What it's like to fly an airliner.

[DeepFriar]

Some thoughts and questions about current navigation practice on airline equipment...

Given that airlines operate on a schedule to a relatively few airports (compared to total airports) the navigation variables would seem to be minimal compared to, say, a business/charter or private operator who may have to go anywhere at any time. But possible emergency or divert operations of the airliner require the aircraft to "know" where it is at all times and be able to navigate to a new location in order to accomplish those events.

It seems it took a long time for domestic operations to even begin using GPS. VOR/DME/ILSworked well enough so why bother I imagine them thinking. But the overseas operations drove the need for more inputs. Omega, Loran, various doppler schemes led up to the inertial systems beginning, I think, with the Delco Carousel mechanical system gyro on your fav, the 747.

This is the long way around to asking how you're doing it now. My interest was piqued by the fact that certain aircraft radios have one transmit module and as many as six receivers within the same unit. These are apparently to receive inputs from as many sources as may be available (multiple VOR, DME, GPS, et al) and "blend" them in the FMS with inertial data for position. Has this become the norm or where does this stand now? It sounds like a silly question but can you comment on how you guys know where you are, when you are, where you're going and how your gonna get there?

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: PimTac


The takeoffs there are what I like to call carrier style. Gun the engines and then pop the brakes and off you go.


Seems like that's they way they did all takeoffs in the "old days". The first time I flew on a computer controlled plane I was yelling in my head punch it. There was no loading against the brakes and you could tell it wasn't full power. The programming is trying to save wear and tear on the engines by giving just enough throttle to get lift at an " appropriate " point on the runway. This is the standard way to do it now and I think it sucks.

From a standpoint of good practice, I would think a full power test sitting still is a good test. If a turbine is going to fracture sitting would be a good time. You'd think the earliest point on the runway you can achieve rotation speed, the better. I'd rather be ahead of the game.

Astro can tell me I'm full of poo now.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Some thoughts and questions about current navigation practice on airline equipment...

Given that airlines operate on a schedule to a relatively few airports (compared to total airports) the navigation variables would seem to be minimal compared to, say, a business/charter or private operator who may have to go anywhere at any time. But possible emergency or divert operations of the airliner require the aircraft to "know" where it is at all times and be able to navigate to a new location in order to accomplish those events.

It seems it took a long time for domestic operations to even begin using GPS. VOR/DME/ILSworked well enough so why bother I imagine them thinking. But the overseas operations drove the need for more inputs. Omega, Loran, various doppler schemes led up to the inertial systems beginning, I think, with the Delco Carousel mechanical system gyro on your fav, the 747.

This is the long way around to asking how you're doing it now. My interest was piqued by the fact that certain aircraft radios have one transmit module and as many as six receivers within the same unit. These are apparently to receive inputs from as many sources as may be available (multiple VOR, DME, GPS, et al) and "blend" them in the FMS with inertial data for position. Has this become the norm or where does this stand now? It sounds like a silly question but can you comment on how you guys know where you are, when you are, where you're going and how your gonna get there?


On a modern airliner, position is calculated by the FMC (flight management computer). It's getting several inputs, dual GPS, triple ring-laser gyros (INS), dual DME (or more) receivers, dual (or more) VOR receivers, and dead-reckoning within the FMC. By the way, that's the hierarchy on position accuracy.

From the FMC, then, we navigate. We program a route of flight (either manually, or uplinked using CPDLC) and the airplane will track that route using a flight management mode known as "LNAV" or Lateral Navigation.

When the route accuracy is critical: like an non-precision approach, we have a requirement to very our position by monitoring the raw data. In a precision approach, an ILS, the airplane flight management and guidance is locked onto a ground-based radio beam with course and glideslope information.

We don't really operate to "relatively few" airports. At my airline, we operate to several hundred. With several hundred more that we've planned for emergencies and/or contingencies. We have charts for every single one of those in our iPad electronic flight bag. Thousands and thousands of charts for approach procedures, frequencies, taxiways, parking and standard instrument procedures for arrival and departures.

