Operational Evaluation Board Report
EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCYOperational Evaluation Board ReportBoeing B757 / 767 SeriesFinal Report, Revision 225 May 2011European Aviation Safety AgencyPostfach 10 12 53D-50452 KölnGermany
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupBoeing B757/767Operational Evaluation Board (OEB) – OPS / FCL SubgroupCaptain Graham PassOEB ChairmanCaptain Herbert MeyerSection Manager, Large AircraftFlight Standards Department, EASA Certification DirectorateRevision RecordRev. No.ContentDate0JAA Original Issue12 Nov 20031B767-300F incorporated30 Mar 20112All25 May 2011B757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 2
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS Subgroup1.JAA JOEB B757/767 FCL/OPS Subgroup Composition (Initial Evaluation)NameCapacityTaskCapt. Terry NewmanCAAJOEB ChairmanCapt. Olav GuldbrandsenJAATeam MemberCapt. Evan NielsenJAACo-ordinatorJean BarilJAACo-ordinator2.EASA OEB B767-300F FCL/OPS Subgroup CompositionNameCapacityTaskCapt. Graham PassCAAOEB ChairmanCapt. Graham StokesCAATeam MemberCapt. Herbert MeyerEASACo-ordinatorNote on references and reference texts:Where references are made to requirements and where extracts of reference texts are provided, these are atthe amendment state at the date of publication of the report. Readers should take note that it is impractical toupdate these references to take account of subsequent amendments to the source documentsB757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 3
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupContentsPageRevision Record . 2OEB – OPS/FCL Subgroup . 3Contents . 4Acronyms . 6Preamble . 7Executive Summary . 81.Background . 82.Scope of the evaluation . 93.Evaluation Process . 94.Results . 95.Conclusion . 10OEB Report – FCL & OPS Subgroup . 111.Purpose and Applicability . 112.Pilot Type Rating Requirements . 113.Master Common Requirements . 113.1 Aircraft Approach Categories . 124.Master Differences Requirements Tables . 125.Operator Differences Requirements Tables . 166.Specifications for Training . 166.1 B767-400 Differences Training Course . 166.1.1 Curriculum Scope and Purpose . 166.1.2 Areas of Special Training Emphasis . 176.1.3 Qualification to the B767-400 aeroplane variant . 186.2 B767-300F Differences Training Course . 186.3 Line Flying Under Supervision (LIFUS) . 196.3.1 Purpose of LIFUS . 196.3.2 LIFUS in conjunction with B767-.400 Differences Training . 19B757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 4
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupPage6.4 Differences Training Courses and Familiarization Flights . 206.4.1 Differences Training Courses . 206.4.2 Familiarization Flights . 206.5 Recurrent Training and Operation of B757 or B767 “Classic” Variant andthe B767-400 Variant . 206.5.1 Landing Currency . 206.5.2 Route Sector Currency . 207. Specification for Checking . 217.1 Skill Test Following Differences Training Course . 217.2 Recurrent Checking – Licence Proficiency Checks (LPC) and OperatorProficiency Checks (OPC) . 217.2.1 Licence Proficiency Check . 217.2.2 Operator Proficiency Check . 217.3 Line Checks . 218. Currency / Recent Experience . 229. Operational Recommendations . 2210. Additional Operational Recommendations specific to the B757/767 FreighterVariants . 2210.1 Weight and Balance / Cargo Considerations . 22Appendix 1 – Initial JOEB Evaluation Process and Findings . 23B757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 5
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupAcronymsAFM . Airplane Flight ManualAMC. Acceptable Means of ComplianceAP . AutopilotAT . Auto ThrottleCBT . Computer Based TrainingCCOM. Cabin Crew Operation ManualCPD . Common Procedures DocumentCRM . Crew Resource ManagementEASA . European Aviation Safety AgencyEFB . Electronic Flight BagEGPWS . Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning SystemETOPS . Extended range operations for two-engine aeroplanesEU-OPS . Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91FAA . Federal Aviation AdministrationFCL . Flight Crew LicensingFCOM . Flight Crew Operating ManualFCTM. Flight Crew Training ManualFFS . Full Flight SimulatorFMA . Flight Mode AnnunciatorFMS . Flight Management SystemFSB . FAA Flight Standardization BoardFSTD . Flight Simulation Training DeviceGPWS . Ground Proximity Warning SystemIEM . Interpretative / Explanatory MaterialJAA . Joint Aviation AuthoritiesJAR . Joint Aviation RequirementsJOEB . JAA Joint Operational Evaluation BoardLIFUS . Line Flying Under SupervisionLOFT . Line Orientated Flying TrainingMCDU . Multi-Function Control Display UnitMCR . Master Common RequirementsMDR . Master Differences RequirementsMMEL . Master Minimum Equipment ListNAA . National Aviation AuthorityODR. Operator Differences RequirementsOEB . Operational Evaluation BoardPIC . Pilot In CommandQRH . Quick Reference HandbookSIC . Second In CommandTCAS . Traffic Alert Collision Avoidance SystemTRTO . Type Rating Training OrganizationZFTT . Zero Flight Time TrainingB757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 6
