Last QF 767 passenger revenue flights December 27, 2014
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is entitled the last of the QF 767 Passenger revenue flights. How come IsDon this has somehow degraded to a slanging match about QF B747 Flight Engineers?
If you want to start on that one, how about a new thread possibly on the Aviation History etc section?
To keep it to the B767, perhaps you could explain there how a perfectly (or nearly) serviceable B767 managed to be turned into a glider by pilots who used a 30 second??? fuel sheet and got it wrong?
Wunwing
If you want to start on that one, how about a new thread possibly on the Aviation History etc section?
To keep it to the B767, perhaps you could explain there how a perfectly (or nearly) serviceable B767 managed to be turned into a glider by pilots who used a 30 second??? fuel sheet and got it wrong?
Wunwing
Wunwing...if you want to go down that road then we will have to examine metric/imperial conversions, French/English translations, YYZ/YUL base politics and a host of other factors. Specific gravity had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nor did a missing third crewmember.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Austral.
I didnt say that B767 accident was a result of a "missing" FE or an SG calculation.
What is was a result of was the failure of the operator to properly understand the many documented and undocumented roles of the 3rd crew member when the operator transitioned from DC8s and B727s to B767s.As a result, the crew of that aircraft made mistakes due to a lack of understanding of what they were doing with the particular engineering problem that they were presented with. It is hard to come to any other conclusion than they were not properly trained in their new roles as a 2 crew operator
As an FE one of my roles was to be very familiar with the DDG/MEL book which from the accident report that crew wasn't or they would never have left the ground on either occasion.
Another role was working the fuel sheet which at least one on this thread has denigrated as unneccessary.We were quite used to having two fuel pumpers on a B747 with different fuel measurements ie US Gals and Imperial Gals or litres. We also regularly used the dipsticks and certaily in the case of this aircraft situation we would have backed up our load calcs with a stick check. For sure the "30 second" fuel sheet would not be of much use.
Overall I would be very surprised if any FE would have ended up at Gimli.
As I said earlier this is not the thread for this discussion and I fail to see how a thread on B767 ended up knocking the QF B747 FEs.The QF FEs never wanted an FE on the B767 and it was a major reason for their split from the AAFEA to AIFEA (and ultimately to AIPA) at the time of the B767 arrival.
Wunwing
I didnt say that B767 accident was a result of a "missing" FE or an SG calculation.
What is was a result of was the failure of the operator to properly understand the many documented and undocumented roles of the 3rd crew member when the operator transitioned from DC8s and B727s to B767s.As a result, the crew of that aircraft made mistakes due to a lack of understanding of what they were doing with the particular engineering problem that they were presented with. It is hard to come to any other conclusion than they were not properly trained in their new roles as a 2 crew operator
As an FE one of my roles was to be very familiar with the DDG/MEL book which from the accident report that crew wasn't or they would never have left the ground on either occasion.
Another role was working the fuel sheet which at least one on this thread has denigrated as unneccessary.We were quite used to having two fuel pumpers on a B747 with different fuel measurements ie US Gals and Imperial Gals or litres. We also regularly used the dipsticks and certaily in the case of this aircraft situation we would have backed up our load calcs with a stick check. For sure the "30 second" fuel sheet would not be of much use.
Overall I would be very surprised if any FE would have ended up at Gimli.
As I said earlier this is not the thread for this discussion and I fail to see how a thread on B767 ended up knocking the QF B747 FEs.The QF FEs never wanted an FE on the B767 and it was a major reason for their split from the AAFEA to AIFEA (and ultimately to AIPA) at the time of the B767 arrival.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 6th Jan 2015 at 20:53.
Qantas F/E's did a fantastic job looking after the nuts and bolts and guiding social activities in some of the more interesting places Q used to go on 747,707 and previous types. A rare and exceptional breed whose contribution to the operation was well understood by those who were there.
Well off topic.
Well off topic.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: canberra
Age: 77
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunwing,
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of PW1830 above, as do I agree with most of what you have said on this thread except:
You are one cycle out and therefore incorrect on this particular point.
