Flying a 747 Classic/Tristar with no FE

[Massey1Bravo]

I came across this thread recently: :eek:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/121360-two-man-tristar.html

Here's my question, do you think it's possible for a 2 man crew to operate a 747 Classic, DC-10, 727 or Tristar if none were ex-FEs themselves?

[eckhard]

I once found myself in the simulator building with 2 hours to spare before my 747-400 detail. Decided to look at some of the other machines. The sim engineers said the 747-200 wasn't needed for a while and that I could have a play if I wanted. Had a good look at the F/Es panel and figured out what was what. To cut a long story short, I managed to start it up, taxi out and fly a couple of circuits, finishing off with a half decent landing.

So to answer your question: Yes it would be possible to 'fly' one of these jets without an F/E (but I'm sure that the AFM requires three crew) so to 'operate' one properly one needs a trained and qualified guy or gal in each of the three seats.

On the other hand, Charlton Heston managed it in Airport 1977 so it must be OK!

[Flight Detent]

Well, eckhard...

From simply watching what normally happens, you have stumbled around the flight deck and got it going...congratulations...most FEs could do the piloting job with a similar amount of ease!

...and this proves what!...or....your point is!...

a 12 yearold boy could probably drive his old mans car, but that certainly doesn't prove anything except how to get yourself INTO trouble!

[PENKO]

Take it easy FD. I can't find the reason to be upset in eckhard's post. All he does is answer the question: of course a two man crew can fly away w/o the engineer. That doesn't say anything about the profession itself. So lighten up!

[eckhard]

Thanks Penko!

Sorry FD, I seem to have hit a nerve!

No offence to FEs intended nor (I think) implied. It just shows how one can be misunderstood. I was always taught that if someone misunderstands you, the fault probably lies with the way you phrased what you were trying to say. So, to adhere to that principle, let me apologise for my clumsy wording and try to sum up my point again:

It is possible to fly just about any aircraft as a single pilot, given enough time to prepare. That doesn't mean it should be encouraged. What does it 'prove'? Nothing much, except that with no abnormalities or time pressures to deal with, the task of getting an aircraft airborne and back on the ground again is not beyond most professional flight crew (pilots and F/Es). I must say I enjoyed the challenge of finding out what some unfamiliar knobs and switches were for. I'm sure the simple piloting required under such low stress conditions would also not be beyond some 12-year-old boys. I've seen some sim engineers hand-fly Cat 11 approaches and landings to a much higher standard than most pilots could. Does that make me feel inadequate or threatened as a professional pilot? Not in the least.

By complete contrast, the safe and orderly operation for hire and reward requires the co-ordinated input and actions of a minimum number of trained and qualified aircrew. That number is determined by the certifying authority and in the case of the 'classic' wide-bodies and other types, certainly and deservedly includes the Flight Engineer. It's obvious that the minimum crew must be able to deal with the worst conceivable combination of failures, environmental problems, etc. The system design and displays of the older jets are too complex to be managed by a two-pilot crew under such conditions. The extra pair of eyes are also useful in normal operations. I could go on but I suspect that you agree with all of these points.

I did try to separate the notion of simply 'flying' against that of 'operating', and I certainly don't consider myself any sort of 'higher being'! In all my flying, I have always learned from my students (mostly about my own shortcomings as an instructor) but also about all sorts of things that they had a better handle on than I did. I count this exchange as one of those learning opportunities.

So, to answer the original post again: Yes, it think it's possible for a 2 man crew to operate a 747 Classic, DC-10, 727 or Tristar if none were ex-FEs themselves. But I don't think I would like to be a fare-paying passenger on such a flight!

[18-Wheeler]

Yes I've kinda done it - Not takeoff or landing, but in the cruise for hours while the other two crew slept.
It's possible to set up a lot of the FE's panel before takeoff and landing to make it all work. Though to make it work properly an FE is most definitely required! That also presupposes that nothing is going to go wrong.

[Metro man]

In the USA isn't it a requirement that one of the pilots be able to operate the F/E panel, though no certificate is requied ?

[Graybeard]

The interesting case was the 737-100/200, for which ALPA contracts required the FE, and non-union airlines flew without FE. In 1980 as the DC9-80 neared certification, McDouglas, having promised to never certify another non-FE airplane after the DC-9, was getting hit hard by ALPA. McD called the DC9-80 a follow-on, and not a new plane.

A study was then released showing the two-crew 737 had by far the best safety record of any plane, followed by the DC-9 and the three-crew 737.

ALPA dropped its objection to no FE, and within a year McDuck changed the name to MD-80.

GB

[tristar 500]

Seeing as Arizona has not replied yet, I will pass on the situation this side of the pond.

I cannot speak for the 747 Classic, but on the TriStar, BA used to fly with 3 pilots, same as the Trident.

It didn`t seem to cause any trouble & was only changed for routes outside Europe where a Longhaul F/E was carried.

I well remember that Cairo was a Shorthaul Captain & First Officer with a Longhaul F/E & that DID cause problems!!

tristar 500

[chornedsnorkack]

It is possible to fly just about any aircraft as a single pilot, given enough time to prepare.

