Flight Engineer Question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Engineer Question
A bright young apprentice I was working with the other day, was telling me that he was hoping to join the RAF as a Flight Engineer, once he'd completed his civvie aircraft engineering apprenticeship. As I'm an ex-RAF Techie, he was asking me questions about the selection procedure, most of which I was unable to answer.
A telephone call to an RAF CIO informed us that, "there are no plans to train any more Flight Engineers, and besides, airmen aircrew are always selected from existing service personnel".
I know the last part of the statement to be nonsense, but I'm not certain whether or not the bit about no more FE's was also an exercise in fobbing off!
The RAF still fly aircraft which need an Eng, so just what is the score on further selection and training?
Any info. would be much appreciated.
A telephone call to an RAF CIO informed us that, "there are no plans to train any more Flight Engineers, and besides, airmen aircrew are always selected from existing service personnel".
I know the last part of the statement to be nonsense, but I'm not certain whether or not the bit about no more FE's was also an exercise in fobbing off!
The RAF still fly aircraft which need an Eng, so just what is the score on further selection and training?
Any info. would be much appreciated.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: North of England
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're absolutely right about the last part being total beau-locks, but I suspect the first bit is right.
Can't swear to it, hand-on-heart, but will check it out next week. Y'see, we are getting rid of all the aircraft that have three-man (person!) flight decks, so we may just be going to use the Air Engineers we've currently got. If you haven't had a credible reply by the time I get an answer for you, I'll let you know what I find out.
Can't swear to it, hand-on-heart, but will check it out next week. Y'see, we are getting rid of all the aircraft that have three-man (person!) flight decks, so we may just be going to use the Air Engineers we've currently got. If you haven't had a credible reply by the time I get an answer for you, I'll let you know what I find out.
lazy fairweather PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Forres,Scotland
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe,
your CIO man is indeed talking bollox but unfortunately only partly.
The RAF are indeed still training Eng's but not for much longer and now only recruit for that trade from within the service.
However, the other airmen aircrew trades do recruit from civvy street and are definately worth a gander.
Out of interest your young friend might like to know that the Loadies job on the C 17 now includes a bit of system management if he's that way inclined. Even if he fancies Truckie or Rotary he'll still find plenty to challenge him.
He should only consider Aeop if he doesn't mind spending the rest of his working life in the North of Scotland (suits me but isn't everyone's cup of tea).
More importantly he should know that it is now very much an Officer's Airforce and whilst Airman Aircrew is a great stepping stone he really should try and go straight for a Commission. If he's a bright lad then get him to apply for Pilot/Nav. If he's thick as mince then he'd never make AA anyway so get him to apply for Pilot/Nav..............................INCOMING!!!!!!!!
your CIO man is indeed talking bollox but unfortunately only partly.
The RAF are indeed still training Eng's but not for much longer and now only recruit for that trade from within the service.
However, the other airmen aircrew trades do recruit from civvy street and are definately worth a gander.
Out of interest your young friend might like to know that the Loadies job on the C 17 now includes a bit of system management if he's that way inclined. Even if he fancies Truckie or Rotary he'll still find plenty to challenge him.
He should only consider Aeop if he doesn't mind spending the rest of his working life in the North of Scotland (suits me but isn't everyone's cup of tea).
More importantly he should know that it is now very much an Officer's Airforce and whilst Airman Aircrew is a great stepping stone he really should try and go straight for a Commission. If he's a bright lad then get him to apply for Pilot/Nav. If he's thick as mince then he'd never make AA anyway so get him to apply for Pilot/Nav..............................INCOMING!!!!!!!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: england
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been a Flight Engineer both Military and Civilian, the chances of getting in are about zero! BA and Virgin are phasing out the Classics. Heavylift have just cut three or more crews. That leaves alot of qualified Engineers out there without jobs.Best advice to yuor mate is to finish his course. There will always be a job for tradesmen/women out there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Propflop, sorry to disappoint you, but I think that HeavyLift rescinded their redundancies recently. Looking at civilian ground engineering, there are shortages already, with forecasts that are quite pessimistic about long-term availability. Contract engineers make more dosh than some flight crew!!
I will probably get some flak from some of my RAAFie driver colleagues for saying a good word about FLTENGs, but I for one can't understand the apparent push to get them out of aircraft as quickly as is humanly possible.
Sure, there are high tech machines around that may not need a third person constantly sitting in the jump seat scanning the instruments, but when things go wrong (as they, amazingly, tend to do) it is of incalculable benefit to have someone who has both flight experience and a technical background to make sense of what's going on and what might fix it.