The QF F/Es under PR as Pres fought hard to get an FE on the QF B767s. You may recall QF agreed to send a team to the US to observe 2 pilot ops on those US carriers who had B767s. Naturally their report was scathing of what they saw and the AAFEA continued to fight for FEs on QF B767s. AIPA, under BJR, did not support the AAFEA position and the end result was that CEO Ron Yates agreed to 5N (which for non QF people was a guarantee of a job as an FE for the working life of existing FEs notwithstanding there may well be a day where there were no QF aircraft with FE stations on the flightdeck).
The next cycle was the B747-400.
By that time there had been a palace revolution within AAFEA and DH was the Pres who took QF FEs into AIPA. There was no campaign for FEs on B744s but instead under DH the QF FE retraining to pilot program was negotiated for those who survived the selection process. A seniority position on the QF pilots' seniority list for all current FEs was also part of the deal.
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of PW1830 above, as do I agree with most of what you have said on this thread except:
The QF FEs never wanted an FE on the B767 and it was a major reason for their split from the AAFEA to AIFEA (and ultimately to AIPA) at the time of the B767 arrival.
The QF F/Es under PR as Pres fought hard to get an FE on the QF B767s. You may recall QF agreed to send a team to the US to observe 2 pilot ops on those US carriers who had B767s. Naturally their report was scathing of what they saw and the AAFEA continued to fight for FEs on QF B767s. AIPA, under BJR, did not support the AAFEA position and the end result was that CEO Ron Yates agreed to 5N (which for non QF people was a guarantee of a job as an FE for the working life of existing FEs notwithstanding there may well be a day where there were no QF aircraft with FE stations on the flightdeck).
The next cycle was the B747-400.
By that time there had been a palace revolution within AAFEA and DH was the Pres who took QF FEs into AIPA. There was no campaign for FEs on B744s but instead under DH the QF FE retraining to pilot program was negotiated for those who survived the selection process. A seniority position on the QF pilots' seniority list for all current FEs was also part of the deal.
Nunc est bibendum
Thanks clotted for some of that history.
I was lucky enough to live and train with 8 QF ex F/Es for 15 months in Adelaide in '91/ '92. They were an invaluable source of information and expertise on matters well beyond QF and flying. They were then and remain now a wonderful group of blokes whose input and development of a fledgling Keg I recognise and acknowledge frequently still.
A couple have recently retired and I'll miss seeing them around the network.
I was lucky enough to live and train with 8 QF ex F/Es for 15 months in Adelaide in '91/ '92. They were an invaluable source of information and expertise on matters well beyond QF and flying. They were then and remain now a wonderful group of blokes whose input and development of a fledgling Keg I recognise and acknowledge frequently still.
A couple have recently retired and I'll miss seeing them around the network.
A retired Qantas FEO recently self-published a book on the history of the Qantas Flight Engineers. I've not seen or read it but I'm sure there'd be a lot of info as to why there wasn't an FEO on Qantas' 767s and the industrial manoeuvring that took place prior to the arrival of the 762. I understand the author was one of the very last FEOs employed by Qantas and retired when the B743 was retired.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said earlier this is not the thread for this discussion and I fail to see how a thread on B767 ended up knocking the QF B747 FEs.The QF FEs never wanted an FE on the B767 and it was a major reason for their split from the AAFEA to AIFEA (and ultimately to AIPA) at the time of the B767 arrival.
This is a thread about 767s in Qantas service and the conclusion of that long safe and successful era without the input of FEs. I was on the 767 until Xmas day 2014 so feel I'm quite entitled to comment. You however have never been, and clearly can't accept the fact that the aeroplane managed to operate safely for all those years without you.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the utmost for the FEs during my RAAF days where on numerous occasions they got us home with serious ingenuity and resourcefulness. Although I did not fly airlines I believe FEs were not allowed to do any maintenance away from base.
I also recall that Ansett had FEs on their 767s due to union pressure.
It was also interesting that in the Ansett 747 incident at Mascot where the nose wheel failed to extend following an inflight engine shut down, a contributing factor was the FE failed to recognise the undercarriage indication. He had been a 767 FE who transitioned to the more complex 747 without being given sufficient training to step up to the more complex engineering systems and FE operations required for the 747. This was apparently due to a strict time schedule to get the first 747 schedule into, I think, Osaka and continual delays to the ground and simulator training program.
I also recall that Ansett had FEs on their 767s due to union pressure.