Probably, though I cannot see why.

FAR 125.263 says that

(c) On each flight requiring a flight engineer, at least one flight crewmember, other than the flight engineer, must be qualified to provide emergency performance of the flight engineer's functions for the safe completion of the flight if the flight engineer becomes ill or is otherwise incapacitated. A pilot need not hold a flight engineer's certificate to perform the flight engineer's functions in such a situation.

Somewhere else in FARs, cannot find where, is the requirement that no transport plane may become unsafe by incapacitation of any one flight crew member. Two pilot planes meet this by ensuring that either of the pilots could fly the plane alone.

But what about three required crew planes? There s no requirement that any plane should be flyable with two crew incapacitated. Two pilot planes routinely crash with both pilots incapacitated (see Helios).

So, there is no requirement that it should be possible to fly a three flight crew plane with two crew incapacitated and one pilot left. Can they in practice be flown so?

Also, when one of three is incapacitated, is it safer to fly with both pilot positions occupied and FE post empty, or with FE post occupied and one pilot seat empty?

[con-pilot]

Also, when one of three is incapacitated, is it safer to fly with both pilot positions occupied and FE post empty, or with FE post occupied and one pilot seat empty?

In my opinion, formed from 7,000 hours in 727s, I would definitely say the left seat and the FE seat to be occupied in that situation.

Come to think about it, I've flown with some co-pilots (okay, okay, FOs) that for all intent and purposes the right seat was empty.

In fact on one takeoff in the 727 the FE may have saved our lives. When I called for the first flap reduction, at 500 feet AGL, the guy in the right seat put the flap handle to full up/clean position. The FE saw him do that and yelled at me to get the nose down and start building up airspeed, then the FE put the flap handle back to 10 degrees. To be honest I don't know if we would have stalled or not, but that was not the place to find out. It was a hot day and we were at gross for the conditions.

Yes, the co-pilot bought all of our drinks that night and I paid for the FE's dinner. Actually the guy in question turned out to be a really good pilot, that was like a wake-up call to him.

Oh, one other thing, after this we changed our procedures to first flap retraction at 1,000 feet AGL.

[pp763]

Flight Detent, as eckhard said

so to 'operate' one properly one needs a trained and qualified guy or gal in each of the three seats.

There is no reason to assume that he thinks that he is higher than anyone else.

He isn't saying that he can operate it well so there's no need for mentioning the twelve year old boy is there.

I suggest you calm down and brush up in your interpretation skills, you are way over the top.

[WeekendFlyer]

Surely the reason for having the FE is to monitor the systems on the FE panel and take appropriate actions if things start to go pear-shaped?

I can quite believe it would be possible to operate a 3-crew aircraft with 2 pilots in normal circumstances, but in an emergency situation?!? Would you really want one of the pilot's to unstrap and play at being the FE while the other pilot flew? Surely that would remove a lot of the safety that comes from having the non-handling pilot watching, assisting and cross-checking the handling pilot's actions and decisions.

I would definitely not want to be on an aircraft in that situation... :eek:

[Graybeard]

Further to my post above, many of you should remember the first few 767 were built with FE position. They converted them to two crew after ALPA conceded.

GB

[galaxy flyer]

Greybeard:

Weren't some of those B767's actually delivered to Ansett with the F/E panels still installed and went into service that way?

John Tullamarine: any info on these planes?

GF

C-P

I agree on where to put the two pilots in a B727, but Flaps 10? Which had a detent between 5 and 15?

GF

[Semu]

I've always wanted to solo a B747-200 (in a simulator). That being said, a major reason I have not gone from the -200 to the -400 is that I really want an engineer when the fecal matter impacts the compressor.

[Old Fella]

I have read the posts on this subject posted to date. The question is really a "no-brainer". Aircraft designed to have three crew in operating crew positions may only be operated with three crew. "Can" they be flown with less than three crew? Of course they bloody well can, but not "operated". Professional F/E's, just like professional Pilots, take great pride in what they contribute to the overall operation. The aircraft designers determine how many crew are required. Certification mandates it. Most pilots with whom I flew accepted that the F/E was the "Technical expert" on the flightdeck and, as far as I'm aware, most F/E's respected that the pilots were the ones charged with flying the aircraft. That said, it was very rare in my experience for the operation to not be a real "team" effort, each with clearly defined duties and a common desire to make the operation as smooth and as least stressful as possible.

Personally, I think the removal of the F/E was more to do with what the "bean counters" believed than what the operational side of aviation thought best. I guess the Radio Operators, then the Navigators felt much as I do about being replaced by technology. It probably won't be long before the next step, i.e. just a dog and a pilot up front, is taken. Just remember, the pilot will only be there to feed the dog and the dog will only be there to bite the pilot if he goes to do the wrong thing!!

Merry Christmas all from one old F/E who can remember the "good old days"

[Metro man]

"Weren't some of those B767's actually delivered to Ansett with the F/E panels still installed and went into service that way?"

