Flying a 747 Classic/Tristar with no FE
 

I came across this thread recently: :eek:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1...n-tristar.html

Here's my question, do you think it's possible for a 2 man crew to operate a 747 Classic, DC-10, 727 or Tristar if none were ex-FEs themselves?

I once found myself in the simulator building with 2 hours to spare before my 747-400 detail. Decided to look at some of the other machines. The sim engineers said the 747-200 wasn't needed for a while and that I could have a play if I wanted. Had a good look at the F/Es panel and figured out what was what. To cut a long story short, I managed to start it up, taxi out and fly a couple of circuits, finishing off with a half decent landing.

So to answer your question: Yes it would be possible to 'fly' one of these jets without an F/E (but I'm sure that the AFM requires three crew) so to 'operate' one properly one needs a trained and qualified guy or gal in each of the three seats.

On the other hand, Charlton Heston managed it in Airport 1977 so it must be OK!

Well, eckhard...

From simply watching what normally happens, you have stumbled around the flight deck and got it going...congratulations...most FEs could do the piloting job with a similar amount of ease!

...and this proves what!...or....your point is!...

a 12 yearold boy could probably drive his old mans car, but that certainly doesn't prove anything except how to get yourself INTO trouble!

Take it easy FD. I can't find the reason to be upset in eckhard's post. All he does is answer the question: of course a two man crew can fly away w/o the engineer. That doesn't say anything about the profession itself. So lighten up!

Thanks Penko!

Sorry FD, I seem to have hit a nerve!

No offence to FEs intended nor (I think) implied. It just shows how one can be misunderstood. I was always taught that if someone misunderstands you, the fault probably lies with the way you phrased what you were trying to say. So, to adhere to that principle, let me apologise for my clumsy wording and try to sum up my point again:

It is possible to fly just about any aircraft as a single pilot, given enough time to prepare. That doesn't mean it should be encouraged. What does it 'prove'? Nothing much, except that with no abnormalities or time pressures to deal with, the task of getting an aircraft airborne and back on the ground again is not beyond most professional flight crew (pilots and F/Es). I must say I enjoyed the challenge of finding out what some unfamiliar knobs and switches were for. I'm sure the simple piloting required under such low stress conditions would also not be beyond some 12-year-old boys. I've seen some sim engineers hand-fly Cat 11 approaches and landings to a much higher standard than most pilots could. Does that make me feel inadequate or threatened as a professional pilot? Not in the least.

By complete contrast, the safe and orderly operation for hire and reward requires the co-ordinated input and actions of a minimum number of trained and qualified aircrew. That number is determined by the certifying authority and in the case of the 'classic' wide-bodies and other types, certainly and deservedly includes the Flight Engineer. It's obvious that the minimum crew must be able to deal with the worst conceivable combination of failures, environmental problems, etc. The system design and displays of the older jets are too complex to be managed by a two-pilot crew under such conditions. The extra pair of eyes are also useful in normal operations. I could go on but I suspect that you agree with all of these points.

I did try to separate the notion of simply 'flying' against that of 'operating', and I certainly don't consider myself any sort of 'higher being'! In all my flying, I have always learned from my students (mostly about my own shortcomings as an instructor) but also about all sorts of things that they had a better handle on than I did. I count this exchange as one of those learning opportunities.

So, to answer the original post again: Yes, it think it's possible for a 2 man crew to operate a 747 Classic, DC-10, 727 or Tristar if none were ex-FEs themselves. But I don't think I would like to be a fare-paying passenger on such a flight!

Yes I've kinda done it - Not takeoff or landing, but in the cruise for hours while the other two crew slept.
It's possible to set up a lot of the FE's panel before takeoff and landing to make it all work. Though to make it work properly an FE is most definitely required! That also presupposes that nothing is going to go wrong.

In the USA isn't it a requirement that one of the pilots be able to operate the F/E panel, though no certificate is requied ?

The interesting case was the 737-100/200, for which ALPA contracts required the FE, and non-union airlines flew without FE. In 1980 as the DC9-80 neared certification, McDouglas, having promised to never certify another non-FE airplane after the DC-9, was getting hit hard by ALPA. McD called the DC9-80 a follow-on, and not a new plane.

A study was then released showing the two-crew 737 had by far the best safety record of any plane, followed by the DC-9 and the three-crew 737.

