who still has flight engineers? [Archive]

Airbubba

25th Feb 2016, 17:48

Atlantic flew the Electra with just two pilots (no F/E). I think they were the only Electra operator to do this.

And Air Canada flew the mighty DC-8 with two pilots, no FE as I recall. There were extended seat rails in the floor so the FO could slide back to the panel and play with the bells and whistles (but don't touch those white knobs on the fuel panel ;)).

The A300B4-600 did away with the Flight Engineer, (bloody computers).

I think some companies, possibly Air France for one, initially operated the A310/A306 with an FE.

I remember riding on an Eastern A300B4 jumpseat years ago, the FE said she was deadheading between preflights. :ok:

The L1011 FE job also looked pretty cushy to me back in the day but they were long gone before I got to a couple of carriers that had them.

All I remember about being an FE is 'Check Essential!' and 'Drop-rise, drop-rise'...

On the US Military side these come to mind:

I'm thinking some of these no longer have a flight engineer. For example, from the Air Force KC-135 information page:

Three: pilot, co-pilot and boom operator. Some KC-135 missions require the addition of a navigator.

KC-135 Stratotanker > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display (http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104524/kc-135-stratotanker.aspx)

FE Hoppy

25th Feb 2016, 18:20

Mostly found in training schools talking tech to pilots these days.

circle kay

25th Feb 2016, 19:57

RAF E3D, although the OSD is further away than the retirement date of most, if not all of the trade :bored:

A320baby

25th Feb 2016, 20:03

We do, And its a 330:8

Wunwing

25th Feb 2016, 22:56

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

Airbubba

26th Feb 2016, 01:28

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? :confused:

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

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. :ok:

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. :eek:

tdracer

26th Feb 2016, 02:04

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.:rolleyes:
It was a different time :D

galaxy flyer

26th Feb 2016, 02:25

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-general-aviation-questions/498549-flight-engineer-mystery-man-exposed-2.html

GF

Basil

26th Feb 2016, 10:52

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 :E

JW411

26th Feb 2016, 11:49

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.

atr-drivr

26th Feb 2016, 12:36

Old Lurker,

Yes, two were built. One is in a hanger for parts if I'm not mistaken.

bugged on the right

26th Feb 2016, 12:56

Like having Davros sitting behind you eh?

Airbubba

26th Feb 2016, 15:31

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... :confused:

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.

LGW Vulture

26th Feb 2016, 18:30

Hmmmmm.......Rumours & News?

The moderating on here is slipping. :ugh:

Brakes...beer

26th Feb 2016, 23:03

Basil,

Brilliant

Wunwing

26th Feb 2016, 23:32

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.

A Squared

27th Feb 2016, 01:53

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.

tdracer

27th Feb 2016, 01:53

Wunwing

I was speaking from the perspective of flight test, where there are usually several 'non-pilots' (like me :E) 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 :eek:).

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.

Wunwing

27th Feb 2016, 02:14

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

A Squared

27th Feb 2016, 02:29

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.

Wunwing

27th Feb 2016, 03:20

then why was he "unsettled"?

Airbubba

27th Feb 2016, 03:31

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. ;)

Old Fella

27th Feb 2016, 03:36

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.

ferrydude

27th Feb 2016, 12:04

Umm, there are no flight engineer stations on the -135 series aircraft.
I know the E-8 JStars do have, as they are actually 707 airframes, not -135.

Airbubba

27th Feb 2016, 14:49

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.

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?

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.

This seems to be the incident we remember, looks like they actually were down to one engine on final approach to NRT :eek::

NTSB Identification: DCA88IA056

The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 40452.

Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of UNITED AIRLINES

Incident occurred Monday, May 02, 1988 in NR TOKYO, Japan

Probable Cause Approval Date: 06/25/1990

Aircraft: BOEING 747-123, registration: N157UA

Injuries: 258 Uninjured.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various sources and may not have traveled in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft incident report.

