5/13/2021 Flight Evaluation

Flight Evaluation: Boeing 767-400ER

Air Line Pilot, February 2001, p. 22
By Capt. Terry L. Lutz (Northwest), Director, Aircraft Development and Evaluation Programs, ALPA Aircraft
Design and Operation Group

The newest B-767 is not just a longer version of the original airplane. The truth is that the amount you can
change the geometry of an airplane without making substantial changes to its overall configuration is limited.
Boeing went right to the limit in some respects, added many cockpit features found in the B-777 family, and
created the most refined addition yet to the Boeing product line.

FAA certification of the airplane was supposed to be wrapped up in early March 2000, but with the engineers’
strike at Boeing, the resulting backlog of flight test work meant that certification was delayed until early June.
Three members of ALPA’s Aircraft Development and Evaluation Group—Capt. Ron Rogers (United), Capt. Joe
Kohler (Northwest), and I—had the opportunity to fly the B-767-400ER on June 5.

From the beginning, we focused on how the changes made to this model of the B-767 affect the way that
pilots fly the airplane on the line. This is a subtle change from the way we approached aircraft evaluations in
the past, when our focus was mainly on performance and handling qualities.

Seen from the second-floor engineering offices along the flight line at Boeing Field, this airplane appears to
have a rakish nose-down appearance. That’s the first clue of the many changes Boeing made when it
lengthened the airframe.

This is the second stretch of the original B-767. The first stretch was made in 1988 when the B-767-300 was
introduced, and the current version is stretched an additional 21 feet. An 11-foot section has been added
ahead of the wing, and a 10-foot section added behind the wing.

With the longer airframe, ground clearance becomes a consideration. If the airplane were limited by its
geometry, it would require both higher takeoff speeds and higher landing speeds to avoid tail strikes. So
Boeing made the main landing gear struts 18 inches longer and moved them outboard so the gear would still
tuck into the wells. This gives the airplane a 1-degree nose-down rake while sitting on the ground. It looks
like it wants to spring into the air, right from where it sits.

Tail clearance of the -400ER is the same as the tail clearance of the B-767-300. While tail strikes are not
expected to be an issue, rotating 10 knots early or touching down 10 knots too slow will touch the tail. The
airplane has a tail skid with a crushable cartridge, but it has no cockpit light that indicates to the pilot that the
cartridge has been crushed, as the B-757-300 has. The pilots who fly the B-767-300 have reported few tail
strikes, and Boeing expects that the –400ER will have about the same low rate of strikes in service.

We briefed for the flight with Capt. Buzz Nelson, B-767 chief test pilot (see Pilot Profile, sidebar), and Lead
Flight Test Engineer Henry Stahl. Having worked together on the –400ER development program from day one,
they filled us in on the important differences in this model, including some interesting and significant changes
on the flight deck. The evaluation profile we briefed included departure and climb from Boeing Field, an
eastbound cruise leg to a working area northwest of Moses Lake, Wash., landing transitions at Moses Lake,
and a systems review on the return leg to Boeing Field.

Walk-around inspection revealed some interesting aerodynamic changes. First are the raked wingtips (see
photo). Boeing considered installing winglets on this model, but found several competing considerations. The
objective was to recover the performance lost by increasing the maximum gross weight of the airplane.
Increasing the wing area (gaining lift) would enhance takeoff and climb performance, while decreasing drag
(using winglets) would recover performance over a long period of time at cruise.

The existing wing could not support the loads that winglets would impose, so Boeing chose the raked wingtip
design. Set at 57 degrees of sweep, the raked wingtips add 7 feet 8 inches to each wing and account for 74
square feet, or 2.4 percent, of the total wing area. The raked wingtips reduce balanced field length, make
possible a higher initial cruise altitude, and still reduce fuel burn by 1 percent versus the basic wing design.
Now, if the world’s tallest catering truck manages to wrinkle one of your wingtip extensions, you can still
operate by removing both wingtips. They are designed to be removed easily, and the flight can continue to a
repair destination with the wingtips MEL’d.

https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/Feb2001_FlightEvaluation.htm 1/6
5/13/2021 Flight Evaluation

Another interesting aerodynamic change from earlier modes of the B-767 is the addition of three vortilons
under the leading edge of the outboard slats. During stall testing, Boeing found that stick forces were getting
light near the stall, and that uncommanded roll at the stall would produce up to a 20-degree bank. Both
characteristics were within certification tolerance, but with the addition of the vortilons, the flow separation
problem near the stall was eliminated. Vortilons, found on aircraft from the LongEze homebuilt to the EMB-
135/145, and now the B-767-400ER, can energize the airflow just enough to eliminate a potential problem.