Not all of that can fit in our Flight Management Computer database, so, in the event of a diversion or emergency, much of our navigation will have to be done manually - either using the FMC to build waypoints to which it can navigate, or by using the raw data of VORs, ILSs and other ground-based signals.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: PimTac


The takeoffs there are what I like to call carrier style. Gun the engines and then pop the brakes and off you go.


Seems like that's they way they did all takeoffs in the "old days". The first time I flew on a computer controlled plane I was yelling in my head punch it. There was no loading against the brakes and you could tell it wasn't full power. The programming is trying to save wear and tear on the engines by giving just enough throttle to get lift at an " appropriate " point on the runway. This is the standard way to do it now and I think it sucks.

From a standpoint of good practice, I would think a full power test sitting still is a good test. If a turbine is going to fracture sitting would be a good time. You'd think the earliest point on the runway you can achieve rotation speed, the better. I'd rather be ahead of the game.

Astro can tell me I'm full of poo now.



Well...I wouldn't say that exactly...

But here is where a turbine engine is different than most engines with which folks are familiar: they get hit with full power when relatively cold...and that's when clearances, and therefor, wear, are the worst.

As the engine runs, it warms up. Blades, being in the free stream of hot exhaust, warm faster than the casing in which they run. If the engine is relatively cold, there is excess clearance between the blades and the case because they've not warmed up enough. This causes excess blade erosion and can cause gas flow problems, like compressor stalls.

Hit the turbine with full power (full heat in Exhaust Gas Temperature) and the blades will expand more quickly than the case until thermal stability is reached, so if they're already both sort of warm, the blades will wear against the case more quickly than when running under steady state conditions. Not good for engine life, and when an engine costs several million to overhaul, not good for the airline's bottom line, either.

Engines are started at the gate, but they're only running for a few minutes, in many cases, when they get hit with takeoff power. Not long enough to reach thermal stability in the blade/case relationship. It could be excessive clearance, or it could be too tight, depending on the conditions and the temperature relationship of the parts. So, we mitigate that by requiring a minimum run time before takeoff thrust.

We further mitigate by reducing takeoff thrust. If the turbine is likely to fail at full power (you're correct there), then doesn't it make sense to avoid full power if the performance is sufficient at reduced power? We will use full power when needed: slippery runway (stopping is an issue, so get up to speed more quickly), short runway (may not have a reduced thrust option), with nearby terrain that requires climbing rapidly, with windshear, or other meterological conditions that require max power.

We really do try to avoid full power for economics...

But more than that, we try to avoid full power for safety. At full power, the blade erosion/contact is one issue. But the bearing load is highest at full thrust...and the bearings, like the engine case itself, may not be at the perfect temperature...so, you're stressing them, too...

However, they aren't under the most stress as we start the takeoff roll...no...they get the most stress from the precession/gyroscopic load on them at rotation. You've got several thousand pounds of rotating mass in a big engine moving at several thousand RPM. That's quite a load on any bearing.

So, full power won't blow a turbine at zero knots, which is in, and of, itself, an emergency and potentially risky situation. No, full power tends to blow the turbine at the moment of rotation. The most risky moment of the entire takeoff - the airplane isn't quite flying yet, and hasn't quite left the ground. In that moment, having an engine blow really presents a tremendous amount of risk.

So, we try to be kind to our engines. We may not own them, but we really want them to stay working...especially at critical moments like rotation.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

I want to fly the airlines the way Tex Johnson did...

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Some thoughts and questions about current navigation practice on airline equipment...

Given that airlines operate on a schedule to a relatively few airports ......

This is the long way around to asking how you're doing it now. My interest was piqued by the fact that certain aircraft radios have one transmit module and as many as six receivers within the same unit. These are apparently to receive inputs from as many sources as may be available (multiple VOR, DME, GPS, et al) and "blend" them in the FMS with inertial data for position. Has this become the norm or where does this stand now? It sounds like a silly question but can you comment on how you guys know where you are, when you are, where you're going and how your gonna get there?