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupPreambleAn initial operational evaluation of the B757/767 series was completed by the JAA JOEB inNovember 2003. This evaluation was based on validation of the FAA FSB evaluation in conjunctionwith additional investigation by the JOEB in co-operation with the Boeing Aeroplane Validation andFlight Crew Operations Division.A subsequent evaluation to update this report and incorporate specific items related to theoperation of the B767-300F was performed by an EASA OEB in August 2009.As a result of these operational evaluations, a single license endorsement for the B757 and B767is recommended in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.220.This report further specifies the EASA pilot type rating, initial training course, familiarizationcourses, checking and currency minimum requirements, and operational recommendations for: an initial pilot type rating on the B757/767 series; and pilots already qualified on one B757/767 variant and transitioning to another variant.It should be noted that no B767-400 transition training curriculum or “reverse” differences trainingcurriculum from the B767-400 variant to another B757 or B767 variant has been evaluated as partof this report.The initial evaluation was conducted in accordance with the JAA Terms of Reference and theJOEB Handbook. The B767-300F evaluation was conducted in compliance with the applicableEASA OEB Handbook and Common Procedure Document (CPD) for conducting OperationalEvaluation Boards.25 May 2011Evan NielsenHead of Flight Standards DepartmentCertification DirectorateB757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 7
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupExecutive Summary1. Background1.1An initial B757/767 series operational evaluation was conducted in November 2003 by theJoint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in accordance with JAA JOEB procedures, using the followingmethods: Review of the FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report Discussions with the FAA FSB Chairman JAA Familiarization flying for validation of the FAA Type Certificate Attendance at a B767-400 Differences Training course recommended by Boeing, witha subsequent Proficiency Check (PC) Interviews and observations with two US B767-400 fleet operators Conduct of a flight and simulator programme to evaluate the elements of an OperatorProficiency Check (OPC)As no JAA JOEB report was available to cover the B757 and B767 “classic” aeroplane variants, theinitial report was issued to provide adoption of standards for the B767-400 in accordance with theJAA Process defined as the “Catch-up Process”.The Boeing B757-200, B757-300, B767-200, or B767-300 aeroplane variants are referred to as the“classic” variants in this report.Further details regarding the initial JOEB evaluation are contained in Appendix 1.1.2A subsequent B767-300F operational evaluation was conducted by the European AviationSafety Agency (EASA) in accordance with EASA OEB requirements and was completed inFebruary 2011. This evaluation was performed as a “Catch-up Process” consisting of reviewmeetings with Boeing, taking into account the following documents: Boeing 757/767 Qualification Loft (TBC-757/767-O3, Nov 1, 2001) Boeing 767-300ER ETOPS Training (TBC-767-O14, Aug 5, 2005) Boeing 757/767 Recurrent Training FAR PART 61 (R2 Rev 5, Dec 10, 2008) Boeing 757-200/300 or 767-200/300 to 767-400ER PFD/ND Differences Training (D2Rev 2, Apr 1, 2002) Flight Standardisation Board Report (Revision 7, Jan 9, 2009) Boeing 767 Syllabus Transition Training (T1, Rev 9 April 10, 2008) Boeing 767 Flight Crew Training Manual (Rev 8, October 31, 2008) Differences Training D1 (JAA/EASA) B757-200P to B767-300P/F; B767-300P/F toB757-200P. Rev 3.0 July 23, 2009 Flight Training Record sample DHL Form Air FP3 B767 Differences courseB757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 8
