Whatever the gobbier types on here think or do not think is irrelevant. You cant take short cuts and you cannot train anyone in 4 weeks. It would not satisfy certain authorities, otherwise, dont you think it would have been tried before? The course wasnt 18 months long for a laugh, whatever your previous trade was. :ugh:

Besides this, I think we have serious thread drift because I dont think anyone in authority has admitted to a shortfall in manpower. (or have they ? )

I have just left the RAF having been an Air Eng on C130 & VC10. had a great time:). I cannot help but feel that The MOD have made a grave mistake;( akin to the Banks lending money to people who cannot pay it back):ugh:, by closing down the Air Eng School . It will be a brave ALM/AEOp, oops sorry! Wsop who sits in front of a VC10 Engs panel without a SOLID AND COMPLETE course in Air Eng training. It would appear that PMA are happy about the manning levels in our trade, lets hope that all remaining Air Engs stay in untill 55, coz I reckon the manning numbers are now based on that assumption!

p.s I may be available for the Aux's (IF THEY PAY ME ENOUGH):D

GE's to Flt Eng
 

Enough of this arrogance!

Why on earth would a GE want to be a Flt Eng? We travel more, sleep on the way, and get all the pretty girls.

The only techies who apply for Flt Eng are the ones who want to better themselves...that is, the ones who have been overlooked for promotion to proper SNCO, and want to find another way by cheating. And even after such mediocrity they tend to be in the top percentage of the Flt Eng cadre, ie 47 Sqn SF.

To my knowledge, the only ex SNCO Grd Eng to transfer was the 'Riddler' himself. And he was in charge of the lot of you!

Shame on you big lad! What was it JH and previous SAGE's used to say on day one? 'The FE is your best friend'

Cheating :=

Flight Detent



"Flight Engineers must be licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration . The most common method is to complete a course of ground and flight instruction approved by the FAA. For a Flight Engineer's certificate, individuals must have had either 2 years of training or 3 years of work experience in the repair of aircraft and aircraft engines and at least 5 hours of flight training in the duties of a Flight Engineer, or at least 200 hours of flight as a pilot of a four-engine piston or jet plane, or 100 hours as a Flight Engineer in the armed forces."

Scuffer Eng, you could simply convert a Ground Engineer over to do the VC10 Job, most of the Engine trades used to have to do most of The Panel anyway....

Wow, never realised it was so simple to become a FE. Just think of all the money they could of saved by not sending Aircrew to Cranwell/Biggin Hill. Why dont we just wander down to the line and pick up any of the guys and restream them, jobs a good'un. In fact why not take it one step further, grab a mover, and make him an ALM, after all, he knows how to stick some pallets on an Aircraft. I got another idea, go down to MT grab a couple of young drivers who are also good on the xbox, give them some wings and call them pilots. Wish you all thought of this earlier and saved an awfiul lot of money.
Now lets be serious, it does take a certain amount of time to train to become aircrew, the understanding of what is happening does take time and effort. Decision making is a lot different in the air to what it is on the ground, and needs a different outlook. Im not saying that Ge's cant be FE's, however they will all admit to needing the required amount of training. They are very good at what they do and that Aircrew are very good at what they do, but both require the requisite amount of training to achieve those standards. Taking shortcuts is an easy way of causing problems.
As an aside i have known a few ex ground trades fail courses to become FE's, and they were experienced engineers, so its not for everybody.

We'd end up with an awful lot of over-qualified ALMs and the Movers would have to argue directly with the captain. :E

Interesting replies, thanks all. Though I have to say I'm not convinced that the problems of conversion would be as great as stated. But what do I know, I'm not aircrew and certainly have never worked on anything big.

"Mind you, one thought. Has anybody even wondered if the techs will want to fill in for a few years?"

Certainly not me! Love aeroplanes, hate flying!

Never trust an engineer who refuses to fly in the aircraft that he has just worked on!!:sad:

Friend of mine was a Licenced Engineer, applied and was accepted as a Flight Eng by a company on Tristars or DC10's, I forget which, his course was as said about 2 weeks......... a year after joining them they phased out the Dinosaurs and replaced them with None Flight Engineer type Aircraft..... To his delight they said they would like to sponsor him through his ATPL's and now he flies with them as Co Pilot.

Outside of the Military most flight engineers have simply been replaced with a bunch of 00011100011101010111000111's

Don't get me wrong a third person in the cockpit in times of high workload in an emergency can be a bonus, but a lot of FE's seem to think they are indispensible....... clearly the History of Aviation and the little black box has proved them wrong...


Similarly Navs have been replaced with a 50 quid box of 001010101001111001111's bought form the likes of Maplin or Garmin :p

Apart from those of us who are ex military, (RAF) all the Brit F/E's who work for my current employer are ex GE's, and maintain the currency of their JARR maintenance licence. I am certainly not daft enough to presume that I am better than them just because I was an RAF trained Flight Engineer (Topcliffe 1970-71)! In fact all our British TRI/TRE's are ex GE's, not RAF ones I hasten to add!

So please, lets cut the cr@p!

Sounds like you're a lot more than "12 twists per inch" to me!

The RAAF Flight Engineer courses I mentioned earlier were set up to accept ONLY experienced GEs, being 'licenced' in at least two trades, which of course turned out to be mostly airframe/engines GEs. Even with significant experience, it was very difficult to get selected!

