Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

who still has flight engineers?

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

who still has flight engineers?

Old 25th Feb 2016, 20:03
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We do, And its a 330
A320baby is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 22:56
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airbubba.
I was a professional FE for nearly40 years on Connies, B707 and B747.While I didn't operate DC8s I rode jump seat on many and they weren't much different to the B707 including having similar engines and systems.

I cant see how they could be operated legally or practically without the FEs station manned full time and I certainly cant see how they could be flown any distance" without moving the white knobs on the fuel panel"? Also who monitors all the indications on the panel and runs the air conditioning and pressurisation?

Beside the practical, the DC8 was legally certified as a 3 crew aircraft. To change that would mean a new certification which is what FedEx did to achieve the MDC10 status.

The L188 is a different situation as the FEs station is fwd facing ,similar to the Herc.

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 01:28
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I was a professional FE for nearly40 years on Connies, B707 and B747.While I didn't operate DC8s I rode jump seat on many and they weren't much different to the B707 including having similar engines and systems.
Izzat so?

I cant see how they could be operated legally or practically without the FEs station manned full time and I certainly cant see how they could be flown any distance" without moving the white knobs on the fuel panel"?
So, you've never plumbed on the DC-8 and just can't see how they can be flown without moving the white knobs on the fuel panel?

Trust me friend, you can cross the ocean without messing with those round white DNFW 'job' knobs.

Beside the practical, the DC8 was legally certified as a 3 crew aircraft. To change that would mean a new certification which is what FedEx did to achieve the MDC10 status.
Must be a fig newton of my imagination, right?

I believe about a half dozen DC-8-73F's were operated by Air Canada for maybe a decade starting around 1983. Since they were only freighters, they probably got an exemption to operate without an FE under the familiar 'no significant loss of life' cargo plane concept that is currently applied in the U.S. to other safety areas like carrying lithium batteries and crew rest rules.

As soon as the bars close in 'North' America hopefully some of our Canadian friends can chime in here and tell me if I'm totally delusional.

The L188 is a different situation as the FEs station is fwd facing ,similar to the Herc.
Since you've never flown the L188 either I'll have to tell you sometime about doing my rating ride with the electric trim inop.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 02:04
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
My first program after joining Boeing was what became the 767/757 - no flight engineers (aside from the very first 767 - VA001 - which was built as a 3 crew, later updated to 2 crew before I ever flew on it).
Aside from takeoff/landing, during flight testing I spend the majority of my time in the flight deck - generally observing the engine displays. Early on I was informed there was an 'invisible wall' just aft of the thrust levers - no one except the pilots was to ever touch anything forward of that 'invisible wall' without explicit permission and direction of the pilots.
In the late 1980's, I was involved in a flight test on a 747-300 - the first time I'd been on the flight deck of an aircraft with a proper flight engineer. It was bizarre (and a bit unsettling) to see the flight engineer repeatedly violating that 'invisible wall' to fine-tune the throttles and flick switches on the center console.
It was a different time
tdracer is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 02:25
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Ansett's B767s were delivered with F/E stands and it was some time before being mod'd to two-man standard.

See http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...exposed-2.html


GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 10:52
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
FLIGHT ENGINEER – The mystery man exposed
Bloody nearly tripped over one of those on a beach in The Sandpit towards the end of a very liquid party; one of the hosties was kindly protecting his fragile person from the rough sand
Basil is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 11:49
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 83
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
A Squared:

You would have to ask the UK CAA why Atlantic were allowed to operate the L188 without a F/E.

Wunwing:

When I flew in the USA, our company had an ex-Air Canada DC-8 equipped with the extended rails (to the F/O's seat). I think it was a 50-Series and it was used as a Combi. I know George wanted to fly it as a 2-pilot machine but the FAA wouldn't let him.
JW411 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 12:36
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: utah
Age: 67
Posts: 59
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old Lurker,

Yes, two were built. One is in a hangar for parts if I'm not mistaken.
atr-drivr is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 12:56
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 215
Received 168 Likes on 59 Posts
Like having Davros sitting behind you eh?
bugged on the right is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 15:31
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
When I flew in the USA, our company had an ex-Air Canada DC-8 equipped with the extended rails (to the F/O's seat). I think it was a 50-Series and it was used as a Combi. I know George wanted to fly it as a 2-pilot machine but the FAA wouldn't let him.
A friend from the Great White North who flew the DC-8 at Air Canada years ago told me that the FO would slide back and drop the crossfeed knobs on the fuel panel for takeoff. He or she would slide back again above 10,000 feet to make sure everything was feeding OK and go back tank to engine. And, I presume later set up for landing with the crossfeeds open in case of a miss.