The nose landing gear of the -400ER is unchanged from earlier models of the B-767, but the main landing
gear are completely new. The new airplane’s wheels, tires, and brakes are from the B-777, but the brake
control system is the same as on earlier B-767s. Boeing has retuned the antiskid/autobrake software to
reflect the characteristics of B-777 brakes. The hydraulic control modules and alternate extend power pack
are also from the B-777. This provides some commonality for airlines that operate both airplanes.

The flight deck of this airplane is designed with six Collins 8- by 8-inch LED displays from the B-777. They are
the brightest, most distinct displays I have seen on any airliner flight deck. Their software is programmable,
which allows operators to select display arrangements compatible with other aircraft in their fleet, reducing
the training required to transition between airplanes. This airplane, for example, had an angle-of-attack
display in the upper right portion of the PFD. When flaps are extended, the display indicates optimum AOA
with a small green band. With flaps retracted, a line shows the AOA for stickshaker activation.

The center EICAS display shows engine parameters and can also be used as a "hot spare" for any of the other
five displays. The lower EICAS display in the center can depict only the status of the landing gear and flight
controls, but has the growth capability to depict all the systems currently displayed in the B-777, along with
an electronic checklist. The ALPA team felt that this upgrade is needed now to provide pilots with an accurate
synopsis of current system status. The appropriate system page should be displayed automatically with a
failure, along with the appropriate checklist. This method improves flight crew knowledge of systems and
reduces errors while the flight crew accomplishes abnormal procedures.

Boeing has put a lot of emphasis on upgrading the cockpit, but not so much that pilots currently type-rated in
the B-757/B-767 won’t be able to transition to this model with 3–4 days of training. The ALPA team felt that,
with a few more changes to the cockpit, the B-767-400ER might strongly resemble the B-777. Without
considering systems differences, particularly the FBW system in the B-777 and with current Advanced
Qualification Training Programs (AQP) used by many airlines, cross training between the two types of
airplanes could be straightforward for the pilots and beneficial for their airlines.

Systems on the B-767-400ER are robust and designed with the redundancy required of an airplane that is
certified to 180-minute ETOPS. All three generators are 120 KVA, and the APU is capable of a cold start at
cruise altitude. The airplane is equipped with a ram-air turbine (RAT), which provides emergency hydraulic
power only. The air-cycle machines are from the B-777, and flight attendants can control the cabin
temperature of the B-767-400ER from the cabin. The flight crew sets the position of the trim air valve, and
the flight attendants can move it warmer or colder from that initial position. The engine antiice system is
automatic, triggered by a Rosemont probe that measures moisture counts, or little bits of ice that fall, and
turns the system on at a threshold value.

Numerous cockpit design features of the B-767-400ER are intuitive and make the cockpit a pleasant work
environment. For example, minimums bugs are selectable to the exact foot, so you don’t have to round up
the numbers on the Jepp chart. The knob to select minimums moves in hundreds of feet if you move it fast,
and in 1-foot increments if you move it slowly—very intuitive. The 3 VHF radios are tuned with just one
display, but you select which radio—left, center, or right—to tune. And, a remote button for the boom mike is
up on the glare shield, so you can talk and keep a visual focus outside the airplane, if necessary. The new
airplane’s sunshades are very well designed, with a clip-on style for the center windscreen and a rolling
screen that moves forward to cover the sliding window, and one that moves aft to cover the aft side window.

Starting the 63,500-pound–thrust General Electric CF6-80C2 engines is a two-step process. The pilot selects
start on the overhead panel and places the fuel switch to run when the engine reaches 20 percent. This is
different from the single-step process used on the B-777 and other aircraft, to retain commonality with
existing models of the B-757/767. A red light inside the fuel switch, which illuminates when a fire is detected,
makes determining which engine to shut down very straightforward.