Due to an agreement with the union, the B767 was classed as a long haul aircraft and therefore required a F/E. The fact that it was designed without one didn't seem to matter. The aircraft had to be modified to accommodate this, which made them a little difficult to sell on. People wonder why they went bust.

[Jumbo Driver]

I well remember that Cairo was a Shorthaul Captain & First Officer with a Longhaul F/E & that DID cause problems!!

That was yet another typical Back Every Afternoon Shorthaul compromise that just didn't really work ... :hmm:

Give me a Flight Engineer in the third seat any day - they're worth their weight in gold!!


JD
:)

[barit1]

There was once a TWA Connie capt who was tasked to crew a ship on ferry from Kansas City Muni to the maint. base at Fairfax - a 5 min. flight across the Missouri river.

He grew tired of waiting for the other 2 crew to show up - so he told the line boy to pull back the boarding steps, closed the door, slid in the F/E seat to start the engines, then moved up to l/h seat and proceeded to take off and fly gear down and flaps 20 to destination.

He probably had a bigger handful than the same exercise in a 74 classic or 3-holer.

I suspect that he was in a big hurry to go on vacation... :D

[con-pilot]

I agree on where to put the two pilots in a B727, but Flaps 10? Which had a detent between 5 and 15?


:\ Oops.

After I wrote that yesterday I realized that I had a brain fart. Yup, you're quite right, it is 2-5-15-20-25-30-40. Must be a sign of old age, well that and it has been over ten years since I flew a 727.

:ok:

[mutt]

Rumor has it that Orient Thai operated a L1011 with 2 crew, the Captain got xxxx with the FE, and actually took off without him.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/121360-two-man-tristar.html


Mutt

[Jumbo Driver]

Back to the original question ...

I have several times pondered on this - imagining an "On the Beach" scenario with your nearest and dearest depending on you, finding a fuelled Classic sitting on the tarmac, all shut down but otherwise ready to go. If you are current and experienced on type, undoubtedly it would be possible.

You enter through the electronics bay, start the APU from its own battery, then 4-engine start from the APU and cross-bleed, setup the F/E panel before taxy and again before take-off, then fly the aircraft single-handed. It would certainly concentrate the brain - and it would be nice to have a serviceable A/P and not too many ADDs - but I am confident it would be possible. There should be no problems with CRM ... but no catering either ...

I would have thought that operating the ship with just 2 crew instead of 3 would, by comparison, be an absolute doddle! :ok:


JD
:)

[Intruder]

Also, when one of three is incapacitated, is it safer to fly with both pilot positions occupied and FE post empty, or with FE post occupied and one pilot seat empty?
IMO as a 747 Classic Captain, it would be best to stay in the seat to which you are most accustomed.

If the FE is incapacitated, the Captain could more easily unstrap and set up the panel as desired, leaving the FO to handle the controls and radio in the interim. Before approach, set it up for landing, then get back in the left seat and fly it.

If the FO is incapacitated, it's really a no-brainer. Both the Captain and the FE can do their jobs from their accustomed seat, and the FE is used to monitoring the front of the cockpit from his seat. The Captain merely takes on the PNF duties as well as the PF duties.

If the Captain is incapacitated, there's a bit of a decision to be made. While communication between FE and the left seat is much easier, the FO may not be as comfortable finding controls or landing from the left seat. For those who might doubt it, there IS a significant difference in the "feel" of the cockpit from the opposite seat!

[18-Wheeler]

It's certainly easier to reach the gear & flaps from the FO's seat, but you'd really need to see the FE's panel so I'd go for the Captain's seat for single pilot ops. :)

[bermudatriangle]

the 747 classic is the most forgiving aeroplane to fly and the most satisfying.it really handles like a classic sportscar or a 3 litre v6 cruiser,just an amazing machine.fine when all systems operating correctly, however,the flight engineer is vital to a smooth,stress free operation.totally different to the 400 which replaced it.i prefer the 200 as a pilots aeroplane,it wins hands down.very lucky to have flown them.

[Old Fella]

18-Wheeler, I presume you are commenting on a normal Classic crew where the Captain becomes incapacitated scenario. That being the case, would you care to expand on why "You'd really need to see the FE's panel"? It would seem to me, that if the Captain becomes incapacitated, the F/O would be far more comfortable controlling the aircraft from the right seat as he always does on any sector where he is the PF. The FE knows what he has to do and I would think the pilot flying has enough on his plate just flying, without having to "check" that the FE panel is properly configured.

For ASFKAP. Have you anything worthwhile to contribute or can we expect more of the same meaningless posts?

[Jumbo Driver]

I agree Old Fella - with the Captain incapacitated, the F/O should certainly remain in the RH seat, where handling will be much more familiar.

As far as seeing the F/E panel is concerned, you can do so from the RHS by leaning left and back from the seat, and then turning to the right, which gives a good view of most of the panel. I've done it many times. You can even reach some of the fuel pump switches with the right hand from that position.


JD
:)

[Old Fella]

Thanks JD. I guess I still have a question about why 18-Wheeler believes "You'd really need to see the FE's panel" as reason for the Captain to have to be removed from the LH seat so that the FO could occupy it. Don't quite understand where he is coming from, but the inference could be that the FE has to be monitored. I certainly hope that is not his reasoning.

