Is cross-crew qualification delivering its promises?
David Learmount/LONDONPaul Phelan/CAIRNS
AS AIRLINES AND regulators start to gain experience with cross-crew qualification (CCQ) training and mixed-fleet flying (MFF), its potential is becoming clearer. Cathay Pacific Airways, with its unique Airbus Industrie A330/A340 MFF operation, now has 55 complete crews qualified simultaneously on both types, and says that it is beginning to see the benefits.
Cathay's experience is unique because cross-crewing between a twinjet and a four-jet, although technically allowable under US Federal Aviation Administration rules, has not been practised by the airlines. The FAA permits pilots to have as many type-ratings as they can keep current on their licences, and allows airlines to carry out MFF operations on any two types. Boeing points out that there is no evidence that any serious accident has ever been attributable to pilots moving between different aircraft types.
What has become known as MFF, however, has not been normal practice, reflecting the technical difficulty and expense of complying with multiple-type-rating regulations until recently, and undoubtedly also the natural conservatism of airline operations departments.
Despite the lack of in-depth human-factors research to back up the concept, it seems always to have been assumed that the one-type-at-a-time concept was a "good thing". The International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations (IFALPA), while keeping an open mind about what the future might have in store, says that it is inclined to remain conservative in its approach.
In Europe, the rules assume that "public-transport" pilots will be rated on one type, the only exceptions being for aircraft "family" groups which have been accepted for common type-rating. Any other arrangement (eg, MFF) has to be specifically approved by agreement with the national aviation authority. An interesting aspect of the Cathay A330/A340 MFF operation is that the rules for it are, effectively, being monitored, worked out and written by a European aviation authority, because (until 1997) the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Authority remains an autonomous offshoot of the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
Capt Hans-Ulrich Raulf of the German Cockpit Association, who has worked with the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in developing the JAR FCL (Joint Aviation Regulations Flightcrew Licensing) framework for CCQ, says that there is some way to go yet before even the definitions of "type" and "variant" are clear. "The airworthiness people have different definitions from the FCL," Raulf explains. "For example, the Boeing 757 and 767 are different types for airworthiness purposes, but common type-rated for FCL." At present, under German FCL rules, a pilot may be common-rated on the entire Boeing 737 family, but Raulf says that JARs will separate the 737-100/200 types from the glass-cockpit 737s, and that even the long-running 757/767 combination may be separated because of subsystems differences. Operators of the two types would then have to apply to fly them under MFF rules rather than have a common type rating.
Boeing hopes to keep the entire 737 family, from the -100 to the -800, under a common type-rating; the FAA allows all 737 variants to be common-rated. Boeing's Bill Royce says that his company hopes for a common rating covering all eight variants, and that the FAA, JAA and customer airlines have "flown" the simulators for the next-generation 737s (-600/700/800) "-and they have responded well. I take that as a green light". US pilot unions are happy with the common-rating idea, Royce claims.
Boeing says that it is still defining the flightdeck for its new 747-500 and -600, but it intends that the two should have a common flightdeck, which is similar to those of the 747-400 and 777. Raulf, however, points out that, in drawing up permitted "CQOTV" regulations (crew-qualification for operation on more than one type or variant), it is dangerous to concentrate too much on the similarities, even though they are relevant. It is the differences that count. He comments: "Flying with downgraded hydraulic systems in a 747 is radically different from flying a 777 with downgraded fly-by-wire flight-control laws."
JUDGING DIFFERENCES
Variants, by definition, are not identical. Raulf says that, for example, the differences between the 737-100 and the -700 are much greater than those between the A320 and A330. Airlines may be permitted to operate the latter two under MFF rules, but the possibility of a common type rating seems remote. Lufthansa has now dropped its plans for MFF between its A320 and A340 pilots because each of the fleets has reached a critical mass where rostering flexibility will not be improved by MFF.
In practice, it seems unlikely that any airline will own more than, say, four 737 variants simultaneously and, if it did, it probably would not need to have all its 737 pilots current on all of them. The issue does not concern only the initial "differences" courses, as Raulf points out: each variant has its own manuals, and all have to be kept up to date. A pilot current on all the 737s would own a veritable library of manuals, and keeping them current with technical modifications and operational changes throughout the fleet would be a formidable task - let alone the need to learn and remember the changes.
The manuals issue is not to be lightly dismissed, for it tells the story of the subtler problems associated with common-type-rating and MFF operations. Subtle changes and modifications can be the most confusing for pilots, IFALPA points out. British Airways, which operates common type-rated pilots in its 757/767 fleet, has just decided to divide the pilots' technical manual for the pair into two separate manuals, having used a common technical manual up until now. The 757/767 differences, especially with the stretched 767ERs, have widened the technical disparities too far for one manual to cope with. The flying manual for the pair, however, remains shared.
ADJUSTING TRAINING
IFALPA believes that as JAR FCL CQOTV regulations mature in the light of experience, the adjustments will come in "differences training" techniques. At present, the various disparity levels between any two types accepted for CQOTV are categorised into five "operational differences" levels, alphabetically from A to E. Category A requires only "knowledge" training, with no simulator or flying required. Category E requires training on a "high-fidelity" simulator, as well as knowledge.
The safety-net part of JAR FCLs for CQOTV comes in the form of cautious general provisos, such as the already-incorporated requirement that no new captains or first officers will train for any kind of CQOTV operation, whether common or MFF, until they have acquired specified experience minima on single types. Experienced pilots are required to settle on to one of the types, in a group for a minimum number of hours before moving to another.
Cathay's Airbus fleet manager Capt Rick Fry summarises: "In our case, the arrangement works well, but other carriers may have different industrial environments. It may not be so easy for them to take advantage of the same flexibility. Some airlines may not have embraced MFF as readily as we did because they may have had to work their way through industrial issues. But those environments are changing around the world because of economic requirements, and I think as that happens there will be a greater warming to MFF."
Source: Flight International