Peak EGT during start was 420 degrees for the right engine and 451 degrees for the left engine. The new
airplane’s generators come on line with a "no power break" feature, meaning that no loud "snap" occurs when
the generators come on line, and the cockpit displays are unaffected by the power transfer.

https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/Feb2001_FlightEvaluation.htm 2/6
5/13/2021 Flight Evaluation

Before taxiing, flight controls are checked using the flight control page on the center display. Bank angle
marks are on the top of the yoke. We found that the 6.0 mark represented about one-half deflection, which
we would refer to later in the flight.

The airplane was parked in the No. 1 spot on the Boeing ramp, pointing away from the runway. I had to pull
forward, check brakes, start an immediate 90-degree turn, and then use minimum power while taxiing uphill
to avoid putting jet blast into an open hangar and onto Delta’s first B-767-400ER, which was being prepped
for delivery. The nose gear is behind the cockpit, so the pilot has to compensate for both the length of the
airplane and the location of the nose gear. The tiller required about 180 degrees of deflection to turn out of
parking.

I would rate the brakes on this airplane as excellent. We taxied with a zero fuel weight of 235,400 pounds
with 65,100 pounds of fuel, for a gross weight of 300,500 pounds. This is considerably less than the max
gross takeoff weight of 450,000 pounds. At this comparatively light weight, you would expect the brakes to
be a bit sensitive. Instead, they were smooth and symmetric. Precise steering and excellent brakes made
taxiing in tight quarters an accurately controlled nonevent.

We planned the takeoff for flaps 15, with V speeds of 129/136/146. After we initially set power for takeoff,
autothrust brought the thrust up to 109.7 percent N1. Capt. Nelson briefed that the nose would feel light on
takeoff, but I couldn’t keep my "Douglas hands" from making a segmented rotation.

We stabilized in the climb at V2+15 and began cleanup at 1,000 feet AGL. Cleanup was straightforward, with
no noticeable pitch changes with gear and flap retraction. After accelerating to 250 knots, our climb rate was
5,300 feet per minute at 99.1 percent N1 and 17,000 pounds per hour fuel flow. After passing 10,000 feet,
we turned east and accelerated to 340 knots for the climb to FL290. From brake release, the climb had taken
just 12 minutes. The noise attenuation work Boeing has done in the cockpit resulted in a quiet, comfortable
environment.

As we continued east toward a working area near Moses Lake, I performed some basic checks on handling
qualities and found that the forces, displacements, and aircraft response were exceptionally well balanced in
all axes. These excellent handling qualities have become a Boeing trademark. The B-767-400ER handles
slightly better than the B-777.

With the absence of the "soft protections" incorporated in the B-777, the B-767-400ER feels more "like an
airplane." Sharp control inputs in the B-767-400ER do not produce as much aeroelastic response as in the B-
777, particularly in the roll axis. As Capt. Kohler so clearly stated after the flight, "This is the first widebody
aircraft I have flown that didn’t have that widebody feel." Translation: "This is the best handling widebody
airplane in the Boeing product line." Capt. Rogers and I both agreed.

As I mentioned earlier, our objective was to bring a line pilot’s perspective to the evaluation. So our first
maneuver east of the mountains was a rapid descent, simulating loss of cabin pressure. To make this more
interesting, and because it is standard procedure at some airlines, I flew the maneuver completely on the
autopilot. I dialed the altitude from FL290 down to 11,000 feet, disconnected autothrust and brought the
throttles to idle, dialed the speed up to 350 knots, and deployed the speedbrakes.

On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down,
then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots. The time from start of the
descent to level-off at 11,000 feet was just 3 minutes. Very impressive, particularly since we flew the
maneuver by interfacing with automation, rather than manually.

We entered an arbitrary working area into the Honeywell Pegasus FMC and set up for some flight maneuvers
northwest of Moses Lake. The first was a check of roll rate in bank-to-bank rolls from 30 degrees to 30
degrees at ½ wheel deflection. Flying the clean airplane at 350 knots, bank-to-bank took 4 seconds, for a roll
rate of 15 degrees per second. Here is where a sharp control input initiated an aeroelastic response from the
airframe. A later check of this same maneuver with flaps 30 at Vref=136 gave a bank-to-bank time of 6
seconds, or a roll rate of 10 degrees per second. This excellent response at slow speed in the landing
configuration is another indication of the exceptional handling qualities of this airplane.