ALPA dropped its objection to no FE, and within a year McDuck changed the name to MD-80.

GB

tristar
 

Seeing as Arizona has not replied yet, I will pass on the situation this side of the pond.

I cannot speak for the 747 Classic, but on the TriStar, BA used to fly with 3 pilots, same as the Trident.

It didn`t seem to cause any trouble & was only changed for routes outside Europe where a Longhaul F/E was carried.

I well remember that Cairo was a Shorthaul Captain & First Officer with a Longhaul F/E & that DID cause problems!!

tristar 500

Probably, though I cannot see why.

FAR 125.263 says that

Somewhere else in FARs, cannot find where, is the requirement that no transport plane may become unsafe by incapacitation of any one flight crew member. Two pilot planes meet this by ensuring that either of the pilots could fly the plane alone.

But what about three required crew planes? There s no requirement that any plane should be flyable with two crew incapacitated. Two pilot planes routinely crash with both pilots incapacitated (see Helios).

So, there is no requirement that it should be possible to fly a three flight crew plane with two crew incapacitated and one pilot left. Can they in practice be flown so?

Also, when one of three is incapacitated, is it safer to fly with both pilot positions occupied and FE post empty, or with FE post occupied and one pilot seat empty?

In my opinion, formed from 7,000 hours in 727s, I would definitely say the left seat and the FE seat to be occupied in that situation.

Come to think about it, I've flown with some co-pilots (okay, okay, FOs) that for all intent and purposes the right seat was empty.

In fact on one takeoff in the 727 the FE may have saved our lives. When I called for the first flap reduction, at 500 feet AGL, the guy in the right seat put the flap handle to full up/clean position. The FE saw him do that and yelled at me to get the nose down and start building up airspeed, then the FE put the flap handle back to 10 degrees. To be honest I don't know if we would have stalled or not, but that was not the place to find out. It was a hot day and we were at gross for the conditions.

Yes, the co-pilot bought all of our drinks that night and I paid for the FE's dinner. Actually the guy in question turned out to be a really good pilot, that was like a wake-up call to him.

Oh, one other thing, after this we changed our procedures to first flap retraction at 1,000 feet AGL.

Flight Detent, as eckhard said

so to 'operate' one properly one needs a trained and qualified guy or gal in each of the three seats.

There is no reason to assume that he thinks that he is higher than anyone else.

He isn't saying that he can operate it well so there's no need for mentioning the twelve year old boy is there.

I suggest you calm down and brush up in your interpretation skills, you are way over the top.

Might get away with until something goes wrong...
 

Surely the reason for having the FE is to monitor the systems on the FE panel and take appropriate actions if things start to go pear-shaped?

I can quite believe it would be possible to operate a 3-crew aircraft with 2 pilots in normal circumstances, but in an emergency situation?!? Would you really want one of the pilot's to unstrap and play at being the FE while the other pilot flew? Surely that would remove a lot of the safety that comes from having the non-handling pilot watching, assisting and cross-checking the handling pilot's actions and decisions.

I would definitely not want to be on an aircraft in that situation... :eek:

767 Also
 

Further to my post above, many of you should remember the first few 767 were built with FE position. They converted them to two crew after ALPA conceded.

GB

Greybeard:

Weren't some of those B767's actually delivered to Ansett with the F/E panels still installed and went into service that way?

John Tullamarine: any info on these planes?

GF

C-P

I agree on where to put the two pilots in a B727, but Flaps 10? Which had a detent between 5 and 15?

GF

I've always wanted to solo a B747-200 (in a simulator). That being said, a major reason I have not gone from the -200 to the -400 is that I really want an engineer when the fecal matter impacts the compressor.

3 Crew aircraft flown by only 2 Crew
 

I have read the posts on this subject posted to date. The question is really a "no-brainer". Aircraft designed to have three crew in operating crew positions may only be operated with three crew. "Can" they be flown with less than three crew? Of course they bloody well can, but not "operated". Professional F/E's, just like professional Pilots, take great pride in what they contribute to the overall operation. The aircraft designers determine how many crew are required. Certification mandates it. Most pilots with whom I flew accepted that the F/E was the "Technical expert" on the flightdeck and, as far as I'm aware, most F/E's respected that the pilots were the ones charged with flying the aircraft. That said, it was very rare in my experience for the operation to not be a real "team" effort, each with clearly defined duties and a common desire to make the operation as smooth and as least stressful as possible.

