Depends. There is a thing called a “type rating” for each large airplane type. For round numbers that represents about a months’ worth of school and simulator. Within the umbrella of a type rating you may be able to operate all the airplanes in the type, or you may need so-called “differences training” to switch from one sub-flavor to another. Differences training is on the order of 1 work-week.
DC-9 / MD-80 / MD-90 / MD-95 = B717 are one type rating. DC-9 & MD-80 didn’t / don’t require differences training between them. But yes as between them and MD-90 or MD-95.
B757 and B767 have a common type rating. But IIRC the 767-400 is a separate type rating.
The B-737 from the original -100 to the latest MAX-9 and soon to be MAX-10 are a common type rating. But the -100/-200 (So called “original 737”) need differences training from the -300/-400/-500 (So called “Classic 737”) which need differences training from the -700 / -800 / -900 (So called “737 NG”). Pre-grounding the MAXes needed only some light reading before NG-qualified pilots could fly them. Post-return to service the MAX-specific training for NG pilots doesn’t officially amount to differences training, but you can see it from there. Call it “differences lite.”
IIRC B747-400 was a separate rating from the earlier B747s. The removal of the flight engineer changes a LOT of stuff for the pilots. I’d expect therefore the MD-11 to be a separate type rating from DC-10. The government agencies are not 100% logical and consistent about this stuff.
Interesting that there is a type rating for a Boeing 314 (Clipper) – going to be tough to get that one.
Some other rare planes on there: B-17, PBY5 (Catalina), and Ford Tri-Motor. Didn’t see B-29.
In general, purely military types don’t have such ratings, since the FAA doesn’t regulate their operation. PBYs ended up in civil use after the war, so a rating was created for them.
Yes, there is a flying B-29. But I suspect it’s regulated as an “experimental” one-off.
There are lots of corner cases in a regulatory scheme of general application.
And then there was the MD-10, which wasn’t a new plane but rather a DC-10 airframe retrofitted with a MD-11 style flight deck, thus eliminating the flight engineer. (IIRC FedEx was the only one to ever operate them). Now I wonder if that had a common type rating with the MD-11.
As discussed in the several MD-11 related posts above, the MD-11 was a separate type rating.
And was operated by a lot of carriers besides just FedEx. Admittedly FedEx (and UPS) are the two largest operators today. The MD-11’s time in the sun as a passenger airplane was very brief; it’s worn a lot better as a freighter.
I was talking about the MD-10, not the MD-11. Back in the late 1990s or early 2000s, FedEx and Boeing collaborated to take a bunch of their old DC-10s, and replace the cockpits with ones that resembled the cockpit of an MD-11. Those planes got redesignated “MD-10”. Since the flight engineer was eliminated, I assume they couldn’t have the same type rating as a regular DC-10. But since they were pretty similar to an MD-11, I wondered if FedEx’s pilots could fly them with an MD-11 type rating.
Oops. Sorry about that. That’s what I get for skimming. My bad.
I just checked the FAA PDF cited in post 82 and your surmise is correct. The FAA says the MD-10 freighter conversions require an MD-11 type rating, not a DC-10 type rating.
This is as good a place as any to drop this. With increased demand Luftansa is bringing its Airbus 380s out of deep storage and returning them to service next year.
Good to know.
I wasn’t aware the 777X was delayed until 2025, mainly (as I understood it) to more stringent cockpit display and control requirements.
Back to the OP, I was happy when the plane I was in three days ago in SFO taxied right by a Lufthansa 747, and I could point it out to my kid — “now THAT’S an airplane!”
(Also, about a month ago I enjoyed seeing a 727 at Mexico City’s airport — the Federal Police still use that beautiful machine.)
I saw the thread title and thought, yes, I knew it was coming to an end. But wow, I didn’t realize it was almost five years ago! A great and beautiful plane, but it had a good run. Still, others have had longer runs. The DC-3 is still flying!
I had a red eye flight from SFO to ORD years ago. Had an empty middle row of seats (4) so I flipped up all the arm rests, laid down and went to sleep. Nice flight.
When I was a kid, we used to fly model aircraft at the local airstrip. One day we arrived to find a Zimbabwean Air Force Dakota with one wheel stuck in a hole.
All the paratroopers onboard exited and, with engines of full power, literally pushed the plane out. Then they all boarded and it took off. Around 10 minutes later it made a very low pass and all the paratroopers exited the plane again, this time via parachute.
The really sad thing about this is, I used to have Steve Miller’s "Jet Airliner’ on my campfire-level quality singing and guitar playing song rotation. And I still sing along when it’s on the radio, just yesterday in fact.
When it gets to the line “…as I get on the 707” I’d update it with “…as I get on the 747” (pronouncing it “seven four seven”, not “seven forty seven”, to fit the 5-syllable rhythm).
Now what am I supposed to do?? “…as I get on the Airbus 380”? “…as I get on the Boeing Dreamliner”? Fits rhythmically, but not quite the same.
Yeah, I thought of that, but it seems like that model is referred to more by its name Dreamliner than its ‘787’ designation. Whatevs, I haven’t played the song in a long time, though as mentioned I had fun singing along with the radio yesterday.
There was a thread in Cafe Society about specific models of airplanes mentioned in popular song. There were quite a few Boeing planes, but no Airbus models.
I flew in 747s many times from the US to various parts of Asia in the 90s. Much of the business class was upstairs in the bump which was I usually was since it was on the company dime. You had to walk up a weird spiral staircase to get there.