Originally designed with a flight engineer but changed prior to certification.

Yep, the alternate gear extension cables located under a floor panel behind the CPTs seat were a legacy of this. Originally intended to be operated by an FE. At some point early on an electric actuator was fitted beneath this panel to operate these cables removing the need for manual operation.

Snakecharma is correct.
767 was originally designed as a 3 person flight deck - but late in the development program the FAA released a report that 2 crew was just as safe as 3 crew, assuming the crew work load was properly addressed. Boeing was already working on a 2 crew 'option' - after the FAA report was released the launch customers all elected to adopt the 2 crew option (basically implementing EICAS and deleting the engineer's station).
The first half dozen or so 767s were originally built with 3 crew flight deck - and the very first 767 (VA001) flew with the 3 crew flight deck. The others were retrofit to the 2 crew configuration prior to delivery - no 3 crew 767s were ever delivered, and VA001 was eventually retrofit to 2 crew. VA001 was never delivered but used a test bed for various projects including the initial PW4000, finally getting fitted with a super sensitive infrared sensor to track incoming missiles as part of the work on a missile defense system (aka 'Star Wars).

Interesting statement, considering Ansett had 5 of them!

Were the AN 76's retrofitted to 3 crew post delivery?

Oakape - those were not true 'three crew' flight decks. The three crew flight deck had round dials for the engine indications and no EICAS. That configuration was never certified.
I suspect what was done for Ansett was they ginned up a flight engineers panel with some gauges and instruments on it to make the pilots union happy, but the rest of the flight deck was the 'two crew' configuration.

I wouldn't call a panel with Hydraulics, Electrics, Fuel, Air Con, Pneumatics, etc, on it a 'ginned up flight engineers panel'. Maybe you would or is a case of you don't really know, therefore your use of the word 'suspect'!

See here for a photo -

BOEING 757 & 767: F/E Panel

They were full F/E panels. Not as 'full' as a 747 classic or a 727, but as full as you can get for the modern equipment of the day that was installed. And they were delivered that way from Boeing.


If I remember correctly, the F/E's were in the B767 due to an agreement with Sir Peter Abels that any aircraft with more than 150 passenger seats would have a F/E. While the AFAP were involved, the primary push was from the F/E's union.

Oakape, you are correct that I have no direct knowledge of what was done for the Ansett flight engineer panel.
What I do know, and have direct knowledge of, is that the primary change going from the 3 crew to 2 crew 767 was the incorporation of EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alert System). Basically everything that the flight engineer was normally expected to monitor was incorporated into EICAS. Boeing never certified or delivered the 767 without EICAS.
All those gauges and dials on the side panel are redundant to EICAS (I'm assuming most of those switches in that photo were moved to the pilot overhead, but again no first hand knowledge).

Can't remember whether it was my S/O or F/O training, but first sims were done in the Ansett sim in Melbourne. We arrived a little early one night and the sim was still configured in the Ansett mode.
Sim techs came in and simply unscrewed the offending hyd elec etc panels and inserted in their proper place on the roof!
Took no more than 10 minute to change from 3 crew to 2 crew aircraft.
Also sad to see them go, over 13700 hours on type in QF!!!

This makes sense because they were eventually converted back to two crew configuration. I believe that VH-RMD was the most time consuming to do. This could have had something to do with the fact that it was the first one delivered & the others had the wiring in place to move the system's switch units back to the overhead panel.

This fits too, as the Ansett aircraft all had EICAS. You will notice the screen on the F/E's panel in the photo. If I remember correctly, the EICAS messages displayed on the forward panel as well as the F/E's panel. It would seem that all 767's were built for a 2 man operation, but Boeing converted the Ansett ones to a 3 man configuration before delivery. I do remember reading that there was one other 767 built in a 3 man configuration besides the original 5 for Ansett, but I don't know what the background is for that aircraft.

I have heard this as well. I think it might have been RMD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f44oPPEYCE

There is a good view of the F/E's panel from 25:50 on. Unfortunately nothing of the overhead panel & no sound.

You peaked my curiosity a bit - I didn't know (or at least didn't remember) that Ansett had gotten a flight engineer station. I did recall that the launch customers were all USA operators (United, Delta, and American) and that per the original FAA directions had ordered a 3 crew flight deck. However other operators were at least interested in a 2 crew layout so Boeing was already working on EICAS and the associated changes to make it 2 crew. When the FAA report came out that OK'ed 2 crew, the launch customers all immediately wanted it - even with the 1982 price tag of over $500k (at the time the story was they'd pay that back in less than 2 years). The first 767s were built with 3 crew flight decks (memory says it was the first 7 or 8 off the line). The first 767 to fly - VA001 - had the 3 crew layout throughout the initial 767 flight test program, but the others were all retrofit to 2 crew (before they flew IIRC). VA001 was eventually retrofit to the 2 crew layout after the original 767 flight test program was complete.
I did a little checking - the first 767 for Ansett was l/n 24. I'm guessing they had originally placed the order for a 3 crew 767 - and due to their other agreements decided against paying for the 2 crew upgrade. So Boeing had to come up with a hybrid 3 crew layout for one customer. I'm also guessing much of the 3 crew kit that was removed from those first 767s was re-tasked for the Ansett aircraft.

Operators really liked the 767 - it was clearly better than the competition - at least until the A330 came out - and would fly forever with minimal maintenance (there are a lot of 767s still in service with over 100,000 hours) and was popular with passengers.

It was the F/O's who had nothing to do. The F/E did all the work & the captain made all the decisions. All the F/O had to do was fly. It was the best job around!

As opposed to now, where the F/O does his job, plus that of the F/E.

Proving that the F/E was always redundant on the 767.

Not necessarily. It may prove that F/O's are now overloaded!

Perhaps, but given 29 years of Qantas operations without the F/O being overloaded by the former F/Es role being a major causal issue in any incident then I suspect IsDon is probably closer to the mark. :ok:

I have operated many different types with Flight Engineers over the years. Both in the military and with airlines.

Without exception, the aircraft with Flight Engineers were more complex to operate for no other reason other than they had Flight Engineers. It is clear to me they were the masters at making a straightforward job difficult.

Who could forget the A3 sized log the Flight Engineer (and unfortunately the S/O) completed every hour or so on the B743. It turns out none of the data had been used by Maintenance Watch for years. So why do it?

I was also amused every time a Flight Engineer would sign the fuel paperwork. A 30 second job taking 10 minutes. Which included their own special SG calculation.

The only thing that I flew with an F/E had ignition analysers for the 112 spark plugs, oil transfer pumps and two speed superchargers. You can imagine the meal those guys made of that! That was in the days of smoking cockpits and girlie magazines, both of which were mandatory according to the F/E.

I am pretty happy with an EICAS, and thrilled to leave my sextant at home, too.

Oldie coming up...
 

Until they installed the three speed wiper switch, which tripled the FO's workload! :E

Full respect to the job the FE's did on aircraft that really needed them (ever seen photos of the engineer's position on the B-36? :ooh:), but when I saw the photo of the "B767 engineer's panel" I just got the giggles.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. :ok:

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.

As you continue to say this is not a thread about Flight Engineers. I didn't start the thread drift but you continue to bring it up. Let it go.

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.

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.

How does the Ansett B744 relate to the last operations of QF B767?

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.

Goodbye the 767
 

Thanks Training Wheels....Best psgr aircraft ride [s] I ever had.
Horsetrailer

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

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...

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

QANTAS's VH-ZXF - now in Thailand http://www.airliners.net/photo/Jet-A...c62a5169750b39

ZXF NOW

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.

And the PW powered -200s are still going strong too.

-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.

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.