UNITED FLT 97 EXPERIENCED INDICATIONS OF UNEVEN FUEL FLOW FROM MAIN TANKS 2 AND 3 AT FL360 BEGINNING ABOUT 4- HOURS AFTER DEPARTURE ON AN 11-HOUR TRANSPACIFIC FLIGHT. THE FUEL SYSTEM HAD BEEN SET UP FOR ALL ENGINE FEED FROM THE NOS 2 AND 3 TANKS. ALTHOUGH IT WAS LATER ESTABLISHED THAT THE NUMBER 2 CROSSFEED VALVE FAILED IN THE CLOSED POSITION, THE S/O INFORMED THE CAPT THAT THE INTRANSIT LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED WHEN THE VALVE SELECTOR WAS MOVED TO THE CLOSED POSITION - INDICATING NORMAL CROSSFEED VALVE OPERATION. FUEL SYSTEM PROBLEM WAS MISDIAGNOSED AS A PROBLEM OF FAULTY FUEL GAGE INDICATIONS. FUEL MONITORING INDICATED INSUFFICIENT FUEL FLOW FROM NO 2 TANK WHEN CROSSFEEDING. ENGS 1, 3, AND 4 FLAMED OUT WHEN FUEL WAS EXPENDED FROM ALL TANKS EXCEPT NO 2. EMERGENCY DESCENT WAS MADE TO DESTINATION TOKYO-NARITA AIRPORT. CREW REPORTED THEY USED FLAPS-20, BUT DFDR SHOWED FLAPS-1 WAS USED FOR LANDING. 3 TIRES BLEW ON LANDING. ALL 3 FLIGHTCREW QUALIFIED IN THE B-747 IN THE 13-MONTHS BEFORE THE INCIDENT.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:

• FLUID,FUEL..STARVATION

• FUEL SYSTEM..IMPROPER USE OF..FLIGHT ENGINEER

• PROCEDURES/DIRECTIVES..IMPROPER..PILOT IN COMMAND

Contributing Factors: • FUEL SYSTEM..FAILURE,PARTIAL

• LOWERING OF FLAPS..IMPROPER..PILOT IN COMMAND

• FUEL SYSTEM,CROSS-FEED VALVE..MOVEMENT RESTRICTED

• LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH AIRCRAFT..FLIGHT ENGINEER

• LACK OF TOTAL EXPERIENCE IN TYPE OF AIRCRAFT..PILOT IN COMMAND

• CREW/GROUP COORDINATION..INADEQUATE

Full narrative is not available

Airbubba

27th Feb 2016, 15:34

As far as a lack of technical knowledge in the United 747 NRT incident, UAL at the time was under a court ordered settlement of an EEOC lawsuit to promote hiring from a broader demographic.

It was argued, for example, that giving a simulator evaluation in an airliner cockpit would be unfair to folks who had no experience in large aircraft. So United switched to a little Frasca desktop general aviation trainer for the sim eval at the old Stapleton airport.

Technical tests were eliminated in hiring and training since they were deemed biased against people with poor technical skills.

Anyway, for better or worse, much of the traditional systems knowledge was removed from the training and manuals.

And, I would observe that this trend has continued in the decades since.

In the U.S. the traditional oral exam to test systems knowledge has been replaced in many CQ training programs by progressive computerized training.

Even if you do know the aircraft systems, using that knowledge to troubleshoot an abnormality not in the book is frowned upon unless you get a phone patch to a subject matter expert and 'reach consensus on the best course of action'.

I probably sound somewhat nostalgic for the days of the flight engineer. Even as a pilot sitting the panel I was trained by true professionals. I knew the systems far better than I do today sitting in the left seat. And, training was so thorough that the oral and checkride were anticlimactic.

Now, training consists of checking boxes of the latest laundry list of items the feds want, rushing through the sim, pencil whipping some stuff to get out on time and breathing a sigh of relief that I don't have to do this again for another year. :D

Old Fella

28th Feb 2016, 03:19

Airbubba, thank you. The United incident at Narita is what I was referring to and I was aware that it had been completed on one engine. A very fortunate outcome from a potential disaster. As well as highlighting a lack of system knowledge among the crew the way in which the problem developed also highlighted the fact that not always are selections made monitored to confirm what happens is what one expects to happen.

FlyerJoe

23rd May 2016, 18:04

Does anyone know if its still even possible to train as a Flight Engineer?

oceancrosser

23rd May 2016, 20:53

I flew an ex-Air Canada DC-8-61 a couple of flights a long time ago. What a mess they made of that cockpit. F/E panels relocated everywhere, and there he sat with less than half a panel asking us to do this and do that he could not reach himself. We hated that airplane.

We were told AC actually never was allowed to fly them without a F/E (or S/O) so the whole thing was in vain. Would be interesting for someone from
that era at Air Canada to confirm.

Anyway, for better or worse, much of the traditional systems knowledge was removed from the training and manuals.

And, I would observe that this trend has continued in the decades since.

Agreed, the Boeing manuals (dunno about others) have continually been "dumbed down".

bafanguy

23rd May 2016, 21:27

"Does anyone know if its still even possible to train as a Flight Engineer? "

FlyerJoe,

A FE on what airplane ? Under what regulatory system ? Just curious.