On a modern airliner, position is calculated by the FMC (flight management computer). It's getting several inputs, dual GPS, triple ring-laser gyros (INS), dual DME (or more) receivers, dual (or more) VOR receivers, and dead-reckoning within the FMC. By the way, that's the hierarchy on position accuracy.

From the FMC, then, we navigate. We program a route of flight (either manually, or uplinked using CPDLC) and the airplane will track that route using a flight management mode known as "LNAV" or Lateral Navigation.

When the route accuracy is critical: like an non-precision approach, we have a requirement to very our position by monitoring the raw data. In a precision approach, an ILS, the airplane flight management and guidance is locked onto a ground-based radio beam with course and glideslope information.

We don't really operate to "relatively few" airports. At my airline, we operate to several hundred. With several hundred more that we've planned for emergencies and/or contingencies. We have charts for every single one of those in our iPad electronic flight bag. Thousands and thousands of charts for approach procedures, frequencies, taxiways, parking and standard instrument procedures for arrival and departures.

Not all of that can fit in our Flight Management Computer database, so, in the event of a diversion or emergency, much of our navigation will have to be done manually - either using the FMC to build waypoints to which it can navigate, or by using the raw data of VORs, ILSs and other ground-based signals.


Didn't mean to offend with the "relatively few airports" comment but there are, what, maybe 400 so-called primary airports (ones with scheduled service) out of 15,000+ airports (not counting heliports and other private weirdness) so that was where I was coming from - relative.

Thanks for the other discussion too. Seems the systems I asked about have become the norm.

After you guys approve the flight plan from ops/dispatch how do you actually load it into the FMS? There must by now be an easier way than simple button entry.I

One last question and then I'll go away. What is the difference, if there is any, between the number of individual airports that a junior crew person would land or takeoff from in a given month as opposed to a senior pilot such as yourself? I

That was great input on the bearing loads associated with the takeoff rotation. It's one of those things that seem obvious...right after somebody tells you about it. Would never have occurred to me on my own.

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: Astro14


From the FMC, then, we navigate. We program a route of flight (either manually, or uplinked using CPDLC) and the airplane will track that route using a flight management mode known as "LNAV" or Lateral Navigation.

When the route accuracy is critical: like an non-precision approach, we have a requirement to very our position by monitoring the raw data. In a precision approach, an ILS, the airplane flight management and guidance is locked onto a ground-based radio beam with course and glideslope information.

We don't really operate to "relatively few" airports. At my airline, we operate to several hundred. With several hundred more that we've planned for emergencies and/or contingencies. We have charts for every single one of those in our iPad electronic flight bag. Thousands and thousands of charts for approach procedures, frequencies, taxiways, parking and standard instrument procedures for arrival and departures.

Not all of that can fit in our Flight Management Computer database, so, in the event of a diversion or emergency, much of our navigation will have to be done manually - either using the FMC to build waypoints to which it can navigate, or by using the raw data of VORs, ILSs and other ground-based signals.


Didn't mean to offend with the "relatively few airports" comment but there are, what, maybe 400 so-called primary airports (ones with scheduled service) out of 15,000+ airports (not counting heliports and other private weirdness) so that was where I was coming from - relative.

Thanks for the other discussion too. Seems the systems I asked about have become the norm.

After you guys approve the flight plan from ops/dispatch how do you actually load it into the FMS? There must by now be an easier way than simple button entry.


I think this answers my earlier question on inputting of data. Sorry to be redundant. I would ask if CPDLC has become the norm as it seems that would have the best chance of not introducing errors (I am starting to worry a little about the potential for hacking and what we used to call spoofing/meaconing - false signals). Are other methods used like maybe carrying the flight plan out on a memory device of some sort?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: Astro14


From the FMC, then, we navigate. We program a route of flight (either manually, or uplinked using CPDLC) and the airplane will track that route using a flight management mode known as "LNAV" or Lateral Navigation.