[lexxie747]

reason for not answering is...... he is flying 2 classics at the same time.

[Wunwing]

The presumtion of being able to operate a Classic B747 without a Flight Engineer or someone at the panel is that nothing needs to be changed during the flight. There is a very big diffence between setting up an unpressurised aircraft, set tank to engine for a quick circuit and a 12 hour sector say PER/JNB. My 18,000 hours as a B707/747 FE kept me busy constantly adjusting cabin temps, pressurisation and ballancing fuel. Some 747 models have 9f uel tanks which have to be used in a set order. Over a 12 hour sector the fuel use on each engine varies tremendously and rebalancing is a must.


The other presumption is that no abnormal precedures have to be carried out.
For most abnormals that would be difficult co ordinating switching from the pilots seat.On a long sector I found that there was often an abnormal checklist to run. The operator that I spent most of my time with also designated the FE as the checklist handler. While I am in no way saying the pilots couldnt handle a checklist, the crew training had the FE do it. In time of problems we do things as we are trained so no FE means pilots doing what they have not practised and on the B747 multiple checklists are common when a primary system fails.

I agree with earlier comments. The only 2 man situation that works for all circumstances is Capt/FE. I've done it a few times and it works because both can check each other. It's impossible for the F/O to check the FE as the panel can't be seen from the F/Os seat.

As far as the Ansett B767 FEs are concerned, I'ver said on PPRUNE before that I have seen an original B767 sales book which promoted the aircraft as a 3 crew aircraft. Ansett was a launch customer and bought the aircraft as advertised. It then made an agreement with the AAFEA on crewing the aircraft that it purchased. The aircraft then changed but Ansett stuck to its agreement. For the first year at least it was a good decision because of the many problems that they had and the MEL relief that was given by carrying the FE. After that the situation was more equestionable. I can also remember seeing B767 FEs at NRT for an Asian airline??? in the very early days of B767 ops.
For the record I am not ex Ansett and never flew as a B767 FE.

Wunwing

[Jumbo Driver]

Old Fella, I think there are always times when the guy at the panel needs to be monitored. For example, when going on to straight feed or for any other fuel configuration change - that's just the way the flight deck operation always has been in my experience on the Classic. I certainly don't think the F/E needs to be monitored otherwise.

There are always individual exceptions, of course, as there also are in both the other seats, but I've trusted F/Es for best part of 30 years (far more in fact than some of my ex-shorthaul pilot colleagues who came over to the fleet more for pension reasons than for operational aptitude) and I'm certainly not about to change that habit now. The Classic 3-man crew (CPE) operation was about as good as it gets, in my opinion ... :ok:


It's impossible for the F/O to check the FE as the panel can't be seen from the F/Os seat.

Absolute not so, Wunwing - it can be done, as I have said earlier (http://www.pprune.org/4589874-post34.html). I've done it more times than I care to remember.


JD
:)

[18-Wheeler]

18-Wheeler, I presume you are commenting on a normal Classic crew where the Captain becomes incapacitated scenario.

You presumed incorrectly - I was talking about a single crewmember flying the aeroplane.
If there was two crew, either pilot incapacitated would be no great hardship .... most times, as long as the FE is good and the vast majority of them are.

[stilton]

All of the Ansett 767's were 'reconverted' back to 2 Pilot operation eventually.

[john_tullamarine]

.. that conversion must have cost an arm and a leg ..

The original tale was that it just wasn't worth the dollars ... another of Sir Peter's little idiosyncratic legacies ..

[411A]

For the most part, set and forget logic, except for routine fuel feed management to keep within specific aircraft limitations...

[Old Fella]

18-Wheeler. How kind of you to concede that most FE's are good. So too are most Pilots!!

JD. In all my years operating as a FE I was never conscious of being "monitored" by either pilot when managing the fuel, or the pressurisation, or the hydraulics, or the environmental system etc etc. If I was ever monitored other than in the Sim or on a Line Check it was done without being apparent.

[Engineer]

I did some TCAS training in the 747 Classic at Burgress Hill, whilst doing a 727 conversion course, with an ex BA 747 Captain. After the training he demonstrated a take off couple of circuits and a 2 engine landing all by himself it was impressive.

So yes you can fly the aircraft with no other person to assist but that was in the Sim would you want to do it for real. Personal opinion no the extra pair of eyes and team work all ways reduces the work load which is invaluable in those high stress situations

[EAM]

Well, you can also fly a 767 or a 330 with just 1 pilot but that doesnt mean we should do it all time. So, yes, you can get it into the air, but do you want to fly, navigate and talk to atc while you doing checklist at the panel, well, have fun.

Anyway, its less fun to fly without the Engineer :p

[411A]

411A it would appear that you change your views depending on which post you reply to.


Don't you and old fella get in a snit, old boy, just a little humour...:E

Actually, our F/E does quite a lot prior to engine start...trimsheet, bug card, keeps an eye on fueling, exterior inspection, etc....so 'dozing for dollars' enroute is OK with me.:ok:

Fat-fingured Fred over KMEM was a complete waste of time, however...:}

[SNS3Guppy]

I would definitely say the left seat and the FE seat to be occupied in that situation.