I was guessing that the two pilot Air Canada DC-8's were only the 70-series freighters but since you saw a short Combi, maybe they went to two pilots, no FE, while still in pax operation.

I can't seem to find much online about the AC two pilot DC-8 operation but I have seen the extended FO seat rails in a -73F years ago. At least I think I have...

While I didn't operate DC8s I rode jump seat on many and they weren't much different to the B707 including having similar engines and systems.
As far as Boeing and Douglas systems being about the same to the FE, I'd beg to disagree. The early Boeing jets were much more electrical in my view. The DC-8, and to some degree its descendants, had most systems operated by long mechanical cables and electrical failures were not as big a deal. The DC-8 was affectionately known as the 'Cable Car'.

The DC-8 had the cash register, the sugar scoop and the suitcase handles as nicknames for cockpit controls. I believe the split suitcase pitch trim handles are still on the MD-11.

Many of the professional flight engineers who taught me the plane decades ago still had bitter memories of ALPA crossing their FEIA picket lines in the 1960's. FEIA wanted to make the FE second-in-command. ALPA successfully renamed the copilot and flight engineer to first and second officer to eliminate any ambiguity about succession.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 18:30
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmmmmm.......Rumours & News?

The moderating on here is slipping.
LGW Vulture is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 23:03
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Basil,

Brilliant
Brakes...beer is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2016, 23:32
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tdracer

From what I saw over my 40 years as an FE there was a huge difference in operational methods between the European based and European influenced ( ie Qantas and BA) and the North American based and influenced cockpit ops.

There was no invisible wall on any of the 3 types I was on. It would have been a bit hard on the Boeing types as they were only fitted with one set of thrust levers. The FE was vey much part of the whole operations on the Boeings including checking radio read backs and nav waypoints. All checklists were run and read by the FE. From talking to other airline crews, most non US crews were the same.

Australia never got involved the ALPA type disputes and our unions overall worked well with then pilot unions. In the end the long haul pilots and FEs merged their unions and at least 2 FEs ended up as VP and Secretary of one merged union.

I can only speak from the long haul perspective, but I suspect that on this type of ops and being so far from home in the days of poor coms in many parts of the world, our system worked far better than the S/O s in the FE panel. I saw many a US carrier get themselves in trouble due to poor system knowledge and operational knowledge including one major US carrier who ended up with all the fuel in one tank on a Pacific crossing. Now that was an interesting inter aircraft discussion. At least they paid for our beers that night in Narita.
Wunwing is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2016, 01:53
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wunwing

There was no invisible wall on any of the 3 types I was on.
I believe that the reference to the "invisible wall" was a distinction between the operating flight crew, and flight test engineers, who are on board and on the flight deck, but not a part of the flight crew.
A Squared is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2016, 01:53
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Wunwing

I was speaking from the perspective of flight test, where there are usually several 'non-pilots' (like me ) on the flight deck "observing" the testing in question. Hence the 'invisible wall' - you don't want people messing with the controls that aren't pilots (or flight engineers).

That 747-300 flight test was the only time I spent in-flight time on the flight deck of a flight engineer equipped aircraft. I fully understand the necessity to adjust individual throttles to equalize EPR/N1 on the classic 747 (some of the allowed 747/JT9D engine intermix configurations would have made aligning EPR on all four engines nearly a full time job ).

Throttle stagger became a big focus for cert related to crew workload on the 2 crew flight decks (with FADEC being a huge help), hence we've never certified rating intermix for a Boeing FADEC aircraft.
tdracer is online now  
Old 27th Feb 2016, 02:14
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tdracer
Your post certainly looks to me like you saw the wall as something that normally would be between the pilots and FE.---the FE repeatedly violating the invisible wall. The reality is as an FE having about 30 years on 747 Classics I cant see why this would even be worth mentioning if you didn't have a problem with it.

In ref to the mismatch engine situation, while it was not common it did occur, particularly during an engine upgrade project. My company also had for a short period an orphan B747 100 which at one stage had 4 different engine status. That one was a full time job on throttles alone.