When the route accuracy is critical: like an non-precision approach, we have a requirement to very our position by monitoring the raw data. In a precision approach, an ILS, the airplane flight management and guidance is locked onto a ground-based radio beam with course and glideslope information.

We don't really operate to "relatively few" airports. At my airline, we operate to several hundred. With several hundred more that we've planned for emergencies and/or contingencies. We have charts for every single one of those in our iPad electronic flight bag. Thousands and thousands of charts for approach procedures, frequencies, taxiways, parking and standard instrument procedures for arrival and departures.

Not all of that can fit in our Flight Management Computer database, so, in the event of a diversion or emergency, much of our navigation will have to be done manually - either using the FMC to build waypoints to which it can navigate, or by using the raw data of VORs, ILSs and other ground-based signals.


Didn't mean to offend with the "relatively few airports" comment but there are, what, maybe 400 so-called primary airports (ones with scheduled service) out of 15,000+ airports (not counting heliports and other private weirdness) so that was where I was coming from - relative.

Thanks for the other discussion too. Seems the systems I asked about have become the norm.

After you guys approve the flight plan from ops/dispatch how do you actually load it into the FMS? There must by now be an easier way than simple button entry.


I think this answers my earlier question on inputting of data. Sorry to be redundant. I would ask if CPDLC has become the norm as it seems that would have the best chance of not introducing errors (I am starting to worry a little about the potential for hacking and what we used to call spoofing/meaconing - false signals). Are other methods used like maybe carrying the flight plan out on a memory device of some sort?


No worries, I started this thread for just such questions. Please ask all you want.

I'm tight on time and will answer this one now, and the rest later.

CPDLC is becoming the norm that it was intended to be 25 years ago when FANS was introduced. Fewer transposition errors and much lower frequency congestion on clearance delivery and en route ATC. It enables more traffic in the same airspace. More accurate clearances. Better utilization.

I wouldn't sweat MIJI - we verify everything that is uplinked. We're not going to blindly accept a clearance that makes no sense, or doesn't match our route of flight. If our route varies from planned, we'll have dispatch run the numbers to ensure that we're still good on the fuel burn.

I carry the flight plan on my iPad. For over water flights, I've got it on paper, too.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Didn't mean to offend with the "relatively few airports" comment but there are, what, maybe 400 so-called primary airports (ones with scheduled service) out of 15,000+ airports (not counting heliports and other private weirdness) so that was where I was coming from - relative.

Thanks for the other discussion too. Seems the systems I asked about have become the norm.

After you guys approve the flight plan from ops/dispatch how do you actually load it into the FMS? There must by now be an easier way than simple button entry.I

One last question and then I'll go away. What is the difference, if there is any, between the number of individual airports that a junior crew person would land or takeoff from in a given month as opposed to a senior pilot such as yourself? I

That was great input on the bearing loads associated with the takeoff rotation. It's one of those things that seem obvious...right after somebody tells you about it. Would never have occurred to me on my own.


Wasn't offended at all - it's just a matter of perspective...I think we go to a lot of places, but that's measured against the number of airports that are served commercially...when you measure against every little airport, well, no, we don't cover that many...

I can't really answer your question on the number of individual airports because it's a complex issue. There are three things to consider:

1. System seniority. This is your number on the entire airline roster. The one that is determined by your date of hire (and any subsequent adjustments with a post-merger integration of seniority lists). Your system seniority allows you to bid a position: an airplane seat (capt/fo), in a particular fleet (aircraft type) and within a particular base. So, once you've bid fleet/seat/base, now we are talking about the second factor: bidding, or category, seniority

2. Bidding seniority. Within the fleet/seat/base, you have a relative seniority to the other pilots in that category. Your schedule is defined by where you are in that particular stack. With bases in Cleveland, Chicago, Denver, IAH, LAX, NYC, SFO, and Washington, that have 737, 320, 756, 777 and 747 pilots (not every one at every base) we've got about 70 different categories. E.G. 757 CAP EWR, or A320 FO IAD.