Sack FLTENGs and save the costs of training and employing them? What about the hidden costs you then incur by having to send rescues everywhere because there were no tech-trained people available to do simple fixes? If you happen to have two FLTENGs on board and a few spares, you can fix a bloody lot of different U/Ss.
It's some politically-driven hidden agenda of dubious long-term benefit, I reckon. So there!
Sure, there are high tech machines around that may not need a third person constantly sitting in the jump seat scanning the instruments, but when things go wrong (as they, amazingly, tend to do) it is of incalculable benefit to have someone who has both flight experience and a technical background to make sense of what's going on and what might fix it.
Sack FLTENGs and save the costs of training and employing them? What about the hidden costs you then incur by having to send rescues everywhere because there were no tech-trained people available to do simple fixes? If you happen to have two FLTENGs on board and a few spares, you can fix a bloody lot of different U/Ss.
It's some politically-driven hidden agenda of dubious long-term benefit, I reckon. So there!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always wondered how much the RAF (or any other air force for that matter) would save if it binned all it's air eng's in favour of technology. Now the technology itself must cost a fair bit, how much would be saved by air eng redundancy over adding the new stuff?
Surely there can't be that many air eng's in the RAF anyway? With a fairly small number of large aircraft and only 1 (ok, probably nearer 2) engs required per airframe, then the costs surely can't outweigh the benefits?
Also, to borrow a theme from another thread, having 3 people up front would increase the flow of food going forward and therefore increase the amount of food to be intercepted. Just a thought.
Surely there can't be that many air eng's in the RAF anyway? With a fairly small number of large aircraft and only 1 (ok, probably nearer 2) engs required per airframe, then the costs surely can't outweigh the benefits?
Also, to borrow a theme from another thread, having 3 people up front would increase the flow of food going forward and therefore increase the amount of food to be intercepted
. Just a thought.
Got an even better idea TimC lets get rid of the Co-Pilots and replace them with FE's, what a saving, Baldrick pay, Capt's get much more flying and landings, aircraft gets serviced when en-route alright more food may be neded but then most of the co's I flew with ate more than me!!!Look at the bad side, who would carry the imprest, ummm no more to think of ok then lets go for it, you reading Binsworth!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't that how things were done on the Lanc and also originally intended to be done on the Vulcan? It clearly worked in the case of the Lanc, but would it work in the case of a Nimrod, Herc or umm something else big 
? Or are you suggesting retraining the eng's as pilots? This was mentioned a few months ago and I would have thought (in my uninformed opinion) it would make a lot of sense - oops well that's doomed to failiure then .
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: TimC ]
? Or are you suggesting retraining the eng's as pilots? This was mentioned a few months ago and I would have thought (in my uninformed opinion) it would make a lot of sense - oops well that's doomed to failiure then .[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: TimC ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our antipodean colleague with his Arm out the window is almost certainly correct, the hidden agenda is the eventual demise of ALL non-commissioned Aircrew.
As to servicing, look at the moves in E3D and C130J with regard to carrying airborne technicians on flight pay rather than flying pay.
It always gives a nice warm feeling when you can rely on your Lords and masters to look after the best interests of their trops.(note: masters not capitalised to avoid confusion)
That being so, why are so many people feeling the cold?
As to servicing, look at the moves in E3D and C130J with regard to carrying airborne technicians on flight pay rather than flying pay.
It always gives a nice warm feeling when you can rely on your Lords and masters to look after the best interests of their trops.(note: masters not capitalised to avoid confusion)
That being so, why are so many people feeling the cold?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I might correct Ghost Dancer on a couple of factual matters relating to the E-3D (don't know anything much about C130J). The E-3D carries a Flt Eng as well as 3 Airborne Technicians (ATs). The ATs are full crew members and are paid Flying Pay (but only for the durations of their flying tours). The ATs look after mission equipment (comms, displays and radar respectively) while the Flt Eng is responsible for all the flight systems in the traditional way. Also, none of these people carry out 'servicing' in the air - that is the job of the ground crew. The ATs' primary job consists of operating the equipment, fault diagnosis and only a very limited amount of work to keep it going if necessary. (Apologies to any ATs if I have got the job definitions slightly wrong). There are no plans to remove the Flt Eng from the E-3D (I'm pleased to say).
Finally, I must add what a thoroughly top bunch of chaps the ATs and Flt Engs are - the E-3D world would be a poorer place without them (and grounded).
Finally, I must add what a thoroughly top bunch of chaps the ATs and Flt Engs are - the E-3D world would be a poorer place without them (and grounded).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the comments MG, however, as I recall, flying pay is payable for the duration of a service career as long as the recipient maintains an appropriate medical cat and remains competent, "flying pay" which is only applicable for flying tours is surely more akin to flight pay.
