TWO MEMBERS CREW vs THREE MEMBERS CREW

[BelArgUSA]

747-400 with 3 pilots...

A few years ago, my airline decided to buy 4 747-400s rather than 4 747-300s. The cost of each 400 was around $35 million per unit, whereas each 300 would have been around $10 million per unit. I was a proponent of the 300. One of the issues, was the supression of the flight engineer position...
xxx
We did not need the extra few nautical miles of range offered by the 400s, our sectors can be flown non-stop by 200s and 300s... The 300 has the same cabin configuration and passenger capacity as a 400...
xxx
So the company bean-counters won, they got the 747-475s from Canada... and they could save on the salaries of flight engineers. But all our sectors with 747-400 are over 8 hours, therefore requiring a 3 pilot crew, captain, cruise-captain and first officer... so the unions and the company agreed to train our flight engineers to be cruise-first officers... 90% of our flight engineers accepted to become cruise-first officers, and kept their flight engineer salaries and high seniorities. We could have acquired the 300s that would not have required a "centavo" extra training, but instead, they spent a fortune in training the crews for the 400... at the time we were almost a bankrupt airline...
xxx
Now, our ex-flight engineers are happy, but our bean-counters are not, since the hourly cost of a captain, a cruise-captain and a cruise-first officer as cockpit crew of a 400 is higher than a captain, a first officer and a flight engineer is in the 200/300...
xxx
Nice thing is, with the 400, that the cruise-first officers (ex engineers) continue their duties as it was in the 200s... that is preflight walkaround, they participate in check-lists, in-flight documentation and logs... etc...
xxx
We are left with 2 747-200s which I still fly, when they retire these planes, I will be retired too, as our policy is not to transition captains over age 60 to new equipment (I am 63)... so my revenge is, that they will have to pay me a full salary until I hit age 65, should they retire the 200s before my birthday...
xxx
As far as my opinion is, I still believe a cockpit crew of 3 is better for departure and arrival, check-list perfomance, extra pair of eyes, and in case of a malfunction... or emergency...

Very happy contrails

[galaxy flyer]

BelArgUSA

Quite agree on the economic issues. Friends who were early in 767 int'l business (AA, TWA), were always amazed that the airline thought they were saving money by eliminating the F/Es, usually paid probationary or early hourly pay, and replacing them with mid-seniority F/Os. The F/Os made considerably more. I still don't believe it makes sense if most of your sectors exceed 8 hours.

GF

[con-pilot]

As far as my opinion is, I still believe a cockpit crew of 3 is better for departure and arrival, check-list perfomance, extra pair of eyes, and in case of a malfunction... or emergency...

BelArgUSA, there you have it. In my outfit we had both PFEs (Professional Flight Engineers to those that are too young to know of PFEs) and pilots acting as FEs. Now, one thing that was very different from airline operations was that usually all 3 people in the cockpit were captains (government flight operations). Generally, 99% of the time, having 3 captains presented no problems, we all rotated as PIC one week from the next.

In fact on some schedules we would fight over who would get to be the FE. Hell, the pay was the same and all you to do was to sleep, read books and pass gas. However, as you so accurately posted for departures, arrivals and aircraft malfunction, and especially in case of emergencies that third person on the flight deck is very important.

I, as with most of the other pilots, would hand the approach plate back to the FE, if it was a pilot FE, after we had set up for the approach and have them recheck everything and agree with approach briefing. A couple of times mistakes were caught by the FE.

So, my vote is for the 3 person crew.

[old,not bold]

John Tullamarine said;

Equally, we can find examples where an ill-disciplined three man crew performed rather indifferently.

i was thinking of a BA VC10 on which all four engines went terribly quiet one day in the cruise...HKK - BKK? ..rumour had it that the Capt and F/E were each fiddling with the engine settings without either realising they were both at it, or something like that....and didn't the BA VC10 fleet not use intercom because the F/E might interrupt a transmission?

The F/E, so the story went on, then performed a miracle getting one started using a drop down generator, then starting another from that, then another.....

Perhaps someone knows the real story of that incident? I don't claim accuracy. But it seemed to illuminate both sides of the 2 vs 2 + F/E argument.

