in each. Keep flying as long as you enjoy it.

An Honest Airplane...
 

I have to second Dengue Dude's suggestion about the book "Handling the big jets". Good luck finding one, as they are out of print and I'll bring mine to the grave with me. Try Amazon.
The -200 has no unusual flying charasteristics, at least that I have found. As PIC in both the -200 and -400, of course I prefer the -400 as the days seem shorter.( better A/C, APU,SATCOM,ACARS,ect, and with 3 guys, someone is always resting). The steering on the ground takes some getting used to, as the nose wheel is behind you quite a ways, and during 90 degree tight turns, your ass may well have to be over the sod as to keep the mains on concrete. With dual tillers( I believe all -200 have them), you won't have to wait till your PIC to start learning.
The Biggest problem, of course, is the damm coffee makers.
Have fun. Size does matter.