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS Subgroup DHL Air B767 Differences & OPC 4 Crew notes DHL Air B767 Differences & OPC 4 Instructor notes DHL Air B767 Differences & OPC Reference notes Design B767-300ER to B767-300F ODR tables B767-400ER JOEB Report (V0912, dated 12 Nov 2003) B767 QRH (D632T001-TA4DHI, dated August 19, 2009)2. Scope of the evaluation2.1Boeing requested confirmation that the B757 and B767 share the same type rating andshould therefore have a single type rating licence endorsement “B757/767” for all variants.3.Evaluation Process3.1Initial evaluation of the B757/767During this evaluation, JAA JAR requirements of JAR-OPS 1 (§ 1.940, 1.945, 1.950, 1.965, 1.970and 1.980 including associated appendices, AMCs and IEMs) and JAR-FCL 1 (§1.215, 1.220,1.225, 1.230 1.235, 1.240 and 1.261 including associated appendices, AMCs and IEMs) havebeen considered.3.2Subsequent evaluation of the B767-300FDuring this evaluation, the requirements contained in EU-OPS (§ 1.940, 1.945, 1.950, 1.965, 1.970and 1.980 including associated appendices and Temporary Guide Leaflet TGL 44) and JAR-FCL 1(§1.215, 1.220, 1.225, 1.230 1.235, 1.240 and 1.261 including associated appendices, AMCs andIEMs) have been considered.System differences were reviewed and Normal and Non-normal procedures compared betweenthe B767-300F and the B767-300. Boeing provided ODR tables were used as a basis for theevaluation.4.Results4.1Initial evaluation of the B757/767The original JOEB concluded that the B767-400 was suitable for inclusion under the “B757/767”same type rating endorsement, provided that the initial type rating was accomplished on aB757/767 “classic” variant (i.e. the B757-200, -300 and B767-200, -300).A B767-400 full transition training course or a “reverse” differences training course from the B767400 variant to another B757 or B767 variant has not been evaluated within the scope of this report.B757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 9
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupConsequently, the OEB currently recommends a separate licence endorsement in those cases,pending the outcome of such an evaluation.4.2Subsequent evaluation of the B767-300FThe OEB concluded that only Level A differences (aircraft are functionally similar) exist betweenthe B767-300 and the B767-300F.Ground courseware using CBT/Video/Transparencies is adequate to cover these differences whentransitioning from:5. the B767-300 variant to the B767-300F variant; and the B767-300F variant to the B767-300 variant.ConclusionEASA recommends the approval of the Boeing proposed training courses for initial type rating onthe B757/767 and familiarization training for variants.EASA recommends that the same type rating, “B757/767” (as single licence endorsement) is applied to allvariants.12 eB757 - 200 series- 300 seriesBoeingB767 - 200 series- 300 series- 300 F seriesDB757/767B767 - 400 ER (1)(1) The differences training course is valid from the B757/767 “classic” to the B767400ER for crew members previously qualified on the B757/767 “classic” variants.The B767-400ER to B757/767 “classic” differences training shall be evaluated orthe full type rating training shall be accomplished.B757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 10
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS SubgroupOperational Evaluation Report – FCL & OPS Subgroup1.Purpose and ApplicabilityThis report defines the Type Rating assigned to the Boeing B757/767 models; proposes Master Common Requirements (MCR); describes Master Differences Requirements (MDR) for crews requiring differencestraining; provides reference of acceptable Operator Difference Requirements (ODR) tables; makes recommendations for initial training; makes recommendations for familiarization training courses; makes recommendations for checking; and makes recommendations for currency.2.Pilot Type Rating requirementsIn reference to JAR FCL 1 Subpart F and to the OEB evaluation procedures, the same TypeRating and, consequently the same Licence Endorsement may be assigned to all variants of theB757 and the B767 which have been evaluated in this report, provided that an initial B757/767Type Rating endorsement has been obtained on a “classic” variant with subsequent successfulcompletion of an approved B767-400 Differences Training Course. The licence endorsementshould be assigned “B757/767”.If, at some time in the future, it becomes possible, due to the formulation of a suitable course, for apilot to complete initial qualification on the B767-400 variant, per JAR- FCL 1 Subpart F, thelicence endorsement “B767-400” should be assigned. With a licence endorsement of “B767-400”, ifthe flight crew member subsequently completes an approved “B767-400” to B757/B767 “classic”Differences Training course, the “B767-400” endorsement can be replaced with a “B757/767”license endorsement.3.Master