I did realise that E3D carried Air Engs as well as ATs and I certainly do not wish to belittle either role, my comment is aimed at the whole ethos of having crew members who only get "part time" (as opposed to career) flying pay - i.e. trying to do it on the cheap.
I feel most strongly that this is the thin end of the wedge (or should that be bat?) and I stand by my contention regarding the demise of NCO aircrew as a long term aim.
I was talking, some years ago, with a VSO who did not realise that we still had NCO aircrew - until he met some, and even then he was reluctant to believe they were in flying posts!!
I did realise that E3D carried Air Engs as well as ATs and I certainly do not wish to belittle either role, my comment is aimed at the whole ethos of having crew members who only get "part time" (as opposed to career) flying pay - i.e. trying to do it on the cheap.
I feel most strongly that this is the thin end of the wedge (or should that be bat?) and I stand by my contention regarding the demise of NCO aircrew as a long term aim.
I was talking, some years ago, with a VSO who did not realise that we still had NCO aircrew - until he met some, and even then he was reluctant to believe they were in flying posts!!
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mystic Greg Nice to see you!
Ghost Dancer - The AT's and FC's all receive flying pay as defined in the AP 3392. They have different rules to those of us who are in permanent receipt of flying pay, but it is still flying pay.
Ghost Dancer - The AT's and FC's all receive flying pay as defined in the AP 3392. They have different rules to those of us who are in permanent receipt of flying pay, but it is still flying pay.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was recently at an AFBLT briefing and during the Q & A session I asked a couple of questions, one about the A400M with regards to crew composition.
My understanding, from reliable sources, is that the French and German Air Forces intend to maintain a Flight Engineer position on the aircraft. As they are the Major
co-signatories to the project (RAF only to have 25) I was interested to ask if the RAF were prepared to pay the extra money to remove the FE position from the design or leave the 3rd seat there for FE longevity or ANother? Apparently they will get back to me.
I also posed the question regarding retention of experience by paying the gratuity and pension to those who had earned it, through the requisite time served. Then instead of effectively paying them to leave the service, letting them stay in. Thereby saving on recruiting costs and re-inventing the wheel with less productive new-comers. They would have had to pay the money out anyway. Apparently there are legal reasons why this may not be a suitable proposition however, they don't normally mind changing the rules to suite themselves, do they?
My understanding, from reliable sources, is that the French and German Air Forces intend to maintain a Flight Engineer position on the aircraft. As they are the Major
co-signatories to the project (RAF only to have 25) I was interested to ask if the RAF were prepared to pay the extra money to remove the FE position from the design or leave the 3rd seat there for FE longevity or ANother? Apparently they will get back to me.
I also posed the question regarding retention of experience by paying the gratuity and pension to those who had earned it, through the requisite time served. Then instead of effectively paying them to leave the service, letting them stay in. Thereby saving on recruiting costs and re-inventing the wheel with less productive new-comers. They would have had to pay the money out anyway. Apparently there are legal reasons why this may not be a suitable proposition however, they don't normally mind changing the rules to suite themselves, do they?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Uk( well sometimes)
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent 10 years as a ground engineer I can thoroughly recommend it ! however, Ive now been a ALM in the SH World for nearly as long , best job in the world! My tech knowledge is second to not one Air eng , I service my Cab and carry out minor rectification work . OK so we are away alot but thats part of the fun . As for my fixed wing counterparts, well go check out the ALM's job on the new C17 and J models , bye bye Air Eng's. As a branch we are the most rapidly expanding in the Air Force and one with the brightest future. It can't be that bad Air Eng's are asking questions on swapping their brevets already ! Check it out my friend! Go to go another conflict to get stuck in to 
I'm certainly an advocate of the 3-person flight deck for anything other than basic A to B people-hauling. Any large military aircraft operating in any tactical role has a greater flight deck work load than Lager Louts 'r Us flying from Lootnairpawt to Tennereefay with a bellyful of shell suits.
But - and it is a but - aircraft more modern than the TriStar, '10, Nimrod, E-3 etc have simpler and more reliable aircraft systems, but military versions will have increasingly complex tactical displays, self-defence suites, etc. So the traditional Air Engineer keeping an eye on the Dilithium crystals is not necessarily the only candidate for the middle seat. The ALM's job in the C-17 is very different to that in the '10 or Chinook, the navigator in a '10 does precious little 'navigating'...
