Works alright
Overall handy to have systems quiz, limitations, and memory items to review at a touch.
Some questions are not well written and may cause confusion, as well as incorrect systems labeled such as “IFSD”, which should ISFD (Integrated Standby Flight Display).
Otherwise work well enough for the price.
Some questions are not well written and may cause confusion, as well as incorrect systems labeled such as “IFSD”, which should ISFD (Integrated Standby Flight Display).
Otherwise work well enough for the price.
Show more
Awesome apps!!!!
Downloaded the app and originally used it to prepare for a type rating. Was a huge help and made the transition to a new aircraft very straightforward. Since that time I have continued to use the app for reference and a great refresher for recurrent.
Great apps!
Highly recommend B737NG
Poor content for 20$
I purchased the b767 version of this app and I couldn’t tell you how cheap and disappointing the content was for my 20$. Stay away!
757/767 lacking
The 757/767 application is insufficient. Considerable information is missing (most memory procedures, for example), and much of it is incorrect. While specific numbers vary by serial number or other effectivity, a great deal of what I reviewed here in inaccurate. Quiz questions and systems questions appear to be written by a non type rated person who is not familiar with the airplane, but who might have glanced through a QRH, Flight Crew Operations Manual, or other document. Systems diagrams offer a few token systems, and are not at all sufficient in scope to prepare for a proficiency training sim session, let alone a type rating oral or practical.
This application would be significantly improved with the ability of the user to add to, delete, or modify the information to make study more effective for a given company/fleet/operator.
Little attention seems to have been given to aircraft equipped with GE engines.
The questions and information in this application do not differentiate, except in a few cases between the 757 and 767. While it is a common type rating (757 and 767 are the same type rating), the differences are important, and if one is studying for a type with an operator that uses one or the other (757 or 767), learning the wrong airplane is particularly undesirable (and risky). Further, the application should clearly differentiate between the 767-200 and -300.
There were some questions that seemed cobbled together with bad information, and have no place in review for an oral or type ride. These may have referenced irrelevant equipment, etc. a review question asks which hydraulic system powers the tailskid. The aircraft model wasn’t attached to the question, and the answer depends whether it’s a 757-300 or 767-300, keeping in mind that -200’s don’t have the tailskid. A reference is made to the YSM, or yaw damper/stabilizer trim module, with nothing stating whether it is a 757-200 or -300, or applicability to the 767. Someone preparing to take a type ride in a 767 should not spend time studying irrelevant 757 information, save for some differences questions.
A means should be provided to differentiate between the aircraft, and to study specific to the 757, or for the 767. Again, except for a few attributions, most questions don’t differentiate between the two.this is critical to know, for someone studying for an oral or checkride.
Responses by the developer have been made regarding the spartan nature of the information provided in this application, suggesting that only what’s needed for a type ride is provided, but that is incorrect. A great deal more is needed. Limitation information is not correct, and some of it seems to have been summed up incorrectly or assumed, based on a reading from a book (APU starter limitations, for example, should be three starts in a 60 minute period, not three starts followed by 60 minutes of cooling time).
This application would be significantly improved with the ability of the user to add to, delete, or modify the information to make study more effective for a given company/fleet/operator.
Little attention seems to have been given to aircraft equipped with GE engines.
The questions and information in this application do not differentiate, except in a few cases between the 757 and 767. While it is a common type rating (757 and 767 are the same type rating), the differences are important, and if one is studying for a type with an operator that uses one or the other (757 or 767), learning the wrong airplane is particularly undesirable (and risky). Further, the application should clearly differentiate between the 767-200 and -300.
There were some questions that seemed cobbled together with bad information, and have no place in review for an oral or type ride. These may have referenced irrelevant equipment, etc. a review question asks which hydraulic system powers the tailskid. The aircraft model wasn’t attached to the question, and the answer depends whether it’s a 757-300 or 767-300, keeping in mind that -200’s don’t have the tailskid. A reference is made to the YSM, or yaw damper/stabilizer trim module, with nothing stating whether it is a 757-200 or -300, or applicability to the 767. Someone preparing to take a type ride in a 767 should not spend time studying irrelevant 757 information, save for some differences questions.
A means should be provided to differentiate between the aircraft, and to study specific to the 757, or for the 767. Again, except for a few attributions, most questions don’t differentiate between the two.this is critical to know, for someone studying for an oral or checkride.
Responses by the developer have been made regarding the spartan nature of the information provided in this application, suggesting that only what’s needed for a type ride is provided, but that is incorrect. A great deal more is needed. Limitation information is not correct, and some of it seems to have been summed up incorrectly or assumed, based on a reading from a book (APU starter limitations, for example, should be three starts in a 60 minute period, not three starts followed by 60 minutes of cooling time).
Show more