Come to think about it, I've flown with some co-pilots (okay, okay, FOs) that for all intent and purposes the right seat was empty.


I think that summed it up quite nicely, Con-Pilot.

[boofhead]

Any flight instructor can fly any airplane without any help. Considering the low time and poor training many FOs get nowadays, during their first few hundred hours the instructor/mentor pilot who is PIC is effectively flying "solo".
In the US the panel guy/girl is not an engineer but a wannabee pilot and is virtually useless as a technically qualified crewmember. A genuine FE however is worth his weight.

[con-pilot]

On the FE sleeping, happened all the time. When we first started our operation the new hires, including myself, would be a FE on the 727 for the first year and would be a pilot on the smaller jets during the same period.

At the end of the week after all of us had landed we usually met at the Officer's Club at the Air National Guard Base that was near our hangar and had a few drinks to unwind. One evening one of the new guys, I'll call him Bob, was late getting to the club. I knew he was on the ground, he had been my FE all week. Now you need to understand that Bob while new with us, was a very qualified high time ex-freighter captain who had been flying Electras for years, prior to that he had been a corporate jet pilot. So he was no young kid.

Anyway he finally shows up and I asked him what took him so long. His reply was priceless and very typical of our operation.

"Well I was driving down the access road when a 727 took off, I was watching it and when the gear came up I fell asleep and ran off the road."

Once, along the line of 411A's story, I had an FE/pilot nearly empty the number 2 (center) fuel tank one night when he fell asleep while cross feeding to the one and three tanks. Fortunately I caught it in time and was able to reverse the feeds.

I also agree with other posters here about Professional Flight Engineers, they are worth their weight in gold. We were fortunate enough to have two in our operation.

[Semu]

Actually Boofhead, there are still a few American outfits using professional flight engineers. I've even met a few who came from being mechanics, though most are from the military. Certainly the exception though.

Went to sleep when the gear came up. That is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while... Guess I need to get out more.

[con-pilot]

I've even met a few who came from being mechanics, though most are from the military.

Both of ours were retired Air Force. One was the former NCOIC of maintenance of the 89th Squadron at Andrews AFB. That man knew Boeing aircraft inside out.

[Jumbo Driver]

JD. In all my years operating as a FE I was never conscious of being "monitored" by either pilot when managing the fuel, or the pressurisation, or the hydraulics, or the environmental system etc etc. If I was ever monitored other than in the Sim or on a Line Check it was done without being apparent.

Old Fella, my experience was that it was generally accepted that certain potentially critical configuration changes such as fuel balancing, or Emergency/Abnormal/Alternate items such as (for example) an IDG disconnect, should be done by one and monitored by another - common sense really, I think.

It was the same if one pilot was absent from the flight deck and (say) a North Atlantic ATC clearance came through, the pilot's receipt and readback would be monitored by the F/E. Just professionalism within an integrated crew in my book ...


JD
:)

[Old Fella]

JD, I have no problem or argument with what you point out regarding the use of Emergency/Abnormal/Alternate or even Normal Checklists. They are Challenge and Response Checklists. My comment relates to the normal operation of the aircraft, part of which includes fuel transfer/balance operations and many other configuration changes. The RAAF and the civil airlines with which I was associated all used professional flight engineers. None of us were used in any other role. Thankfully, we were well trained and almost all came from a background in aircraft maintenance, 12 years in my own case. Just as most pilots take pride in their piloting skills most F/E's do likewise with their F/E role. The comments of 411A and Con-Pilot, even if meant to be taken jokingly, are offensive to me and many other F/E's who take, or took, their job seriously.

The essence of good operations was, in my experience, a mutual respect for each other and an acceptance that without each member performing their role in a professional manner the quality of the "whole" was diminished. I was fortunate enough to fly with many pilots from various countries over a long period. I have no doubt that some F/E's may not approach the job as I did, just as some pilot's could improve their performance. Fortunately, the vast majority with whom I flew were great operators and treated me as an integral part of the team.

[Flight Detent]

Hear..Hear..Old Fella

[con-pilot]

The comments of 411A and Con-Pilot, even if meant to be taken jokingly, are offensive to me and many other F/E's who take, or took, their job seriously.

I have/had no intentions of being offensive toward you or any other Professional Flight Engineer. If I have caused any offense I do apologize.

In fact when I had one of our Professional Flight Engineers on the crew I was a lot more relaxed than when I had a Pilot/FE in the Engineer's seat. I could trust a professional not to screw up.

My attempt at humor was directed at the pilot/FE that sat in that seat.

I never had a Professional FE leave the APU running after takeoff.

I never had a Professional FE leave all the generators off line and still have essential power still powered by the APU as I started to pull out on the runway to takeoff. (Looked like a goddamn Christmas tree back there.)

I never had a Professional FE nearly run the number 2 fuel tank out of fuel.