Now, pilots with the same system seniority have vastly different relative seniority within a category. For example, the same system seniority might choose to be a very senior (top 10% of bidders) 320 FO in IAD, or they might choose to be in the middle, for example as a 777 FO, or, like me, they might choose the category of 756 CAP EWR, knowing that they will be very junior within that category. I bid towards the bottom of all 756 CAP EWR - I don't get the cool schedules, or even a defined schedule, because I'm junior in category. Bases vary in seniority.

Denver, for example, as a base, is really senior for us. I could be a 320 FO DEN, and I would be about 40-50% in that category...or, if I bid 320 FO EWR, I would be about 5%, and get everything I ask for in a monthly schedule, or for vacation.

Which brings us to the final consideration after system seniority and category, or relative, seniority:

3. Flying. Simply; marketing drives the destinations to which we send airplanes from each base. It's never the same across bases. For example, 757 in LAX basically goes to Hawaii. 757 in ORD is a lot of domestic flying: places like SFO, or IAH. 757 in EWR is mostly international: a few dozen European cities like DUB, MUC, LHR along with some Caribbean, some South American flying and some domestic flying. BUT flying is seasonal. As traffic to South America wanes in the summer, those airplanes fly to Europe, where demand is high during the summer months. Then they move back to South America, or other destinations, as traffic demands shift. Orlando during Spring Break gets a lot of flying, for example.

So, if you know what category the pilot is in (fleet. seat. base) and where that airplane is going during that season from that base, then you can tell what airports the pilot might fly to, but it's not simple to determine... some cities (Zurich) are really senior. Some (Shannon) are not. Even that varies by base because those cities are part of an overall schedule and schedule drives pay. Airplane type also drives pay. 767-400 pays nearly $50/hour MORE than the 757...so, cities where the 767-400 flies are really, really senior...there's extra $$ in those cities. It's not that the guys like flying to Zurich, more than, say, Geneva, it's that Zurich gets the 767-400 and Geneva gets the 767-300 and in the pay chart, one is paid a lot more than the other.

Finally, some airports are "special qualification" - meaning that terrain, or special characteristics of that airport require extra training for a pilot to fly in/out. Bogota, Columbia, for example, which sits at 8,300 feet and is surrounded by mountains. Mexico City. In the US, Eagle, CO, SFO, and others are special qual. That limits who can fly in there. FOs with fewer than a certain number of hours can't make the takeoff or landing at a special qual airport.

So, it's really, really hard to answer your question, other than to respond "it depends" but I hope I've given you an idea on what it depends...

Cheers,
Astro

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: Astro14


So, it's really, really hard to answer your question, other than to respond "it depends" but I hope I've given you an idea on what it depends...

Cheers,
Astro


Great Scott, what a system! Byzantine is too kind a word. Thank you for the time it took to put that out. Good for you on the 757. I will always be envious of you for getting to fly that beautiful airplane.

 

[Astro14]

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I hated getting stuck below/behind an underpowered airplane, like the A-340.

On my way to Glasgow Saturday night, we got a climb to 390 for the crossing. We were still pretty heavy... but we needed to get up there to keep our assigned route.



You've gotta' love the 757!

 

[DeepFriar]

I saw that UPS is finally upgrading their -200 panels to LCD flat panel. I wonder if United has done that yet or will before they retire them?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
I saw that UPS is finally upgrading their -200 panels to LCD flat panel. I wonder if United has done that yet or will before they retire them?


We've looked at this several times. Here is our current fleet:

757-200 PW EFIS/MAP 15
757-200 RR EFIS/MAP 41
757-300 RR EFIS/MAP 21
767-300 PW EFIS/MAP 35
767-400 GE PFD/ND 16

EFIS/MAP is what you saw in the picture. The original 757/767 display set-up. A bit old school, but like the Tomcat, I'm very comfortable with round dials. PFD/ND is the new display, looks just like the 777, or the 737NG, or the 747-400...it's a really nice set-up.