It was also interesting that in the Ansett 747 incident at Mascot where the nose wheel failed to extend following an inflight engine shut down, a contributing factor was the FE failed to recognise the undercarriage indication. He had been a 767 FE who transitioned to the more complex 747 without being given sufficient training to step up to the more complex engineering systems and FE operations required for the 747. This was apparently due to a strict time schedule to get the first 747 schedule into, I think, Osaka and continual delays to the ground and simulator training program.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I first saw the 767 standing around the fence or the RWY 27 threshold with a group of CAC wannabees in 1982. It was taking off on 02 and we didn't hear much (if any) noise until it approached the runway intersections. We all commented on how bloody quiet it was. Little did we know about hi-bypass engines in those days. I can still see the damn thing start to move and not hearing the usual sounds associated with it (even though we were standing 1,000+ metres away) and then how quiet it was when it eventually went past us.
After the DC10 the B767 was my favourite airliner to fly in (I'm SLF on the big tin) so it was quite emotional
to watch it fly into the boneyard and land for the last time. 
It was the only aircraft that gave me SJS.
After the DC10 the B767 was my favourite airliner to fly in (I'm SLF on the big tin) so it was quite emotional
to watch it fly into the boneyard and land for the last time. It was the only aircraft that gave me SJS.
Goodbye the 767
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C100.
You are right it doesn't.
Having said that, what was noteable about the B767 intro into Qantas was how well flight ops transitioned into a 2 crew cockpit after a very long time with a 3 crew cockpit. Prior to the B767, the last 2 crew aircraft in its mainstream fleet was the DC4.
Wunwing
You are right it doesn't.
Having said that, what was noteable about the B767 intro into Qantas was how well flight ops transitioned into a 2 crew cockpit after a very long time with a 3 crew cockpit. Prior to the B767, the last 2 crew aircraft in its mainstream fleet was the DC4.
Wunwing
Curiosity question - I know that QANTAS picked up a few ex-BA Rolls powered 767s.
What's become of those - were they retired as well, or did they go to another operator? I'm trying to figure out if the 767/RB211 is still in service anywhere...
What's become of those - were they retired as well, or did they go to another operator? I'm trying to figure out if the 767/RB211 is still in service anywhere...
BA still operates around 15 RR-powered 767-300ERs out of the UK.
I believe the ones that were leased to Qantas never returned to BA service, after Qantas they went straight to storage
I believe the ones that were leased to Qantas never returned to BA service, after Qantas they went straight to storage
Last edited by Logohu; 7th Jan 2015 at 22:04. Reason: type
Nunc est bibendum
Logoghu, Qantas ended up buying the ex BA 767s outright. It was cheaper than returning them to their original config for return to BA at the end of the lease.
Some of them ended up with a cargo mob. Various destinations for them included Roswell, Kansas City, Victorville and I think one went to Shangai for a service before heading to Japan where it's flogging around domestically for someone.
Apparently the 767-338s are worth more on the open market than the 744s Qantas are disposing of.
Some of them ended up with a cargo mob. Various destinations for them included Roswell, Kansas City, Victorville and I think one went to Shangai for a service before heading to Japan where it's flogging around domestically for someone.
Apparently the 767-338s are worth more on the open market than the 744s Qantas are disposing of.
And the PW powered -200s are still going strong too.
-EAQ is in VIP config for Google
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boein...1faefeea4eb947
-EAQ is in VIP config for Google
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boein...1faefeea4eb947
Thanks Keg that's interesting info.
I remember when the RR 767s were first delivered to BA they were grounded for a period of time within the first few months due to pylon cracks. However once that got sorted out they seem to have given sterling service ever since - good to hear at least some of the ones QF had are still soldiering on.
I remember when the RR 767s were first delivered to BA they were grounded for a period of time within the first few months due to pylon cracks. However once that got sorted out they seem to have given sterling service ever since - good to hear at least some of the ones QF had are still soldiering on.
Last edited by Logohu; 8th Jan 2015 at 03:00. Reason: typo
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A QF767-300 with a 6000 flight number departed Sydney late yesterday morning off 34R. Thought it might have been a ferry to storage, but was wondering if it could get off 34R with enough fuel for Victorville.