I never had a Professional FE sit in the jump seat and refuse to help loading the baggage compartments because he was hungry and I couldn't find any food for him at 04:00 hours at a Air Force Base during a Special Operations mission.

I could go on, but I hope you get my point.

[x213a]

To all captains who have had experience of both:

Would you prefer the 'old days' and have a F/E or share the workload with F/O?

Extra set of eyes etc is always a plus but- would you go as far as having F/A looking out? Where does it stop?

As pilots, would you prefer a designated flight engineer or deal with the workload yourself?

[bluesilk]

never had the benefit of a F/E in the civil world but many hours spent in the RAF with them and when many hours into a very long patrol with more hours to go if something wasn't quite right it was always the flight engineer who advised us whether it was ok or whether to high tail it back to base, and what to do en route.
He was I thought the only man on board who knew how the thing worked,
all of it. The Flight engineer to us was priceless. We called it "crew cooperation" . CRM hadn't been thought of.

[Old Fella]

Con-Pilot. My apologies if I got a bit "touchy", comes with the ageing process maybe. My comments relate only to the "Professional" Flight Engineer and the part we play/played in the overall operation. As bluesilk noted, it was called "Crew co-operation" and was long before CRM was dreamt of. I enjoy my memories these days, almost all of which are good ones. Happy flying.

[411A]

My apologies if I got a bit "touchy", comes with the ageing process maybe.

Quite likely...look and read between the lines for the humour...:E

I never had a Professional FE leave the APU running after takeoff.

I never had a Professional FE leave all the generators off line and still have essential power still powered by the APU as I started to pull out on the runway to takeoff. (Looked like a goddamn Christmas tree back there.)

I never had a Professional FE nearly run the number 2 fuel tank out of fuel.



Likewise and, I never had a professional Flight Engineer try to do the finger-dance on the electrical panel on the 'ole L1011, trying to manually sync the generators, either.
This was a typical pilot/FE scenario, simply because they didn't (couldn't be bothered to) actually listen in ground school and pay attention.
NO surprise there...these guys were too damn interested in the RHS.
And, when they eventually arrived there, they set a very poor standard of performance, which they constantly failed to achieve.
No surprise there, either.:rolleyes:

[Roy Bouchier]

In the days when the world was very young I was lucky enough to fly with only professional FE's. These had no aspirations to be pilots and I learned more about the aircraft from them than from any ground school.
Without exception, they were first class.

[Jimmy Do Little]

In fact on one takeoff the FE may have saved our lives. When I called for the first flap reduction, at 500 feet AGL, the guy in the right seat put the flap handle to full up/clean position. The FE saw him do that and yelled at me to get the nose down and start building up airspeed, then the FE put the flap handle back to 10 degrees.


I think I flew with this same co-pilot AND this same FE once!

Most days, I really miss my FE. :(

[moonburn]

OK, just to liven things up a bit,
It was common belief / folklore on the mainline L1011 fleet that the BEA '3 pilot experiment' had resulted in the highest engine failure rate ever seen on the Trimotor.

[BelArgUSA]

Moonburn -
xxx
Be ready for 411A wrath soon.
He is actually a RR secret agent, aka as 004(11), also as Agent Tri-Bond.
His Chevrolet is powered by a RB-211.
xxx
Happy 2009, Moonburn, you also 411A.
:D
Happy contrails

[moonburn]

BelArgUSA.

If that's true it must run on palm oil, be registered in Liberia and have a maintenance history knocked up in a blacksmiths shed in la belle france.

You have a good year too.

[tristar 500]

moonburn It was common belief / folklore on the mainline L1011 fleet that the BEA '3 pilot experiment' had resulted in the highest engine failure rate ever seen on the Trimotor.

From my extensive knowledge of TriStar operations with both three pilots and with professional F/E your statement is complete bo**ocks. The main problems we had was when the F/E came on and started snagging things which were well known to the pilot comunity and accepted as normal. I can think especially of flights out of ATH in the summer when it was normal to get a #2 engine O/H. the pilots used to know about it, indeed expect it, it was no big deal & we just had to reset the pointer and write it up in the tech Log as such but the F/E used to try and make a big thing of it.

tristar 500

[Jumbo Driver]

Now that is what the Longhaul fraternity would describe as a typical Hounslow Flying Club attitude towards professional Flight Engineers ...


JD
;)

[Old Fella]

Tristar 500, as one of those awful professional F/E's, also now retired, I find your comment nonsensical. Your reference to No 2 Engine Overheat is somewhat intriguing, especially when you state that the "pilot community used to know about it, indeed expect it, it was no big deal and we just reset the pointer and write it up as such" I presume you are referring to an EGT exceedance and that the "pointer" you re-set was on the EGT indicator. If my presumption is correct I wonder how many times you, with your extensive knowledge of TriStar operations, were responsible for later engine failures when the hot end failed from too many of those "expected OH's" which you thought inconsequential, but your professional F/E's knew were important enough to make a "big thing" out of?

[Flight Detent]

I don't want to make a big thing of it...

but once again, Hear, Hear...Old Fella!!