In the USA, I'd suggest some outfit along 36th St in KMIA, perhaps ? There is an outfit in AK operating DC6s that occasionally advertises for FEs but having a MTC background likely goes a long way toward that job.

All the DC6 FEs I flew with began their careers in the hangar as mechs...even the ex-PAA/TWA guys. Real FEs are worth their weight in gold (I was not "real").

A Squared

24th May 2016, 02:58

Does anyone know if its still even possible to train as a Flight Engineer?
There is an outfit in AK operating DC6s that occasionally advertises for FEs but having a MTC background likely goes a long way toward that job.

That's Everts' Air Cargo out of Fairbanks. I'm fairly sure that if you show up there with an FAA Commercial Certificate with Instrument rating, they'll train you to be an FE. Or an FAA A&P with a certain amount of experience wrenching on multiengine airplanes with more than 800 HP engines.

I would guess that the same would be true of many of the cargo operators still operating 727s 747-200's etc.

Alternately, you could enlist in the Air Force of a country operating Aircraft with FEs The US Air Force, for example, operates C-130Hs, C-5s and KC-10's all of which require FEs.

FlyerJoe

24th May 2016, 13:43

FE Hoppy

24th May 2016, 14:14

I was just curious myself as I am interested in becoming a Flight engineer. I obviously understand that it is a 'dead' career but I think it would be a great experience and would be a nice way to finance further pilot training.

I believe however that anywhere you go in the world requires you to all ready be trained as a commercial pilot before you undertake FE training?
There are plenty of ex Flight Engineers doing other things due to the lack of FE positions so you better think of another scheme.

And there is a world of difference between a Flight Engineer and a pilot sitting in the FE seat ;-)

A Squared

24th May 2016, 18:02

I was just curious myself as I am interested in becoming a Flight engineer. I obviously understand that it is a 'dead' career but I think it would be a great experience and would be a nice way to finance further pilot training.

I believe however that anywhere you go in the world requires you to all ready be trained as a commercial pilot before you undertake FE training?

I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, the requirements I quoted previously are the minimum prerequisites by regulation.

As FE hoppy said, there are a lot of experienced FE's out there looking for work, and the number of positions are dwindling.

bafanguy

25th May 2016, 19:13

FlyerJoe,

I misunderstood your question. I thought you were inquiring about a FE license via some independent training organization rather than an employer because you wanted one just for grins & giggles. There are a few people who just collect licenses as a hobby of sorts.

As others have said, you sure don't want one for purposes of employment, at least over here.

N1EPR

26th May 2016, 04:03

Well my age voids my ATP ratings but I do have a FE certificate: Turbo jet and Recip. Is there an age limit for FEs?

bafanguy

27th May 2016, 09:50

N1EPR,

I'm not aware of any government age limit for FEs here in the States. You lookin' ?

N1EPR

28th May 2016, 03:10

I guess not. I am not ready to start dipping fuel tanks and checking oil again but the back seat on a DC8 might look good.

A Squared

28th May 2016, 04:30

I guess not. I am not ready to start dipping fuel tanks and checking oil again but the back seat on a DC8 might look good.

Don't forget to check the ADI tanks while you're up there.

JammedStab

30th May 2016, 05:09

True. Flew with quite a few FE's and also the 300 hour pilot sitting sideways as an entry level job.

Concerning F/E's, a good one is worth his weight in gold. A bad one(did happen on rare occasion) was a real problem.

Tay Cough

1st Jun 2016, 20:52

A family member was a FE.

I'm assured that you're right about the existence of the invisible wall. You're apparently mistaken as to where it was built. Some may say it goes around the throttles from the sides. ;)

