Do we still need flight engineers?
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 512
From: UK
Capt P B. .I think that Jackson VC was NOT a F/E (a rather new branch at that time), but a member of the longest operating aviation crew branch - Radio Operators... probably a W.Op/AG or, maybe, a Signaller.. .As regards third crew - certainly, but, as has been mooted here occasionally in the past, have a non-flying Aircraft Commander - much the safest option but neither politically nor professionally acceptable.... pity.
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 594
Likes: 4
From: New Zealand
Cornish Jack. I have in front of me the Citation from the London Gazette and believe me Norman Jackson was a Flight Engineer. I was also a Flight Engineer in the RAF and the citation was transferred from St Athen to Finningley in 1982 when the Flight Engineers school was transferred. We as a branch greatly respect Norman and what he did, so you were wrong in your assumption.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
From: Camp X-Ray
Well an interesting aside about Sgt Jackson, any modern day FEs volunteering to perform the same role?
Developing a point made previously on this thread, a third flight crew member would undoubtedly be useful in some emergency situations in terms of workload management. This, however, does not have to be an FE and it could be argued that perhaps a third pilot is best suited so as to maintain an overall watch on all aspects of the operation whilst the handling crew attempt to resolve the problem. Perhaps an FE would have made a difference on SR111, but practicality suggests he'd have a hard time isolating the fire if the source really was hard wired to the main busses. I think its presumptious to say that the only thing they would have been discussing was an overweight landing. With hindsight that would have been a better course of action, but just because a two man crew were unsuccesful in resolving the problem doesn't mean a three man crew is guaranteed to fair better. There were still plenty of accidents when three man crews were the norm.
It goes without saying that the FE performs a vital role in three crew aircraft , which are largely those that don't have high degrees of automation. I'm sure they're great company downroute as well. However this does not translate to them having a vital role in a highly automated two man aircraft. He may be able to pop circuit breakers quicker than anyone, but whats he going to do for the 99.9% of the time that the aircraft flies without incident? I also stand by my initial comment that suggesting that our modus operandi is "ECAM say, pilot do" without any thought or confirmation is rather stupid. Just because an engineer knows more about the nuts and bolts of the system doesn't mean the pilots are pig ignorant.
Pontius I look forward to your 21st birthday card. Don't let me down like Santa did.
Developing a point made previously on this thread, a third flight crew member would undoubtedly be useful in some emergency situations in terms of workload management. This, however, does not have to be an FE and it could be argued that perhaps a third pilot is best suited so as to maintain an overall watch on all aspects of the operation whilst the handling crew attempt to resolve the problem. Perhaps an FE would have made a difference on SR111, but practicality suggests he'd have a hard time isolating the fire if the source really was hard wired to the main busses. I think its presumptious to say that the only thing they would have been discussing was an overweight landing. With hindsight that would have been a better course of action, but just because a two man crew were unsuccesful in resolving the problem doesn't mean a three man crew is guaranteed to fair better. There were still plenty of accidents when three man crews were the norm.
It goes without saying that the FE performs a vital role in three crew aircraft , which are largely those that don't have high degrees of automation. I'm sure they're great company downroute as well. However this does not translate to them having a vital role in a highly automated two man aircraft. He may be able to pop circuit breakers quicker than anyone, but whats he going to do for the 99.9% of the time that the aircraft flies without incident? I also stand by my initial comment that suggesting that our modus operandi is "ECAM say, pilot do" without any thought or confirmation is rather stupid. Just because an engineer knows more about the nuts and bolts of the system doesn't mean the pilots are pig ignorant.
Pontius I look forward to your 21st birthday card. Don't let me down like Santa did.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Southern Carib
I joined my outfit as an F/E. Or should I say Pilot Engineer, not as a professional F/E, so I know my level of expertise was no greater than those who faced forward, insofar as AC systems were concerned. What was patently obvious tho' was the advantage that that extra pair of eyes, ears and hands conferred upon the operation.. .Now that I have ascended to the dizzying hieghts of skipperdom, I dont miss the "panel" per se, but I could seriously use that extra pair of eyes etc. back, in any form.