FD :mad:

[Old Fella]

Flight Detent, thankfully comments from people such as Tristar 500 regarding the value of F/E's are few. Thanks for your support and also to JD for your comment re the Hounslow Flying Club etc etc.

[main_dog]

Quick interjection here from a young (30-odd) former glass pilot who for the last two years has had the chance to fly the 747-200... the F/Es I fly with are, almost to a man, knowledgeable, professional, capable and priceless when problems arise ! :ok: A little rough around the edges perhaps (ours are predominantly aussies :}), but very fun to fly with.

More than once a sharp-eyed F/E has spotted things we pilots both missed, occasionally saving my bacon on sim or line checks.

I sometimes wish we hadn't traded an extra pair of eyes, brain and extensive technical knowledge with an EICAS/ECAM; I'll take my engineer's expression over a computer's assessment of the situation anyday!

I know when I eventually convert to the -400, I'll spend the first few hundred hours looking over my shoulder only to find a big gap... :ouch:

[411A]

The main problems we had was when the F/E came on and started snagging things which were well known to the pilot comunity and accepted as normal. I can think especially of flights out of ATH in the summer when it was normal to get a #2 engine O/H. the pilots used to know about it, indeed expect it, it was no big deal & we just had to reset the pointer and write it up in the tech Log as such but the F/E used to try and make a big thing of it.

tristar 500

Yup, sounds familiar.
The smart F/E simply trimmed the thrust accordingly, just as he was supposed to do.
The 'un-smart' ones simply bit*hed and moaned.

They were ignored...and if it became intrusive...replaced.

No discrepancy went in the Tech Log without the Commanders specific approval at the companies where I have worked, and this instruction came directly from the respective fleet manager.

As it should be.

[Jumbo Driver]

No discrepancy went in the Tech Log without the Commanders specific approval at the companies where I have worked, and this instruction came directly from the respective fleet manager.

As it should be.

If, by that comment, you mean deliberate suppression of snags from the Tech Log, that's nothing to be proud about, 411A.

Put quite simply, it's illegal - to say nothing of the arrogant attitude to safety which it displays ...

JD
:bored:

[411A]

....you mean deliberate suppression of snags from the Tech Log, that's nothing to be proud about, 411A.


Negative, Jumbo Driver.
The reason is to be sure that the snag is properly and accurately described/noted.

Improperly worded maintenance descrepancies give untold grief to the ground tech folks...we use the FIRM code method for best results.

As Lockheed intended....works like a charm.:ok:

[moonburn]

Thank you Tristar 500, I rest my case.

[Old Fella]

411A, you may have 26 years or whatever on the Tristar, but it seems from some of your comments that you've not learnt a whole lot in all that time. The post from Tristar500, which you seem to find familiar, "that the smart F/E simply trimmed the thrust" is fine if the EGT limit has not been exceeded in time or value. Just resetting the pointer after such events without being able to enter the EGT max value and duration tells the maintenance people nothing of value. From your later comment that nothing went into the Tech Log without the Commander's specific approval (sanctioned by the Fleet Manager) is a system which ignores the knowledge and experience of the flight engineer, and is likely illegal. I have never had to work under such a system, in fact would not work under such conditions. Thankfully the Military and the Civil operators with whom I worked believed that I had been trained well enough to know what needed to be entered in the Tech Log and what did not. Those airlines which use pilots in the F/E position have "panel operators", not professional flight engineers.

[con-pilot]

No discrepancy went in the Tech Log without the Commanders specific approval

That is exactly the way it should be for any operation. This does not mean that only the PIC can do the write up, but that no entry should be made without the PIC's approval and review.

[Jumbo Driver]

... correct - if that's what he really meant ...

JD
;)

[Jumbo Driver]

I think maybe we need some clarification here as I think 411A's position is somewhat ambiguous.

The Commander has overall responsibility for the flight, particularly including all safety aspects. Within that responsibility is the obligation to report any unserviceability of that aircraft and to ensure that the aircraft only operates within the acceptable defect conditions appropriate to that aircraft (e.g. MEL for despatch). The Commander is legally required to ensure that all significant defects are reported. He is not allowed to exercise discretion in reporting only those defects which (for example) have no commercial bearing on the operation of that aircraft - in other words, he should not be selective.

Now with regard to the operating relationship between the Commander and a professional Flight Engineer, there are two fundamentals - firstly, the competence of the Flight Engineer and secondly, trust between him and the Captain. The two are clearly interdependent and, in my experience, it is extremely rare for these qualities not to exist.

Within this environment, therefore, it would be perfectly normal for the F/E to write up the Tech Log with any significant defects, maybe but not necessarily after prior discussion with the Captain, and for the Captain to sign the Tech Log as Commander. Use of a Fault Isolation Manual (FIM or FIRM) is very often helpful in clarifying or diagnosing the problem. What the Commander may not do is to be selective about what is reported - e.g. for expeditious or commercial reasons. On re-reading 411A's post, it is not clear to me whether he is actually advocating such practice or not.

Personally, I would never fly for an operator that tried to coerce me in what I reported in a Tech Log. The Commander has perfectly clear legal requirements and no professional Commander should allow these responsibilities to be subjugated by commercial pressures.