So, we've got 16 airplanes with the new displays, and 112 with the old display. It comes down to cost. To get Boeing to retrofit the new PFD/ND into the old airplanes is several million each. Times 112 airplanes. If we went with a different vendor, then the cost would be different, but even the cheapest is nearly a million per jet, so this is a $100 million question.

I'll spare you all the variants that we have underneath those numbers. Different cabin configurations, comm panels, satellite communications, Datalink, or not, Wifi installations, etc. The question was on display types.

The benefits and costs are complex. We keep our pilots (captains) qualified on both display types, which costs us more in training (we have to keep currency on both displays, and our trips to Denver for flight training have to include both the 767-400 and older airplane types.) But that flexibility in assignment allows us to use fewer crews on reserve for contingencies. DAL, for example, has the 767-400 as a separate fleet type for crew purposes, which saves $$ on training, but requires more crews on reserve, driving up the crew costs to operate it. If we had one display type, then our training costs would go down, and our spare parts inventory would be reduced, both saving $$, but it would take a very long time to get the ROI on the cost of the retrofit.

Part of the question has to be: how long do we plan to keep the airplane in service?

Right now, the 757 is unique. It allows service on the "skinny" Europe routes. The point to point flying that I talked about a while ago. That's where we beat our competition. Only the 757 has the legs to get to Europe. The A321 NEO LR version will be able to, when it comes out, and while it burns less fuel per seat/mile, you've got to pay for a new airplane. So, fuel costs matter. We are in the process of fitting our second set of winglet upgrades to squeak out a bit more fuel economy.

The 767-300 and -400 are comparable to the 787s. Again, you've got to pay for the airplane. Our 767s are older, but we've re-done the interiors, fitted winglets for fuel savings and plan to keep them around for a long time, because they're good airplanes on a Europe route. For the ultra-long range flying, only the 787 will be able to compete and we've got all of our 787 on those kinds of routes.

We upgraded the flight management computers a few years back...that HAD to be done to fit all the airports to which the airplane flies in the database, so there was an operational reason to do so. It's possible that we may face an operational reason to retrofit cockpit displays in the future. But right now, even our oldest airplanes have CPDLC, SATCOM, Predictive Windshear warning radars, Enhanced GPWS, TCAS version 7.1 and all of the latest flight management software. In my opinion, there isn't a compelling reason, operationally, to upgrade the cockpit instruments. It remains a matter of training and parts inventory cost savings.

 

[DeepFriar]

Thanks for that writeup. I was trying to remember the 757/767 intro, along with the fact that they were trying to have as much cockpit commonality as possible, and was thinking that the originals had CRT's which was very advanced for the time. Am I remembering that incorrectly? Or did the CRT's age out and were replaced with the steam gauges as shown beside the EFIS/MAP combo CRT. Is there more unseen-in-the-photograph EFIS with engine/synoptic data on CRT's?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Thanks for that writeup. I was trying to remember the 757/767 intro, along with the fact that they were trying to have as much cockpit commonality as possible, and was thinking that the originals had CRT's which was very advanced for the time. Am I remembering that incorrectly? Or did the CRT's age out and were replaced with the steam gauges as shown beside the EFIS/MAP combo CRT. Is there more unseen-in-the-photograph EFIS with engine/synoptic data on CRT's?


That's an EFIS/MAP airplane. A 757-200 RR. EFIS/MAP is the original cockpit instrumentation. Most advanced design on the market when it was introduced about 35 years ago... I took a picture of just the flight instruments.

Here's an Internet shot of the whole thing:



The center stack of EFIS displays is the EICAS (Engine Instrument and Crew Alert System). It shows engine performance on the upper CRT, and either additional engine or status information on the lower. Actually, all six displays are identical CRT units, driven by a display module (3 of them, with backups and switching) for each individual position. You can interchange CRTs. Helps with spare parts inventory.

 

[DeepFriar]

You have a great corner "office" sir!

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
You have a great corner "office" sir!


Thanks! I'm very fond of it.