I set up for some clean stalls at a weight of 290,100 pounds. Using a 1-knot-per-second deceleration in level
flight at 11,000 feet, 15 to 25 pounds of force were gradually required to bring the nose up to 10 degrees
nose high, where light buffet occurred just before stickshaker activation at 166 knots. Recovery was very
predictable with power application and was accomplished without losing altitude. No pitch-up was noticeable
with power application, which is prevalent with underwing-mounted high-bypass engines.
https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/Feb2001_FlightEvaluation.htm 3/6
5/13/2021 Flight Evaluation

Although we did not take the airplane to full stalls, the B-767-400ER incorporates a yaw damper stabilizer
module (YSM), which provides yaw damping, rudder ratio, and elevator feel shift. The YSM provides feel shift
at the yoke as the airplane approaches stall with an aft cg. Feel shift occurs at CL max and can run the
elevator forces up to about 50 pounds at the stall.

We then set up for landing configuration stalls with flaps 30 and a Vref of 136 knots. We performed the
approach to stall in a 20-degree banked turn, and the stickshaker came on when pitch reached the pitch limit
indicator, at 113 knots. We recovered with full power with minimal altitude loss.

Before we cleaned up the airplane, Capt. Nelson talked me through a "tameness demo" that Boeing likes to
conduct. Slowing to 147 knots, I applied full power to both engines, then Capt. Nelson pulled one throttle to
idle. Climbing at a V2 of 156 knots, I maintained heading with aileron control alone. With the airplane slowly
climbing and accelerating, I was able to make turns to headings with aileron only. Wheel deflection was
approximately 6 units, or one-half of available deflection. Feeding in rudder to center the wheel at 156 knots
took approximately one-half rudder deflection, and when the rudder was fully trimmed, 4 units were
displayed on the rudder trim indicator. Except for the performance loss with ailerons and spoilers deflected,
this demonstrates the control reserve available at V2 with one engine operating at full thrust and the other at
idle.

Two related issues emerge, however. First, for the same maneuver, how much performance reserve would the
pilot have on one engine at MGTOW? Second, we felt that the thrust asymmetry compensation (TAC) feature
in the B-777 eliminates the problem of performance loss after engine failure. With TAC, the airplane senses
the loss of thrust on one engine and automatically applies the proper rudder input to minimize performance
loss. TAC provides for the flight control system what moving autothrottles provide for engine thrust:
automatic control, tactile cueing, and pilot override with light force application.

Capt. Rogers jumped into the left seat and warmed up with some steep turns. At 250 knots, the airplane is
very speed stable, meaning that the pilot can set trim and power easily, and it stays there. Speed control,
another aspect of handling qualities, is very apparent in the B-767-400ER.

We then descended into the Moses Lake landing pattern, feeling right at home in the traffic pattern with B-
747s, L-1011s, and C-17s. Groundspeed in the pattern is nicely shown in the upper left corner of the nav
display.

Flying final with a Vref of 143 knots, Capt. Roger’s first landing was with autobrakes 1. Approaching preset
minimums, the airplane annunciated height above touchdown in 10-foot increments (40-30-20-10). Brakes 1
was a very smooth setting. Brake application was almost imperceptible at initiation but gave a smooth normal
stop. Approximately one-half to three-quarters tiller deflection was required for the turn off the runway.

After waiting for traffic to clear, Capt. Rogers made a normal takeoff, and Capt. Nelson pulled the left engine
to idle at V1. As noted during the safety demo, approximately one-half rudder deflection was required during
the initial climb, and both heading and bank angle were easily controlled. The airplane is predictable and
controllable with a simulated engine failure at V1, which is significant when it occurs on your first takeoff in
the airplane, as it did for Capt. Rogers. Completing a 90/270 turn back to the runway, he flew a single-engine
approach with flaps 20 and a Vref of 157. Reconfiguring the airplane after touchdown, Capt. Rogers made a
normal takeoff, and I again took the left seat.

