who still has flight engineers?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
:
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B747 Single Engine Approach and Landing at Narita.
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.
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.
Agreed, the Boeing manuals (dunno about others) have continually been "dumbed down".
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.
And, I would observe that this trend has continued in the decades since.
"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").
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").
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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?
And there is a world of difference between a Flight Engineer and a pilot sitting in the FE seat ;-)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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?
As FE hoppy said, there are a lot of experienced FE's out there looking for work, and the number of positions are dwindling.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.