Carnival Beas'
Carnival Beas'
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 512
From: UK
Capt P B and Fergineer. .Apologies, I stand corrected <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> . Was relying on a memory from fifty years ago, so not surprising. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . .Re. the third crew member argument, however, the undoubted technical expertise of the F/E has become less relevant in aircraft systems of the 'black box' variety. . .What could be of considerable value, however, is a "Flight Deck Manager" (for want of a better term)- someone who is not actively engaged in flying the aircraft or monitoring the systems but who has the full overview of the situation and the authority to make operational decisions ( a la maritime Captains). For 99% of the time that is an unnecessary luxury and would, no doubt, promote crew friction, not to mention apoplexy amongst the 'bean-counters' Ergo.... it isn't going to happen. I say again, pity <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Uncle Pete
Joined: Jul 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
From: Frodsham Cheshire
I may be wrong but I seem to remember the master plan for operating the Vickers Vanguard when it was introduced into BEA was for teo first officers to sit in the pilot seats while Sir sat on the third seat between them making command decisions.
MP
MP
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: SP, Brazil
Hey folks, this topic started asking about SR111 tragedy, so: What could an F/E have made beside reading and following instructions on MD11 FCOM volume 1, like any other trained MD11 pilot, to avoid that crash? Until now authorities have not released any final report but everybody knows that the flight deck had severe smoke, in total or almost darkness and likely with some fire spots in the cabin and FWD galley. Ok, MD11 has 3 long troubleshooting pages to find the unknown origin of smoke/fumes of electrical or A/C, but unfortunately I don’t feel that a third member could have avoided the tragic ending. . .Anyway I believe that an additional crew member is very important and helpful but in modern airplanes and long haul flights the third (or fourth member) can be perfectly one more (or two) supplemental pilot, to perform any emergency duty, if necessary. I’m sure F/E’s usually have a deep knowledge about airplane systems but it’s usual to find a lot of guys without any previous piloting experience as well. So, let’s balance it and find what is really better for a modern aviation environment. . .By the way, as I could read in this tread some guys supposedly support a third crew member, but I think they are in fact looking for a maid to prepare their meal, check the airplane during rainny and cold days, say some jokes, etc, instead of one more man (or woman) to improve aviation safety.
[ 20 February 2002: Message edited by: start sequence 312 ]</p>
[ 20 February 2002: Message edited by: start sequence 312 ]</p>
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
....or, in the case of SR111, to convince the guys behind the poles to land NOW, never mind overweight.. .One very old captain told me many years ago...always be nice to the flight engineer BECAUSE he is closest to the fire axe.. .Have not flown a public transport jet without one, and do not intend to start now.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane, Australia
Hi all,. .As for that SR111, I am convinced that they would have gotten a DC10 (MD11), on the ground in time to get out, if only it had been a DC10!. .Also, somebody mentioned earlier that FEs were now really not needed in these current high-tech, highly automated aircraft, with ECAM to reveal the next most (preprogrammed) step to take, that's IF the thing has been programmed to sort the problem you have, but I think he missed the point, as I saw it, with a professional FE, we don't need the aircraft to be anywhere near as automated, and the automated thinking that goes with it, that's the problem, look at that QF 744 that arrived at BKK in the golfcourse,(an FE would have been mentioning, rather loudly, that he had just cancelled both the auto-brakes and the auto-spoilers with that initial attempt to go around!), look at that A330 that landed deadstick in the middle of the Atlantic, wasn't he lucky he found that airfield JUST in time!. .An example of ECAM not knowing, and leading the crew astray, an FE would have compared the remaining fuel with the quantity used, and seen that it didn't tally, something that they keep a running tally with on every flight!. .And there are numerous events that are remaining just reports in company safety reports, rather than something that developed into a major emergency, because the FE was there to point it out, in varying amounts of forcefulness!. .I know in my company, they really can't do without them, judging on their past performance!. . . .I even get nervous on those automated commuter trains, like the ones in KL, and I'm still on the ground, I DON'T LIKE AUTOMATION OF THIS DEGREE - IT HAS NO BRAINS/COMMONSENSE!. .Bring back the FE!!
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
From: USA
The value of a knowledgable, attentive, conscientious F/E is incalculable. But the major benefit so far overlooked is that, on a trip, if one crewmember is a jerk, you can hang with the other one.