My first landing was set up to demonstrate the autoland capabilities of the airplane. On initial flap selection,
we selected speed mode on the autothrust controls. We flew the approach with flaps 30, and the approach
appeared normal until we were on short final. The airplane appeared to trend a little low at that point, and in
the flare it began to float at the 10-foot callout. Capt. Nelson was a little uncomfortable with that and
disconnected the autopilot just at touchdown. We reconfigured and made a normal takeoff.

The Boeing engineers on board recorded the entire approach and, about a week later, let me know what they
had found. From 300 feet to 150 feet, we had had a tailwind shear of 1 knot per second, then from 115 feet
to 25 feet the shear increased to 1.5 knots per second. From about 25 feet AGL to 4 feet AGL, the tailwind
sheared from 14 knots to 2 knots. The autothrust system kept the power back on final to stay on the
glideslope, then had to add power as the tailwind sheared to near zero. This change in power occurred just as
the airplane was beginning to flare, and the few knots of extra airspeed caused the float at the 10-foot
callout. With the autopilot latched to the glideslope, the sink rate at touchdown was 270 feet per minute.
Working right at its operational limits, the autoland system performed exactly as designed.

https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/Feb2001_FlightEvaluation.htm 4/6
5/13/2021 Flight Evaluation

On the go from the autoland, we left flaps at 5 degrees and set up for another visual pattern. With flaps 30
and Vref=142 knots, I made a normal landing. The pitch change required to flare this airplane is 2–3 degrees,
and the nose attitude is fairly flat, giving excellent visibility throughout the flare. Derotation to put the
nosewheel on the runway was very predictable, although you do have to pitch down another 1 degree below
level flight. While the flare callouts help, height above the runway is relatively easy to judge. On the go-
around from this touch-and-go, the nose felt slightly light, then slightly heavy as the flaps were retracted
from 25 to 5 degrees. When the flaps were retracted from flaps 1 to zero, the nose pitched down slightly,
then came right back up without retrimming as the airplane accelerated.

During the initial climb back to Boeing Field, Capt. Kohler took the left seat, and while he flew, Capt. Nelson
and I worked through some basic emergency procedures. First, we simulated generator failure by de-
selecting the left generator. Until the APU generator is selected on, the utility bus and galley bus are
automatically shed. As during start, no generator hard break occurs as generators go on or off line. The
emergency procedure is to cycle the generator one time, and if it is not recovered, use the APU generator.

We simulated hydraulic failure by shutting off the right engine hydraulic pump. This really has no effect on the
system, or on the configuration for landing. With two electric hydraulic pumps and a RAT for hydraulic power,
the airplane has plenty of hydraulic system redundancy. Using checklist procedures, I found that with right
hydraulic pump failure, the only items lost are the right autopilot and the autobrakes.

Capt. Kohler flew the Jaksn Arrival to Boeing Field. During descent, he noted that very little pitch change
occurred with the speed brakes extended (a good thing), but no light or similar indication showed that the
speed brakes were extended. If you leave the speed brakes deployed and thrust increases to more than 70
percent N1, a "Speed Brakes Extended" message comes up on the EICAS, and a caution beeper will sound
until the speed brakes are stowed. During landing approach, with flaps set at 25 or 40 degrees, or while at
800 feet or below, a warning will sound if the speed brakes are extended. And, if the pilot selects go-around
thrust, the speed brakes will automatically retract.

Setting up for our final landing, Capt. Kohler manually extended the landing gear. A display appears on the
EICAS for the tailskid (which stays up) and the gear doors (which remain down). For this approach, we
weighed 273,500 pounds, with 36,900 pounds of fuel on board. We flew final at Vref=137, with flaps 30.
Autobrakes 4, which we selected for landing, gave a firm, solid stop, but was by no means extreme or
disconcerting. This setting would be appropriate to use for landings on short, wet runways.

We shut down abeam the same No. 1 parking spot, 2 hours 20 minutes after we taxied out. This probably is
the best overall airplane in the Boeing product line, but not just because of the way it flies. Truth be told, as
pilots, we have far too few chances to actually hand-fly the airplane. With the B-767-400ER, we found that
our interface with airplane systems, autopilot, and autothrust were equally as good as our interface with the
manual flight controls. The roll-out sunshades, pen holders, conveniently located push-to-talk buttons, good
lighting, and excellent noise attenuation will make a big difference to those of us who regularly use the
airplane.

