Well an interesting aside about Sgt Jackson, any modern day FEs volunteering to perform the same role?
Developing a point made previously on this thread, a third flight crew member would undoubtedly be useful in some emergency situations in terms of workload management. This, however, does not have to be an FE and it could be argued that perhaps a third pilot is best suited so as to maintain an overall watch on all aspects of the operation whilst the handling crew attempt to resolve the problem. Perhaps an FE would have made a difference on SR111, but practicality suggests he'd have a hard time isolating the fire if the source really was hard wired to the main busses. I think its presumptious to say that the only thing they would have been discussing was an overweight landing. With hindsight that would have been a better course of action, but just because a two man crew were unsuccesful in resolving the problem doesn't mean a three man crew is guaranteed to fair better. There were still plenty of accidents when three man crews were the norm.
It goes without saying that the FE performs a vital role in three crew aircraft , which are largely those that don't have high degrees of automation. I'm sure they're great company downroute as well. However this does not translate to them having a vital role in a highly automated two man aircraft. He may be able to pop circuit breakers quicker than anyone, but whats he going to do for the 99.9% of the time that the aircraft flies without incident? I also stand by my initial comment that suggesting that our modus operandi is "ECAM say, pilot do" without any thought or confirmation is rather stupid. Just because an engineer knows more about the nuts and bolts of the system doesn't mean the pilots are pig ignorant.
Pontius I look forward to your 21st birthday card. Don't let me down like Santa did.