So there is indeed a need for 'Systems Panel Operators' (a CAA phrase) in things like FSTA and A400M (in tactical roles) - the C-17 SPO is, in fact, the ALM; the German A310MRTT will, I understand, use pilots on the 3rd seat in the AAR role but nobody in the passenger role as it is then a 'plain vanilla' A310 to all intents and purposes and will have a conventional cabin crew. So long as the SPO can be trained to operate the panel as required and has a full understanding of the role, personally I don't see a need for him/her/don't know/don't care to be from a particular breveted branch. But they MUST be aircrew!!!
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
But - and it is a but - aircraft more modern than the TriStar, '10, Nimrod, E-3 etc have simpler and more reliable aircraft systems, but military versions will have increasingly complex tactical displays, self-defence suites, etc. So the traditional Air Engineer keeping an eye on the Dilithium crystals is not necessarily the only candidate for the middle seat. The ALM's job in the C-17 is very different to that in the '10 or Chinook, the navigator in a '10 does precious little 'navigating'...
So there is indeed a need for 'Systems Panel Operators' (a CAA phrase) in things like FSTA and A400M (in tactical roles) - the C-17 SPO is, in fact, the ALM; the German A310MRTT will, I understand, use pilots on the 3rd seat in the AAR role but nobody in the passenger role as it is then a 'plain vanilla' A310 to all intents and purposes and will have a conventional cabin crew. So long as the SPO can be trained to operate the panel as required and has a full understanding of the role, personally I don't see a need for him/her/don't know/don't care to be from a particular breveted branch. But they MUST be aircrew!!!
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Rude C'man, t-white one & sharpish.
I was discussing your arrogant and naive post with the LM's in work today, they were a touch embarassed.
To say that you have more engineering knowledge/know how than the FE speaks volumes about you.
Well, you get paid what you are worth, how much do you get?
Make that t-white 2 you ar£e
I was discussing your arrogant and naive post with the LM's in work today, they were a touch embarassed.
To say that you have more engineering knowledge/know how than the FE speaks volumes about you.
Well, you get paid what you are worth, how much do you get?
Make that t-white 2 you ar£e
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acctualllly I wasn't going to reply to Rudies reply but I haven't laughed so much since Aeop's were downbanded!!
So what are the academic entry requirements of a crewman? And exactly how many weeks does the training last? (Not counting holding!) And just EXACTLY how much less do you get paid than me?????
When I get to put a frame to bed everyone mucks in and helps out, sometimes even the Captain!! Our technical expertise is recognised as being second to none in the airborne environment. I suspect your are confusing "Fill her up and make sure the galleys clean loadie" with something technical. Stick to your load sheets matey.
But every cloud has a silver lining, C130J's may not have an Air Eng it's true!! But that means when the stupid arrogant fools put it into the low level environment (TAC), I won't have to go to any Air Eng funerals.
I am one of the the Air Eng's withering on the vine who would rather drive buses than be an ALM, the pay is so much better!!
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: The Gorilla ]
So what are the academic entry requirements of a crewman? And exactly how many weeks does the training last? (Not counting holding!) And just EXACTLY how much less do you get paid than me?????
When I get to put a frame to bed everyone mucks in and helps out, sometimes even the Captain!! Our technical expertise is recognised as being second to none in the airborne environment. I suspect your are confusing "Fill her up and make sure the galleys clean loadie" with something technical. Stick to your load sheets matey.
But every cloud has a silver lining, C130J's may not have an Air Eng it's true!! But that means when the stupid arrogant fools put it into the low level environment (TAC), I won't have to go to any Air Eng funerals.
I am one of the the Air Eng's withering on the vine who would rather drive buses than be an ALM, the pay is so much better!!
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: The Gorilla ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told, by a principle Boeing engineer, that the cost of all the automation on a B747-400 (development, design, manufacture etc etc) to replace the flight engineer adds approx £4 million to the sale price. This is more than a careers worth of salary, training costs, hotel bills et al!! Still, try telling that to a beancounter.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Returning to the original question, the RAF will be training FE recruits until approx Spring 2004, but only from the ground trades. PMA are hoping that the ground trades won't find out about the demise of the branch and will continue to supply ill- informed people to fill up the courses until then. Of course, this is a flawed concept. Within a year from now the sages in the ground trades will advise the youngsters against joining and the applications will dry up.
With an already declining manpower forecast due to age 55 wastage (not PVR) we will then be in the sh~t. We have ridden out the PVR nightmare of 2 years ago by shear luck. We have just returned to balance at the moment but we can't stop people getting older. We are about to see a dry tap in a bath without a plug, with not much left in it......
With an already declining manpower forecast due to age 55 wastage (not PVR) we will then be in the sh~t. We have ridden out the PVR nightmare of 2 years ago by shear luck. We have just returned to balance at the moment but we can't stop people getting older. We are about to see a dry tap in a bath without a plug, with not much left in it......