From a Licensing point of view, you can have as many ratings as you can keep current.
The rules what you can fly commercially are set out in Part-ORO, which specifies the organisational requirements, and in ORO.FC specifies the requirements for *F*light *C*rew. This is for where, for example, annual line checks and 6-monthly operator proficiency checks are regulated, which have to be current to fly in commercial air transport, but not in private ops.
In there, you have ORO.FC.140 “Operation more than one type or variant” which applies to non-commercial ops of ‘complex’ aircraft (EASA-Complex, e.g., >5.7t, >19 seats, jets) and ORO.FC.240 which additionally applies to commercial air transport.
In summary, ORO.FC.240 requires that the operations manual specifies how many types a pilot can fly commercially, and AMC1 then has several pages of detail which for jets boil down to a maximum of two types.
Graham wrote:
Where is it the rule then, the UK and/or Europe? I have definitely heard it thrown about a lot, with the implication that it was part of the reason (apart from TR costs) airlines and Boeing were so keen to ensure the Max was on the same TR as other 737s – i.e. more flexibility matching pilots to fleet.
It’s at least not easily found in part-FCL. (I looked.)
Where is it the rule then, the UK and/or Europe? I have definitely heard it thrown about a lot, with the implication that it was part of the reason (apart from TR costs) airlines and Boeing were so keen to ensure the Max was on the same TR as other 737s – i.e. more flexibility matching pilots to fleet.
On an FAA ATPL I don’t believe you are limited to two, which presumably leads to wi**y waving by the more adolescent EQ pilots (male) comparing their ratings.
lionel wrote:
Aren’t airline pilots also allowed to be considered current on only one type at a time? So if you have all 737s, then you introduce a 757 into your fleet, you have to cut your single pilot pool into two pilot pools?
I believe one can hold a maximum of two type ratings on an ATPL.
Aren’t airline pilots also allowed to be considered current on only one type at a time? So if you have all 737s, then you introduce a 757 into your fleet, you have to cut your single pilot pool into two pilot pools?
Peter wrote:
It’s a massive market, in which TR commonality is a crucial selling point,
I have to wonder how much type rating commanlity is meaningful: differences training from a 737-200 or -300 to a MAX has to be pretty much on a similar level to a type rating.
Peter wrote:
The reason Airbus are not gloating over Boeing’s current misfortune is because they have had their share of software cockups and they know that if you sell enough planes into that market x, you will end up with y planes getting crashed, and even an Airbus doesn’t have the GPWS linked to the autopilot
I thought there was a long-standing tacit agreement between the two companies that they did not compete on the issue of safety or seek to gain any sort of commercial advantage as a result of each other’s crashes?
We would all of us be safer flying in a 737-Max than our own GA aircraft. Which is not to say that the accident and cover-ups show Boeing in a positive light.
And much of the 3rd world, which is far bigger than say Europe.
It’s a massive market, in which TR commonality is a crucial selling point, demanded by the airlines just as much as being sold by Boeing. But it must be a real challenge, selling to a [hypothetical but fairly typical] airline where fake exam passes, fake papers of various kinds, dodgy selection processes, cockpits with two novice pilots (in the 1st world the muppet count is limited to 0 or 1, and if you have 1 sitting in the RHS then the LHS has an experienced pilot in the LHS), etc, are not uncommon.
The reason Airbus are not gloating over Boeing’s current misfortune is because they have had their share of software cockups and they know that if you sell enough planes into that market x, you will end up with y planes getting crashed, and even an Airbus doesn’t have the GPWS linked to the autopilot 
