Non functioning APU

[aviatorhi]

I've met a few PFEs, FEs and FOs who aren't worth their weight in .

I've met many who are average, and I've met very few who are fantastic at what they do, PFE or FE (or FO) doesn't matter, the smart ones stand out regardless of their background.

Also, I'm not sure about your particular aircraft or the way it was equipped, but if the bell rang right at rotation it may be that the APU was wired in with the WOW switch to generate a bell if the APU was on at liftoff, on the other hand you mentioned the light being on as well, once those detectors get heated to a certain level the fire may well be out (or the heat from the APU) but the light won't extinguish for a while. I know in some 727s the APU being on generates a T/O warning horn and on others it does not. The switch shouldn't be disabled in flight, the APU fuel valve is disabled from opening, but it is not disabled from closing in flight. So you can leave it on through takeoff and turn it off in flight (like I once did), but you cannot turn it on in flight.

Also, funny how they taught you to look for the WW fire as the first indication of APU being on, but you got the APU indicating a fire. As I have told many people flying the old birds is a lot more black magic and know how than it is memorizing what to do when what light comes on. Over the production run of the 727 there have been many changes as to what happens when up front but not that many in terms of the systems in the back, this leads to one 727 giving one certain indication of a problem and another 727 giving a completley different indication for the same problem.

But it does sound like your FE wasn't willing to own up to his mistake, never heard of a self generated start and don't think one is possible with the way the APU is set up in the 727. Not being able to own up like that is one of the biggest red flags for me in terms of a crewmember.

[con-pilot]

I know in some 727s the APU being on generates a T/O warning horn and on others it does not.

I believe the newer 200As had that feature. We had two 100s and an old straight 200, all had the -9 engines. We did lease a ex-Air France 200 with -7 engines, now talk about a dog. I hated to be assigned that aircraft while we leased it, but it was cheap.

On our 100s, the start/stop switch was disabled after airborne. As I related when the FE first tried to shut it down, he used that switch and nothing happened. The APU only shut down when the fire handle was pulled. It would not surprise me if on the newer 200As the switch could still be active after takeoff.

By the way, one of our 100s had the additional baggage fuel tanks. We had about seven hours of fuel with a maximum load of 35 passengers on board. It's been over 12 years since I flew that aircraft, or any 727 for that matter, so I cannot recall just how many extra pounds of fuel we could carry.

I much preferred flying the 100s compared to the 200.

Also, I'm not sure about your particular aircraft or the way it was equipped, but if the bell rang right at rotation it may be that the APU was wired in with the WOW switch to generate a bell if the APU was on at liftoff,

No, the fire bell did not sound until we had been in the air for about 45 minutes, on both occasions. On our aircraft there was no tie with the WOW (we called it a squat switch) and the APU. Now one other thing now that I am thinking about this, on both flights they were short hops and we never got above FL-250/290. That could be the reason the APU did not flame out.

Not being able to own up like that is one of the biggest red flags for me in terms of a crewmember.

That was not the first red flag we got from this guy, but we were a government operation and he was ex-military, so what can I say. He's an MD-80 Captain now for the same operations.

[aviatorhi]

Our fleet is all 200As some have the T/O warning some don't. Varies by original customer. The AUX tanks have various layouts, I've seem some fuel capacities approaching 70,000#s on 200As. The 100 in general was a great airplane, but a 200QWRE at 130K#s is as close to a rocket ship as you can get I think. These days the 200s are the only things that are economically viable (and even then in niche markets).

The 100 might be very different from the 200s in terms of the APU fire warning system, but it sounds like the APU must've generated a bit of heat in there for the loops to pick up on it. On 200s at least the detection should have caused an automatic shutdown of the APU (provided it was armed, which is default). I haven't engineered on 100s (just 200s) so I don't know the FE AUX panel layout on those.

[Old Fella]

very few who are fantastic at what they do.

aviatorhi, the same can be said for Captains. Many are very capable pilots, many are great guys, many are both. For you to label most PFE's, FE's and FO's as only average at what they do says much about the training they received. Professional FE's from where I come are just that. Most have had an extensive background in aircraft maintenance before training as FE's and generally have a very good knowledge of how aircraft work. They may not be pilots, some are, but I think most pilots who flew, or fly, with a FE believe they play an important role in the operation. Some, like yourself it seems, don't miss an opportunity to reduce the input of the FE and the FO.

[aviatorhi]

That's just funny... mainly because I'm an FE. The discussion was concerning something from a CAs viewpoint. And yes, sorry to say it, but most (not all) people you run into in this line of work are average at best.

[Old Fella]

average, at best.

aviatorhi If most of those operating as FE are "only average, at best" it is surely an indication that they are poorly trained, both initially and subsequently. As a Check F/E I personally always briefed the FE under review to operate as if I was not there. Any divergence from SOP could soon be seen and, where required, advice given on those items needing improvement. Maybe because I always worked with full-time FE's, with lengthy time in the maintenance of aircraft before becoming FE's, I probably did not find the same deficiencies you have witnessed. System knowledge is only one aspect of the job however with enthusiasm, airmanship and being a team player being important factors. Also, the term "average" means different things to different people. Competent is a term I would rather use. Incompetence is unacceptable, an occasional deviation from SOP is not uncommon. It would help us all if everyone on PPRuNe was required to state their qualifications on their public profile so that we can all relate to the level of expertise we are dealing with.

[con-pilot]

It would help us all if everyone on PPRuNe was required to state their qualifications on their public profile so that we can all relate to the level of expertise we are dealing with.

It's not going to happen, but I agree with you.

We only had two professional Flight Engineers in our operations and they were damn good. At least management was smart enough that on all of our international trips we had one of the PFEs assigned to the trips*. One saved the mission and my butt one night in the Azores when the aux. fuel tanks refused to take on fuel.




* Which was amazing, as it was a government operations.

[grounded27]

Hell, I had captains tell me "flight mech" to supervise new FE's. Never forget picking up this one guy, first flight. He came from the commuters did not make the cut in the sim and got an offer to fly sideways. As we pulled up to our DC10-30 he blurted out, damb these things are big when you get close to them.


I do miss our old PFE's, if we got short on manpower we could send them out on their own, rock solid guys. I also miss flying with the retired captains, those guys were a different breed.