If you examine the history of tech crew complement from the 60s there were 2 branches of thought on this. The US carriers and those mainly South American carriers that were under the influence of the US went with the 3rd pilot. The European carriers and their field of influence ( their old colonies) kept a Professional Flight Engineer.
I don't think that this reflected anything more than the huge industrial influence of US ALPA.For many 3rd World carriers it also represented the fact that there was an acute shortage of trained ground engineers and those that existed were not available to be trained as PFEs.
Unusually for a Flight Engineer, I spent a few days in Washington with ALPA in the 90s as part of a delegation from Australia and I also have a copy of Flying the Line which was presented to me at that time. At the time I was a senior executive with AIPA which represented both pilots and engineers in Australia, something that ALPA appeared to not be impressed with. During discussions on this subject I found their views totally unrealistic to the situation that many airlines with PFEs faced. We were often a long way from main base with very poor communications. I can only assume from their comments at the time was that they considered that the US PFEs were way less trained than ours on air craft systems knowledge, or that their pilots were way more qualified than ours. My opinion was and is that neither position was true and Industrial muscle had won out over common sense.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 31st Jul 2019 at 00:52.