Idle Thrust

27th Feb 2018, 15:37

I'm late arriving on this thread but will answer oceancrossing's request for input from those days at Air Canada the airline that first purchased its DC-8 fleet in the spring of 1960. Called Trans Canada then it became AC in the early 60's and eventually owned a total of 42 almost exactly split between the short and long body versions. I began there in 1966 as a DC-8 S/O, retired in 2001 having done time in all three seats in the DC-8 for a total of 4000 hours on type(s).
Airbubba is, as usual, correct in his description of the cockpit but to my knowledge the aircraft was never flown with a two person crew - regulatory approval was never granted.
The company had Douglas move quite a few gauges from the F/E panel and relocated them to the panels in front of the captain and first officer (hydraulic system was pretty simple and went on the left side, gauges for all fuel tanks, 10 in the final versions, were lined up at the bottom of the first officer's panel, more on the centre panel). What remained on the F/E panel were essentially the electrical and fuel system controls and indicators. And yes, the F/O seat rails were extended to permit that occupant to slide back and deal with items on the F/E panel. I don't recall them going really far back so perhaps they were shortened when the two-pilot operation was nixed, however they did go back quite a way and many a S/O suffered bruises when, without thinking, an F/O slid back suddenly (part of an F/O's checkout was to warn the S/O when coming back!).
AC had used licensed F/E's on its Super Connie fleet but they were never employed as such on the DC-8. Some did obtain pilot licences and became DC-8 S/O's but as PILOT officers, albeit doing what was essentially the job of an F/E in flight.
AC trained the S/O's to full F/O standard, including flight training, but since no line indoctrination was done it was able to block the award of a licence endorsement, presumably fearing that young pilots would just use the job to get endorsed and go elsewhere to earn a proper living flying DC-8's, initial pay rates at AC then (as now) were barely subsistence wages. Although the regulator (called the MOT then I think) refused two-pilot ops, things were pretty chummy in those days between the government owned airline and the government Ministry of Transport. S/O's were allowed to spell front seat pilots during flight (many sat in the captain's seat on eastbounds while he enjoyed his dinner in the first class lounge, and spent many hours in the sun on westbounds). There was no prohibition on occupying a front seat during takeoff and landing but SO's were prohibited from actually accomplishing those tasks. Was quite common for an S/O to fly up to the OM on approach and rumour has it, even past that point. S/O's were integrated into a three PILOT crew although, as the story goes, they were primarily there a sexual advisors to the captain. :-)

Looking back it was a bit of a challenge operating airplanes from so many series, -41,-43,-53,-54,-61,-63,-73 with a variety of engines running steam driven gauges - all in a small fleet of just 40.

Finally, I had heard that Canadian Pacific ordered its first DC-8's in the odd cockpit configuration but they were either not delivered that way or were subsequently modified
to the standard Douglas cockpit.
A neat bit of nostalgia for me, it's coming up on 52 years since I did my first (of three) conversion courses on the DC-8

galaxy flyer

28th Feb 2018, 03:46

The KC-135 never had F/Es, just the boomer. The co-pilot handled the systems. Lemay wasn’t into enlisted folk as aircrew. All the KC-10-, C-5s, C-130s before the J models and the rest still have engineers.

condor17

28th Feb 2018, 10:49

Gents , have flown the panel for years giving a good apprenticeship for flying up front . Was not an eng. but around Europe with eng. coverage at most stations was no prob . 25 years later had the privilege of operating with F/Es . Brilliant experience , and glad I was not too late .
Laterly , some engineering apprentices came out of the hangar to the ramp on qualifying . Then trained as F/Es , before being retrained as pilots . Bril.l crew when it was 1 1/2 pilots and 1 1/2 F/Es ! The younger ones then , are now senior skippers earning my pension .
Pros.
Mend things when broke , extend crew duty hours , expert monitoring , social evenings were beers in multiples of 3 not 2 . On layovers someone to mend hire car , boat , aeroplane . Did not not have to do the walkround in -30C blowin snow at Gander .
Keeping the show on the road by helping a fleet colleague mend a sister ship , whilst us 2 Nigels turned our ship around .
Cons.
Only one really ... It was always Engineers Year . They were the first to be able to chat up the 'gurls , or the 'gurls chat them up [ pleeeese mend my galley ] .
Best lesson learned from F/E .
The US had / has some great micro breweries , 'specially IPAs on W. coast ... However always served cold in a cold glass ..Yuck .
Engineers solution . '' Darlin' , please put that in the microwave for 25 seconds . Releases the aromatics and flavours so we can drink it properly . ''

rgds condor.

Brit312

28th Feb 2018, 14:16

I had 30 great years as a F/E in the UK , but leading up to it was a 5 year apprenticeship and 2 years in the hanger and I enjoyed it all even the bit of working inside a Comet 4 fuel tanks.
On retirement in 1998 i was lucky enough to be offered a volunteer position for short periods as a F/E on an old airliner in the USA, but first I had to get an American F/E ticket with a recip [ piston engine to me] endorsment
I filled in the relevant form and applied to the FAA office in New York, but talking to the gentleman and explaining my career he was not quite sure I had suitable qualifications to even apply for an american F/E ticket. His last question was it would be much easier if you had some pilot qualifications, and he could hardly believe i had been a F/E for 30 years without any pilot qualification.
In desperation at the end he said that perhaps I should go ahead and sit the test and the that led to 5 summers of great fun