Even the ones experienced on the P3C had a hard time learning all the extra info that covered all the other aircraft systems, as well as weight & balance, navigation, basic airmanship, and a host of additional maritime ops subjects, then they had to complete a full flight simulator program, followed by flight training and checkout.
They all come out the other end saying it was the hardest course they had EVER done!

Then they started gathering experience in the seat!

He obviously drinks Guinness..
Not a bitter man!
:}

Hey..SFFP..
My comments were/are directed at the manufacturer of those two airplanes you mentioned.
These are supposed to be warfighters, operating at or near the front lines, or where ever the loads are needed most.
By 'configured' I meant that the airplanes are significantly more complicated and difficult to maintain than they need to be...I am much, much happier to see the likes of an C130H-type airplane, not in the fact that it performs better, or carries more, because the 'J' does both of those things better.
But inside, it should be a 'H', together with the systems that keep it going. Believe me, it's much, much easier to maintain, for a variety of reasons than a 'J', not the least of which (by far) is the fact that it carries an Flight Engineer. Reliability is everything when you really, really need those stores in a particular place asap. It's no good having a really great looking 'J' stuck on the tarmac at the main base with a flight management computer that won't pass it's IBIT, and therefore can't fly!!
The very same goes for the C17, it really needs a B747-300 flight deck and operating systems, without the FADEC and all the computing systems that make it go, it may not be quite as efficient, but it will be much more reliable with a Flight Engineer when it matters.
A single guy with an automatic weapon a mile off the end of the runway can be having a lucky day and take out a 'black box' that will ground the airplane until a spare is located, and that's not helpful in demanding times.

All these C130J and C17 airplanes are a 'peacetime' fleet!!

The acronym KIS comes to mind here! :E

12 twists per inch, as stated in my post some GE's Could be trained to be Flight Eng's and some couldn't. The argument on here was about the length of training required and I still maintain a course lasting at least 6 months is required, again as stated in my post.
As for some younger engineers thinking they are better than you, in every trade there is a proportion of small, narrow minded people who think they are better than others, and tend to typecast all members of a trade. Thank you for the excellent demonstration of this in your earlier post.

FD,

I suspect that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of either the J model or C17 which would explain just how wide of the mark your rather ill informed, but bearing in mind your speciality hardly surprising post is :rolleyes:

Suffice to say and without giving anything away the J model is currently working in both of the sandy theatres with a mission success rate that is simply outstanding. Add to that the very impressive tonnage that it is air dropping on a weekly basis it sort of puts your rather inept comments into perspective.

"These are supposed to be warfighters, operating at or near the front lines, or where ever the loads are needed most."

It is a war fighter, it is operating at the front line and it is delivering on a day to day basis almost without fail, which also throws some doubt on your rather dated assertion that simplicity is the key to reliability.

As regards your other daft idea that

"It's no good having a really great looking 'J' stuck on the tarmac at the main base with a flight management computer that won't pass it's IBIT, and therefore can't fly!!"

is at best laughable but for my own peace of mind please explain to me how having an FE in this circumstance is advantageous:confused:

"A single guy with an automatic weapon a mile off the end of the runway can be having a lucky day and take out a 'black box' that will ground the airplane until a spare is located, and that's not helpful in demanding times"

and that is only applicable to modern day aircraft how............:confused:

I can fully understand how in these time of modernisation that you and others would wish to "big up" your trade but to stop yourself appearing a bit daft I would, without wishing to sound rude politely suggest you try to fill your future posts with either common sense or more informed fact :ok:

Edited to add............Just as a though how long do folk in here think it would take to train an FE to become a GE? Bearing in mind all I have ever seen is the FE mentally diagnose and the only time I have seen him/her get oil on his/her hands is when his ACC overflows just how long do you think it would take your average FE to assimilate the relevant skill sets to carry out an engine/aileron booster pack etc etc change...................just a thought :confused:

Not too long as I spent 13 years doing such things on a variety of aircraft and helicopters. Gotta add that, although I am an ex ranker, I have never met or seen any of my 'E' colleagues looking down their noses at Groundcrew, or thinking they are greater than thou.

Might wanna take your handbags elsewhere and find some other trade to lambaste! XXX

Well somebody certainly bit on the hook that was cast out! As a D/E FE, I don't think there would be enough time left to try and make me a GE! Although they have occasionally let me get my hands dirty, I suspect it was more to humour me than actually to accomplish anything useful. Their years of practical experience, technical and general knowledge can only be gained the hard way. Earlier replies to the disgruntled GE were right, there's always a few prats in each trade, can't help that. And much as I despise the word, my GE and I work as a 'team' (sorry, small vomit at 'PC'ness). Lost track of the number of times they've stopped me making an arse of myself, and hopefully I've helped them now and again with diagnosis/reccomendations. So I've been replaced by a black box, well that's tough on me, but only a reflection of technology. I love my job, but reality has to be accepted (and, I think, has been by most). And as for claiming new aircraft are less flexible, well once the everpresent initial problems are overcome, that's just daft. A quick look at the logbook hours flown by my J mates will soon show that! Enough, off to the bar to have a drink with the GEs and J guys at the top table do, sure we will all laugh at some of the twaddle printed here!

isaneng
 

well said sir, :D

Twaddle some of it is. original question though chaps....

are we short or not?