Designing a new derivative of an existing airplane creates some challenges so that it is certified with a
common type rating with the models that preceded it. While in general this reduces training costs and makes
transition to the new model easier for pilots, it clearly restricts innovation.

We gave this airplane high marks in almost every category, but common type rating issues kept Boeing from
including all systems pages on the EICAS and an electronic checklist. Both are the industry standard in other
fleets.

Also, a major safety consideration on takeoff with any heavy twin-engine aircraft is dealing with engine
failure. The TAC system used in the B-777 provides a significant safety improvement, but if used in the B-
767-400ER, would the type rating still be considered "common"? These are a few examples that tell us that
the line between refinement and innovation is being drawn by a "common" No. 2 pencil. The B-767-400ER is
the most refined airplane in the Boeing product line, but innovation is necessary to truly raise the industry
standard.

What about Range?

The B-767-400ER has less range than earlier versions of the airplane. Why would
anyone want to build a new airplane with less range than the previous one? Don’t

https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/Feb2001_FlightEvaluation.htm 5/6
5/13/2021 Flight Evaluation

we want each successive model to be better than the one before? Let’s take a quick
look at what is really going on in terms of range.

Intuitively, we think, "Hmmm, let’s see, we have a longer, heavier jet with bigger
engines; both changes mean a higher fuel burn, so we have less range as a result."
But what’s the real relationship here? The formula for aircraft range is generally
associated with a Frenchman named Breguet. For turbojet aircraft, the Breguet
Range Equation is

ÖCL Wi

R=
constant
C ( )In__f
__

CD
W

The first term represents the characteristics of the engines, where c is specific fuel
consumption. To keep c as small as possible, the engines must be operated at an
rpm and airspeed that optimize their efficiency. The second term is the lift-to-drag
ratio. For maximum range at constant altitude, this term is maximized when the
airplane is flown at an angle of attack at which parasite drag equals three times
induced drag. The pilot is never going to know when this relationship is satisfied, so
we fly at the speed the book tells us.

The thing we can really understand is the last term, the weight fraction. If we could
fly with all of our payload as fuel, the range of the airplane would be at its
maximum. But we have to carry people and cargo to make our airlines profitable.
With a bigger airplane and more payload, but with the same fuel capacity, the
weight fraction is smaller, so range is reduced. That is the technical reason that your
intuition is correct!

To recover the range lost by stretching the airframe, Boeing will try to add fuel
capacity to future models. Fuel could be added in the vertical fin or horizontal tail. It
could also be added in the cargo bays, but that would reduce the payload capability
of the airplane. These are typical design tradeoffs; a magic solution for increasing
aircraft range does not exist.

Meet The Test Pilot

A native of Seattle, Capt. Buzz Nelson went to Alaska after earning an engineering
degree at the University of Washington. He worked as a bush pilot and flew for the
Naval Arctic Research Lab. In 1973, having never flown a jet, he went to work at
Boeing as copilot on pre-delivery flights on Boeing 707s, 727s, and 737s.

Capt. Nelson has been involved in development and certification programs for the
Boeing 737-200/300/400, 747-400, 757-200/300, 767-200/300, and 777-200/300.
He also served as chief research pilot, supporting such programs as the B-7J7, and
for nearly 10 years was a member of the SAE S-7 Committee, which writes design
criteria for handling qualities and flight deck design of large transports. He is
currently chief pilot for the B-767 program, a position he has held since 1991. He is
responsible for all engineering flight test activities related to the Boeing 767 model
airplane, including its newest derivative, the B-767-400ER.

During his 40-year aviation career, Capt. Nelson has flown more than 14,000 hours
and is qualified on all current models of the Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777, as
well as several out-of-production and vintage airplanes. He currently lives in Seattle
and owns both a Christen Eagle and a float-equipped Cessna 180. He enjoys flying
vintage airplanes and has been actively involved with a number of restoration
projects, including the Boeing 247, 307, and B-17, the airplane that his father
worked on at Boeing as chief project engineer.

https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2001/Feb2001_FlightEvaluation.htm 6/6