JD
:)

[411A]

Quote:
No discrepancy went in the Tech Log without the Commanders specific approval

That is exactly the way it should be for any operation. This does not mean that only the PIC can do the write up, but that no entry should be made without the PIC's approval and review.

Quite so, co-pilot, and yet....a very few seem to have forgotten (or, never really knew) how the system was designed to work.

In these few cases, a letter from the head shed was usually sufficient to set these (usually old, sometimes malcontent) Flight Engineers straight.
Normally....:rolleyes::}

[Jumbo Driver]

Maybe a similar letter to the odd remaining old malcontent self-opinionated CRM-challenged head-in-the-sand Captain might be a good idea also, 411A ... ?

JD
;)

[411A]

Maybe a similar letter ....

It would never happen.
Simple as that....;);)

[Jumbo Driver]

But maybe it already has ... ;););)

JD
:)

[Old Fella]

411A, I am certainly old (and now retired), however I was never a malcontent. Sometimes , but very rarely, I did not look forward to going to work. On those very rare occasions I did not look forward to a trip it was only because I knew the PIC was of the same personality as your comments suggest you are, a self-opinionated one man band with a contemptuous opinion of your crew. If you hold such a lowly opinion of your lesser ranked crew members as your posts infer it must be a very uncomfortable environment in which to operate when you are the PIC.

I am sure that the aircraft manufacturers who designed aircraft with a F/E position believed that the F/E was a necessary member of the crew, just as they believed their aircraft needed two pilots. Obviously, the company for which I worked after life in the military thought we were a valuable asset, enough so for F/E's and F/O's to be on the same pay scales. I hope you get to enjoy your retirement, when it comes. I am sure many with whom you fly surely will.

Personally I can say with honesty that the vast majority of pilots with whom I operated were highly professional and skilled individuals who accepted that it was a "Crew" aircraft operation where all were expected and able to make their contribution to the smooth and efficient conduct of a flight in a friendly environment. Those pilots receive the respect of their fellow crew members, something which I guess would not concern you Sir.

This letter is not from the "head shed", just from one of those whom you would probably have ignored, found intrusive and sought to have replaced.

[mutt]

Judging by this video, ONE could argue that a PFE doesnt need a pilot :)

YouTube - 747 Autoland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEV753dsi2w)

Mutt

[Old Fella]

Mutt Nice video of an autoland from the Simulator, but in the real world the Classic requires a minimum crew of 3 for normal operations, although reading some posts not all people think so.

[fergineer]

As a thirty year F/E I find 411's comments farcical. I spent my years writting up tech logs and handing them to the skipper to sign, never had one fail to sign it and in doing so obviously agreed with me. If a limitaion had been broken there would not be a skipper that I know that would not want it written up. I know that when we have had to carry snags a discussion was always had......these times where normally when opeerating into wierd and wonderful places that no person in their right mind would want to stay. These discussions also involved the FO and his views were taken into consideration. I was a proffesional FE and as such resent some of the remarks made by some, I know we are thick skinned but some people really take tha biscuit. If I ever fly again my standards would not change and if i ever had to fly with 411 and he ignored my advice he would be flying without me for sure. Thanks old fella for your words of wisdom.

[Old Fella]

fergineer, thank you. As professional F/E's we both know why we were/are employed. Commanders who conduct themselves as his comments suggest 411A does are, fortunately, very rare. As for writing up snags, of course the PIC was always made aware of what was to be written up. Like yourself I am unable to recall ever having had a PIC demand that a defect not be written up and I know that almost all Captains accepted the advice coming from their F/E's when it came to the technical aspects. I am very proud of my contribution to aviation and I know that my role was an integral part of the operation.

[411A]

Fortunately, the professional Flight Engineers I fly with now (all originally Lockheed trained, long ago) are professional in every respect and, in addition, positively know who the Commander is...and it certainly ain't them.;)

[fergineer]

And I suppose you have banned them from this site as well as if it was I who you were talking about there would be a one way conversation "behind the hanger" having just read that dribble.

[Old Fella]

411A Sadly, your comments are not just dismissive of your fellow crew members, but also way off the beam. Like your professional Flight Engineers, I too received training from Lockheed many years ago on the C130H Hercules, this after having operated on both the C130A and C130E for the previous ten years. Lockheed, I might add, were very impressed with our level of knowledge of the C130H gleaned before arriving to pick up our new aircraft. I too positively always knew who was in command and always respected that authority, even with the couple of commanders with similar high opinions of themselves as you display. Almost all those commanders with whom I flew, unlike yourself, respected my contribution as well as that of their F/O.

Consider the source of the adverse comments regarding yourself if you will, I personally could not care less what you or those of your ilk think of me. One thing I am certain of is that most pilots would rather fly with me as part of their crew than have you as their commander. As for the comments re the Tristar, I have to defend the type. My time on it was one of enjoyment and appreciation of the way it operated. Maybe a bit more maintenance intensive than the Classic, but a far nicer environment in which to work. That is, of course, provided one did not have to share the flight deck with one such as yourself.

[NoJoke]

Read your PMs