[Flight Detent]

There is no arguement here, the 2 + F/E is definitely the better option, all things considered!
comments -
"would hand the approach plate back to the FE, if it was a pilot FE,"
- and why wouldn't you hand it back to a PFE, most have pilot licences, and even the ones that don't have a very good understanding of the instrument settings/briefings required of the pilots for precision approaches. I find that comment a little insulting, piloting an airplane is not that difficult!

comments -
"Equally, we can find examples where an ill-disciplined three man crew performed rather indifferently"
- in my experience, the ones that performed indifferently were the FAA licensed pilots 'acting' as FEs. But I guess that's the American way!

Cheers...FD...

[SIC]

Not to metion that FE's know the best jokes, location of the best bars/cathouses and are really usefull friends to have when your car/boat/gun isn't working properly. I miss them dearly!

[old,not bold]

In post 24 above, for HKK (Hokitika, NZHK) please read HKG (Hongkong, VHHH).......it was a senior moment...

[BelArgUSA]

The issues...

My airline now operates long range flights (747-400 and A-340)... Of course, these airplanes were designed to be flown by 2 pilots, no F/E required... But the designers of the airplanes failed to realise that you cannot dispatch an airplane on a 14 hrs long sector... with 2 pilots, this due to duty and flight time limitations... with our regulations (we use rules similar to US/FAR 121), a 2 pilot crew is limited to 8 hrs flight time, and 12 hrs duty time.
xxx
Occasionally, a A-340 might operate a short sector, where there would be no flight time or duty time problem, but if, after a night stop, that crew is assigned to a long sector, requiring 3 pilots, we, at the end, dispatch all flights with the 3 pilot crew complement, regardless how short/long sectors are, same for the 747-400... We only have one base, Buenos Aires, and if there was a need to vary crew complements in view of sectors, what we would gain in 2 pilot only crews, would be lost in hotel costs and 3rd pilots deadheading here or there. Crew schedulers are not rocket scientists, it would be a nightmare of logistics to vary crew complements, in function of various sectors to be flown. Remember, we can operate our 747-200s with our minimum crew up to 12 hrs flights and 16 hrs duty...
xxx
On other postings, in Pprune, there are numerous questions about the adequacy of airline training and qualifications of new hires. Well, I started my airline career with PanAm as a 727 F/E, then became 707 F/E before upgrading to a "window seat", as 727 F/O... it was excellent training in itself, to sit "sideways" a few months, before becoming a F/O... I hope that the new generation of pilots will get that exposure when selected as 3rd pilot for long range airplanes of this new century.
xxx
I admit that having a "3 pilot" requirement for 737s was ridiculous, as United, Western and Frontier did it in the early 1970s... Both 737s and DC9s were designed for 2 pilots, and flew short sectors.
xxx
Last word here. I asked a friend in the crew planning department, about the hourly cost factored for cockpit crew of a 747-200, compared to 747-400... The next day, he answered me that the hourly crew cost of the 747-400 is assumed to be US$ 85.oo higher, for the 747-400. I am so happy that my airline saved us from bankruptcy by selecting the 747-400. I would also like to know the banking interests paid to finance 4 airplanes of $35 millions each, versus the costs of selecting 4 of $10 millions each... QED...
xxx

Happy contrails

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Pakeha-boy

The introduction of ths new MPL (multicrew pilots license)....is scary stuff indeed......the concept of having a 250-400 co-pilot flying with no real experience is a concept that I have a hard time accepting.......not saying they are not good enough at all......but experience is experience......and when things are turning to custard...correct me if I,m wrong......but Ill go for "proven" versus un-proven.

A very valid comment ... and not to be critical in anyway as I think all would prefer experience to a lack of it, but circumstances are what they are. IF experience is available I'm quite sure it will be grabbed up quickly, but, with the shortage anticipated, that experience is simply not going to be there. Additionally, the industry has "been there, done that" before. In the early to middle 1960's it was not uncommon to have very low time pilots (250 - 400 hours) hired by the airlines in the US. And, before some jump to correct me that these folks were hired into the FE seat (which WAS true in many cases) there were airlines that operated with "professional FEs" (like National, Pan Am, and others), where "new hire" pilots went directly into the right seat. It may be valuable to recall that these were the days prior to GPS and IRUs, FMS and sophisticated autoflight control. Shoot ... it was prior to flight directors and horizontal situation display instrumentation! It was also prior to the reliability we see in engines and aircraft systems that we almost take for granted today. If we HAVE to have 250 - 400 hour pilots in the right seat, I think I'd rather do it today than 40 years ago!

