The type rating might be called the team rating
In order to act as pilot in command of either a turbojet or a large aircraft (defined in the FARs as an aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds), a pilot must be type rated in that particular aircraft. A type rating is a one-time permanent endorsement on a pilot certificate. Most often, a pilot will add a type rating to the appropriate category and class rating (e.g., aircraft multiengine land) for which he or she is qualified. It is also possible to combine the practical test for an aircraft type rating with another practical test, such as for a private or commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating. In that case, a successful applicant would receive the new pilot certificate or rating and an additional aircraft type rating as a result of the same practical test.
According to FAR 61.31(b), the FAA may, under certain circumstances, allow a pilot who lacks a required type rating to operate an aircraft requiring one for a period of up to 60 days. Generally, this is authorized only for ferry, training, or test flights, or to allow a pilot to take the practical test for a pilot certificate or rating. Additionally, the flights must take place within the United States, cannot include passengers, and may not involve operations for compensation or hire.
Recently I went through type-rating training for the fourth time in my airline career, this time for the Boeing 757/767. One obvious change from my earlier experiences is that self-paced computer-based training has largely replaced the traditional classroom lecture that not many years ago was the norm. Aircraft systems are learned while sitting in front of a PC, and a bout of after-lunch drowsiness no longer means missing an instructor’s critical explanation. But while teaching methods have changed somewhat, the primary goal still remains to come away with a thorough understanding of the airplane.
The performance standards expected of a pilot seeking a type rating are detailed in the FAA’s Airline Transport Pilot and Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplanes. (Helicopter type-rating test standards are described in a separate publication.) An applicant for a type rating needs to be proficient in all normal and abnormal aspects of aircraft operation, from preflight inspection and aircraft performance calculations through postflight shutdown procedures. During the checkride, the examiner will also place emphasis on some general items that are considered critical to flight safety but not necessarily specific to just one aircraft type. These might include how effectively the pilot applies good crew resource management techniques and how well checklists are managed.
Unlike my previous type ratings, this one is what the FAA calls a common type rating. This is a single pilot type rating that has been assigned to two (or more) aircraft having separate aircraft type certificates. Despite a significant size difference between the Boeing 757 and 767, the systems and operating procedures are extremely similar, and so a common type rating suffices. Essential differences between the two are covered in what is appropriately known as differences training.
Sometimes the reverse is true, and a separate pilot type rating is required to captain an aircraft variant that shares the same or an amended type certificate. This is known as a related type rating. An example would be the Citation II (CE500) and the Citation VI (CE650), models that are sufficiently different so as to require that a pilot be type rated in each.
Finally, a single pilot type rating assigned to multiple series of an aircraft sharing a common aircraft type certificate is referred to as a same type rating. For instance, Boeing has designed nine different series of 737 aircraft. There remains enough commonality between all of these versions that a 737 type-rated pilot may fly any, as long as he or she receives appropriate differences training in the series flown.
Depending upon the makeup of an operator’s fleet, deciding what differences training is needed can get complicated. Aircraft operators that have more than one variant of an aircraft type must identify a single series as the base aircraft for training and currency purposes. This might be the version that makes up the biggest part of the fleet, for example. The FAA requires FAR Part 121 aircraft operators to then designate the level of differences training to be provided, based on a range of increasing requirements from A to E. Level A training might be something as simple as a training bulletin or crewmember take-home study guide. At the other end of the scale, Level E training can require use of a full-motion simulator or flight training in the aircraft itself. If differences are great enough that Level E training is needed, the FAA also requires that a pilot in command receive a related type rating in that variant.
A type-rating examination consists of two main parts, an oral equipment examination and a practical flight test. The oral exam is given prior to the flight test, and in certain cases a written examination may be substituted with prior FAA approval. The oral usually consists of an aircraft performance problem of some kind, followed by a walkaround inspection of the aircraft. In the airline world where aircraft don’t sit still for long, this will probably mean a "pictorial" walkaround, in which photographs of the aircraft exterior are used in lieu of the actual airplane. Next, the examiner is likely to review aircraft limitations as a warmup to the main event: systems review. This represents the bulk of the oral. Examiners often structure their systems questions around the layout of the cockpit panels. Working their way from top to bottom, they typically cover the operation of each and every cockpit control and indicator.
My oral was scheduled for several weeks into the seven-week-long course. From past experience I knew that "practice orals" are a great way to enhance systems understanding and to build confidence. So for the week prior to the exam, several of my classmates and I met for nightly question-and-answer sessions. When the big day arrived, our orals came and went uneventfully. Now we could concentrate on flying, something most pilots (myself included) enjoy much more than test-taking.
By now our class had a number of so-called fixed training device sessions under our belts. An FTD is a less sophisticated nonmotion simulator that lacks a visual display. It is used to help pilots gain familiarity with things such as checklist flows and basic aircraft systems operations. Later in the program we would transition to a high-fidelity, full-motion visual simulator. This is needed for practicing maneuvers such as an engine failure during takeoff or recovery from a wind-shear encounter.
My sim partner and I fell into a regular pattern of eating, sleeping, and training, and before long it was time for our checkrides. These took place in the simulator and consisted of two parts. The first was the so-called maneuvers validation. This was a collection of standard airline checkride maneuvers, such as stalls, an engine failure at V 1 (takeoff decision speed), a high-speed rejected takeoff, and single-engine nonprecision approaches. This was the examiner’s chance to see us demonstrate a variety of items that hopefully would never be required on a single flight, but which are conveniently grouped in the simulator for checking purposes.
This was followed the next day by a real-time, line-oriented session in the simulator that emphasized our crew coordination and decision-making skills. It consisted of two complete flights, from pushback to engine shutdown at the gate. We had already shown we could fly the 757 according to company procedures. Now the examiner wanted to see how we managed the aircraft in a more realistic setting. Instead of a series of seldom-seen maneuvers artificially strung together, everyday operational issues would crop up that needed to be addressed. Some were relatively minor, others more obviously pressing. But overall safety of flight would be influenced for better or worse by how we handled each.
During one flight, for example, the weather at our departure time called for use of deicing procedures. An inoperative instrument required that we check the aircraft’s minimum equipment list to determine if we could legally depart the gate, and a last-minute runway change called for new takeoff paperwork. All of these were perfectly ordinary happenings in the life of an airline crew. It was only much later, during cruise, that a cargo-compartment fire warning caused us to make an unplanned emergency diversion. The common denominator in all these events was that they required teamwork and an understanding of the airplane to resolve successfully.
Shortly after blocking in at the computer-generated gate for the last time, we were issued temporary airman certificates denoting our new type ratings. A week later I flew a real 757 for the very first time, under the watchful eyes of a check airman and with a full load of passengers. Not long after that I had logged the requisite 25 hours of supervised initial operating experience, and was officially finished with training. It was good to be back to flying. Earning a new type rating is at once a challenge and its own reward.
Vincent Czaplyski holds ATP and CFI certificates. He flies as a Boeing 757 captain for a major U.S. airline.
Related Articles