Common RequirementsMCRs are requirements common to the B757/767-“Classic” variants and the B767-400.Although they have a very high level of commonality in terms of airframe systems architecture andoperation and handling characteristics, there is a major difference to the flight deck of the B767400, which has a direct and significant impact on the definition of the training programmes. Boeingintroduced a Flight Deck Upgrade (FDU) on the B767-400, which incorporates many B777-styleflight instrument displays, Thrust Management functionality, FMC operation, and automatic RadioTuning capability. The FDU incorporates significantly more system automation than is inherent onthe “Classic” B757 and B767 variants.B757/767 OEB, Revision 2page 11
EASA Operational Evaluation Board Boeing B757/767 – FCL & OPS Subgroup3.1Aircraft Approach CategoriesWith reference to EU-OPS Appendix 2 to 1.430(c) the approach categories are as 767-200 IGWB767-300DB767-4004.Master Differences Requirements tables4.1Master Difference Requirements for the B757/767 aircraft are shown in the table below andrepresents the result of work performed in the evaluation. Definitions of the various levels forTraining/ Checking/ Currency are the ones from the Common Procedures Document (CPD), andthe relevant definitions are included after the table for reference.AeroplaneType RatingB757/767FROM AEROPLANEB757200--B757-200B757200PFTO 7200
Flight Crew Operations Division. . Boeing 767 Flight Crew Training Manual (Rev 8, October 31, 2008) Differences Training D1 (JAA/EASA) B757-200P to B767-300P/F; B767-300P/F to B757-200P. Rev 3.0 July 23, 2009 Flight Training Record sample .
Operational Evaluation Report - Cessna CE-525, 525A, 525B, 525C Original - March 12, 2015 ANAC, Rio de Janeiro OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT - PAGE 9 3 Pilot Type Rating There are two pilot type ratings assigned to the CE-525, 525A, 525B and 525C aircraft, depending on the kind of operation: C525, for single pilot operations; and
for Nursing (69) Delaware Board of Nursing (12) District of Columbia Board of Nursing (75) Florida Board of Nursing (70) Georgia Board of Nursing (31) Guam Board of Nurse Examiners (87) Hawaii Board of Nursing (37) Idaho Board of Nursing (82) Illinois Board of Nursing (49) Indiana State Board of Nursing (48) Iowa Board of Nursing (60)
EVALUATION REPORT REVIEW TEMPLATE Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning August 2017 EVALUATION REPORT CHECKLIST AND REVIEW TEMPLATE-4 Evaluation Report Review Template This Review Template is for use during a peer review of a draft evaluation report for assessing the quality of the report.
POINT METHOD OF JOB EVALUATION -- 2 6 3 Bergmann, T. J., and Scarpello, V. G. (2001). Point schedule to method of job evaluation. In Compensation decision '. This is one making. New York, NY: Harcourt. f dollar . ' POINT METHOD OF JOB EVALUATION In the point method (also called point factor) of job evaluation, the organizationFile Size: 575KBPage Count: 12Explore further4 Different Types of Job Evaluation Methods - Workologyworkology.comPoint Method Job Evaluation Example Work - Chron.comwork.chron.comSAMPLE APPLICATION SCORING MATRIXwww.talent.wisc.eduSix Steps to Conducting a Job Analysis - OPM.govwww.opm.govJob Evaluation: Point Method - HR-Guidewww.hr-guide.comRecommended to you b
Section 2 Evaluation Essentials covers the nuts and bolts of 'how to do' evaluation including evaluation stages, evaluation questions, and a range of evaluation methods. Section 3 Evaluation Frameworks and Logic Models introduces logic models and how these form an integral part of the approach to planning and evaluation. It also
Independent Evaluation of the UN Peace Fund for Nepal Evaluation Report 5 PREFACE The Terms of Reference issued by the United Nations Peace Fund for Nepal (UNPFN) stipulated that the evaluation be divided into two main phases, each concluded by a report: the Inception and the Evaluation Phase. This is the draft Evaluation Report.
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation report February 2018 4 ABOUT THE EVALUATION1 Joint Evaluation: No Report Language(s): English Evaluation Type: Terminal Project Evaluation Brief Description: This report is a terminal evaluation of a UN Environment-GEF project implemented between 2013 and 2017.
Jul 24, 2019 · 3. ASCE 41 Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation ASCE 41 provides a three-tiered evaluation approach: a Screening Phase (Tier 1), an Evaluation Phase (Tier 2), and a Detailed Evaluation Phase (Tier 3). A Tier 1 evaluation consists of checklists that allow for a rapid evaluation of the