[pakeha-boy]

Air rabbitt...ditto on your comments,and are old enough to have some of these youngies thrown my way as well,.....and I would agree with your sentiments.....

The problem we are seeing now,(and I should have mentioned) are very low time Capts....(1200hrs) flying with very low time F/O,s(250-400)..... as I witnessed last week whilst commuting(JUMPSEAT) on an ERJ 900...flown by a very well known carrier....M--a....out of Kphx,AZ..... I saw several things that I regarded as "ugly" to say the least,especially in a multi-crew operation.....not trying to point fingers......but if the ****e really hits the fan.....I hope I,m not occupying the jumpseat......

By the way,I did call a check Capt for that Airline,a personal friend who commutes on my flights and air my comments....not trying to DOB anyone,but I had concerns....

[misd-agin]

2 man vs. 3 man?

Years ago CA left the 727 for the S80. Guys advised him it was a poor decision. "With only one other guy up there you can't pretend to be innocent when you f*rt. He knows he didn't do it!"

[BelArgUSA]

2 or 3 up front...?

The old FAA regulations standards required 2 pilots and a flight engineer, when the aircraft takeoff weight exceeded 80,000 lbs... Later, of course, the industry produced aircraft designed to be flown by 2 pilots, no required flight engineers. Was the case of 737 and DC9s...
xxx
My idea is that the crew complement should now be based on flight times and duty times. I am not against the 747-400, and now the A-380 designed to be flown by 2 pilots, for flights not exceeding 8 hrs... Our regulations here require 3 pilots (or 2 + F/E) for flights to 12 hrs... in excess of 12 hrs sectors, we require yet an extra pilot... 4 pilots in some of our A-340 routes.
xxx
Think of this... The KC-135 was (and is) flown by 2 pilots, yet a 3rd crewmember is in that cockpit, a flight navigator (not a F/E)... The airlines operated the 707 with 2 pilots and a F/E... although the KC-135 is... a 707...
xxx
The workload on short 1 to 2 hrs-long sectors, with multiple landings, as flown by 737s and MD-80s is extremely high. Our company policy permits operation of 8 hrs flying for 2 pilots, and provided not more than 2 landings are required. If a third landing is required, the flight time limit is reduced to 7 hrs, and further reduced to 6 hrs, if 4 landings are performed, etc...
xxx
I know some of you fly these regional airplanes, sometimes with 6 landings a day, in congested airspace such as in the USA or Europe. Would be curious to see your outstanding performance on your last landing of the evening, in icing conditions, holding above the IAF in turbulence and expecting an approach to "reported" legal weather minumums...
xxx
What is the name of your airline...? Gulag Air Express...?

Happy contrails

[Rainboe]

was thinking of a BA VC10 on which all four engines went terribly quiet one day in the cruise...HKK - BKK? ..rumour had it that the Capt and F/E were each fiddling with the engine settings without either realising they were both at it, or something like that....and didn't the BA VC10 fleet not use intercom because the F/E might interrupt a transmission?

The F/E, so the story went on, then performed a miracle getting one started using a drop down generator, then starting another from that, then another.....

I recall this incident- I was flying BA VC10 at the time. Near TOD Tokyo, F/E feeding all engines from one tank- inevitable happened, subsequently positively banned (when you have 5 or 6 tanks whatever it was!). ELRAT (electrical ram air turbine) pulled out to restore electrics (all that was needed as VC10 used power control units for flight controls)- which disintegrated after 2 minutes. Following short gliding experience, engines restarted one by one, only pride dented- sent home in chains. Captain couldn't really fiddle with anything as F/E had ALL engine controls. One didn't dare touch anything in F/Es department!

VC10 didn't use intercom because like DC9/MD80 series, flight deck silent! Engines at back- no need of intercom. BA traditionally flew one ear off.

Quite honestly chaps, having flown 747-400 for 8 years, and 737 for 8 years prior to that, and 747-200 with 3 FD crew for 10 years prior to that, I am just as happy with a 2 pilot operation as ever with a 3 crew operation. We integrated 2, 3 and 4 pilot operation into the 747-400 as required for sector length, so heavy, long rangeand tired, you had the extra pilot/s. With a big world wide schedule, it might have been complicated to roster that, but BA did it OK and well. Long range ops like Asia/Australia, 4 pilots would depart, 2 would continue shorter range to Australia, 2 would turn around and come home. It worked well, and no pilots were left building up and gradually being forgotten in BKK (unfortunately) or SIN!