Took nearly 20 years with United to get to that office...and while the airplane itself is old tech in the cockpit, it still has great performance, good handling, and goes to really great destinations.

I couldn't be happier about the job...just unfortunate that it took 20 years for me to be able to say that...

Cheers,
Astro

 

[Astro14]

Hey Astro,
I know this is off F14 topic, and maybe sometimes before you addressed this.
I know you flew B767. I am interested in more detailed difference between 767-300 and 400. I know from readings that companies wanted bigger twin engine plane (777). It reminds me of push by Airbus for 330 NEO before companies pushed back saying they want completely new plane.
But, from pilots perspective what is your take?
Me as passenger I always enjoyed 767 but really liked 400 on several occasions, mostly flying EWR-MXP with Continental and MUC-ATL with Delta.

The 767-400 and 767-300 are considered the same airplane for training and type-rating, but they do have some important differences.

Basic airplane stuff: MTOG is 450.0 vs 407.0 respectively. The Max landing is 350.0 vs. 320.0. Fuselage length is 201 vs. 180. Wingspan 170 vs. 166 (with winglet). Fuel capacity about the same. Thrust 63.5 vs. 60.0. The landing gear on the 767–400 is actually a bit longer than on the 767–300, so the airplane looks like a dragster, and sits about 1° nose low when on the ground. This gives the bigger airplane sufficient tail clearance for rotation on takeoff.

So, starting with that thrust and weight, the -400 is a bit of a dog in comparison with the -300 when both are maxed out.

The 767 400 has slightly raked wingtips vs. winglets, a larger auxiliary power unit, a different anti-ice system for engine and wings, an extra ground power plug, different engine controls (more of a GE vs. Pratt thing), an electric landing gear switch vs. a big, heavy manual handle, and thus different emergency extension provisions, and slightly different flap limit speeds. It also has vacuum lavatories, and slightly different doors and slides.

here’s a picture I found:

The biggest difference however is the cockpit itself. The 767 400 was developed after the 777, So the cockpit looks very very similar to the 777. The displays are flat panel, versus the round dials of the 767 300, and the autopilot and display controls are completely different.

take a look at my 757 cockpit picture above and then have a look at this...

 

[Astro14]

So, onto the real question; how do they fly?

They are very similar. The 767–400, as I mentioned, can be a bit of a dog at high gross weight. At max gross, you have to fly above 250 KIAS to get the flaps up. Minimum speed flaps up, at 450,000 lbs is 255.

Fuel planning and burn are similar, but the 767-300 is a bit better on gas. It’s lighter, with about the same wing, and has about the same fuel capacity.

Rotation for liftoff is a bit more deliberate in the -400. It’s easier to hit the tail by over-rotation.

Landing is similar, though the -400 has considerably higher approach speeds, again, heavier, with a similar wing. The 767-300 is pretty easy to land decently. The -400 can be a real bear. It’s very unforgiving of any sideslip or drift and will “lurch” pretty heavily if you’re off even the slightest bit. In fact, on my very first -400 flight as an FO, about 6 years ago, the flight attendants said, “don’t worry, all the landings in this jet are terrible”. All of them said that!

And they were all stunned when I greased it on in Zurich. Honestly, I had good winds, and I had worked and worked in the sim to nail the parameters. Everyone knows that Navy pilots are all about precision, and that airplane rewards a precise approach.

I like the -400 a lot for the cockpit. It’s sweet. But the -300 flies the best of any of the 757/767 models I’ve flown. It’s more forgiving, lands at slower speeds, has better control harmony and balance. I would take that jet anywhere with complete confidence. The extra 20 KTS of landing speed, and the higher takeoff speed, in the -400 makes low visibility, wet, or slippery, or short, or high altitude runways a challenge that you just don’t have with a -300.

 

[wpod]

My neighbor was an Naval aviator and retired as an American Airline captain andI I have posted before seeing him leave for work looking pretty good and seeing him return several days [week] and looking like he had the you know what beat out of him.. It is a brutal job. I guess it is the passion of flight. I don't know how the pilots stand up to the load.