Overall from my extensive discussions in the late 90s with USALPA, they seemed to have an unrealistic attitude to FEs that was industrially biased and based. That attitude was endemic to the North American based system that I spoke about.

Airbubba
On the technical side I have had a look at the DC8 fuel system and except that the fuel selectors were mechanical rather than electrical, I still cant see much difference to the B707 or for that matter the B747. The one advantage of the DC8 system is it appears to allow tank balancing from any main tank to any other main tank in flight. Given there are 4 engines on a DC8,I cant see how anyone could fly for any length of time without balancing the fuel and with any fuel balance it needs to be monitored, not just looked at every half hour from the front
Wunwing is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2016, 02:29
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There wasn't even a hint of tdracer "having a problem" with anything. It was pretty clearly him just commenting neutrally in a past experience. That you see problems, conflict and disagreement in his post is only a reflection on you.
A Squared is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2016, 03:20
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
then why was he "unsettled"?
Wunwing is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2016, 03:31
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
On the technical side I have had a look at the DC8 fuel system and except that the fuel selectors were mechanical rather than electrical, I still cant see much difference to the B707 or for that matter the B747. The one advantage of the DC8 system is it appears to allow tank balancing from any main tank to any other main tank in flight.
Yep, I think those white knobs I was taught not to touch are the fuel tank selector levers that let you move fuel from tank to tank. There was some James A. Michener preflight procedure for the fuel panel where you checked every valve, switch, pump and light by manipulating all the levers and switches in the right sequence. I knew it for the checkride. Normally you didn't use the fuel tank selector levers at all in flight, you used the crossfeed levers that had a black 'X' knob on them and the tank fill valves to keep the tanks even. And, seems like you always kept at least one fill valve open to avoid an overpressure. But, it's been a really long time since I plumbed the -8.

I saw many a US carrier get themselves in trouble due to poor system knowledge and operational knowledge including one major US carrier who ended up with all the fuel in one tank on a Pacific crossing. Now that was an interesting inter aircraft discussion. At least they paid for our beers that night in Narita.
Over on the Boeing side, I remember United had a fuel emergency at Narita in the late 1980's on a 747. Somehow the FE had trapped fuel in a tank, maybe due to boost pump failures. There was an old alternate procedure to move the fuel using the jettison manifold. Unfortunately, the FE was a pilot and she hadn't been taught this workaround. Two engines flamed out in the air and a third quit after landing at NRT. Or so a professional flight engineer told me at the time. Does this sound right?


Given there are 4 engines on a DC8,I cant see how anyone could fly for any length of time without balancing the fuel and with any fuel balance it needs to be monitored, not just looked at every half hour from the front
I'm not disagreeing, but my Air Canada friend told me years ago that he flew the DC-8 without a flight engineer and I bought it hook line and sinker. And, like I said, some of the DC-8 freighters did have the long seat rails that JW411 and I claim to have seen.

You probably already know about the Canadian Pacific DC-8 that went supersonic at Edwards so I won't bore you with that tale.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2016, 03:36
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Professional" Flight Engineers.

Having been a Flight Engineer on three models of C130 (A-E-H) Hercules as well as the L1011 Tristar from Mr Lockheed and the B707 and B747 from Mr Boeing I guess I qualify as a "Professional" Flight Engineer. If the incident Wunwing refers to was a US carrier arriving into Narita with 12000 Kgs of fuel in one tank and nearly none in any other tank I knew of it, but no detail. My understanding was that the airman occupying the FE position was in fact a pilot whom had no engineering background. Lack of system knowledge was a factor in that following a cross-feed valve failure nobody knew how to utilize the refuel-dump system to overcome the problem.

In days gone by all RAAF Flight Engineers were previously aircraft ground engineers. As such, on the pre C130J model C130's at least, the F/E would operate the flight and carry out any required rectification of defects when away from home base. I assume these days the C130J carries a "Crew Chief" or two to maintain the aircraft away base. I can't imagine the pilot crew doing so.

No fair minded person could claim to be able to better monitor systems than can computers. Neither can any fair minded person claim that a computer can come up with ways and means to operate a system with "out of the ordinary" problems, something which "Professional" F/E's sometimes had to do, and were able to do because their system knowledge allowed them to.

Me, I just am thankful for what aviation gave me and I now enjoy retirement and what that gives me.
Old Fella is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.