Personally, I think the removal of the F/E was more to do with what the "bean counters" believed than what the operational side of aviation thought best. I guess the Radio Operators, then the Navigators felt much as I do about being replaced by technology. It probably won't be long before the next step, i.e. just a dog and a pilot up front, is taken. Just remember, the pilot will only be there to feed the dog and the dog will only be there to bite the pilot if he goes to do the wrong thing!!

Merry Christmas all from one old F/E who can remember the "good old days"

"Weren't some of those B767's actually delivered to Ansett with the F/E panels still installed and went into service that way?"

Due to an agreement with the union, the B767 was classed as a long haul aircraft and therefore required a F/E. The fact that it was designed without one didn't seem to matter. The aircraft had to be modified to accommodate this, which made them a little difficult to sell on. People wonder why they went bust.

That was yet another typical Back Every Afternoon Shorthaul compromise that just didn't really work ... :hmm:

Give me a Flight Engineer in the third seat any day - they're worth their weight in gold!!


JD
:)

There was once a TWA Connie capt who was tasked to crew a ship on ferry from Kansas City Muni to the maint. base at Fairfax - a 5 min. flight across the Missouri river.

He grew tired of waiting for the other 2 crew to show up - so he told the line boy to pull back the boarding steps, closed the door, slid in the F/E seat to start the engines, then moved up to l/h seat and proceeded to take off and fly gear down and flaps 20 to destination.

He probably had a bigger handful than the same exercise in a 74 classic or 3-holer.

I suspect that he was in a big hurry to go on vacation... :D

:\ Oops.

After I wrote that yesterday I realized that I had a brain fart. Yup, you're quite right, it is 2-5-15-20-25-30-40. Must be a sign of old age, well that and it has been over ten years since I flew a 727.

:ok:

Rumor has it that Orient Thai operated a L1011 with 2 crew, the Captain got xxxx with the FE, and actually took off without him.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1...n-tristar.html


Mutt

Back to the original question ...

I have several times pondered on this - imagining an "On the Beach" scenario with your nearest and dearest depending on you, finding a fuelled Classic sitting on the tarmac, all shut down but otherwise ready to go. If you are current and experienced on type, undoubtedly it would be possible.

You enter through the electronics bay, start the APU from its own battery, then 4-engine start from the APU and cross-bleed, setup the F/E panel before taxy and again before take-off, then fly the aircraft single-handed. It would certainly concentrate the brain - and it would be nice to have a serviceable A/P and not too many ADDs - but I am confident it would be possible. There should be no problems with CRM ... but no catering either ...

I would have thought that operating the ship with just 2 crew instead of 3 would, by comparison, be an absolute doddle! :ok:


JD
:)

IMO as a 747 Classic Captain, it would be best to stay in the seat to which you are most accustomed.

If the FE is incapacitated, the Captain could more easily unstrap and set up the panel as desired, leaving the FO to handle the controls and radio in the interim. Before approach, set it up for landing, then get back in the left seat and fly it.

If the FO is incapacitated, it's really a no-brainer. Both the Captain and the FE can do their jobs from their accustomed seat, and the FE is used to monitoring the front of the cockpit from his seat. The Captain merely takes on the PNF duties as well as the PF duties.

If the Captain is incapacitated, there's a bit of a decision to be made. While communication between FE and the left seat is much easier, the FO may not be as comfortable finding controls or landing from the left seat. For those who might doubt it, there IS a significant difference in the "feel" of the cockpit from the opposite seat!

It's certainly easier to reach the gear & flaps from the FO's seat, but you'd really need to see the FE's panel so I'd go for the Captain's seat for single pilot ops. :)

the 747 classic is the most forgiving aeroplane to fly and the most satisfying.it really handles like a classic sportscar or a 3 litre v6 cruiser,just an amazing machine.fine when all systems operating correctly, however,the flight engineer is vital to a smooth,stress free operation.totally different to the 400 which replaced it.i prefer the 200 as a pilots aeroplane,it wins hands down.very lucky to have flown them.

You'd really need to see the FE's panel
 

18-Wheeler, I presume you are commenting on a normal Classic crew where the Captain becomes incapacitated scenario. That being the case, would you care to expand on why "You'd really need to see the FE's panel"? It would seem to me, that if the Captain becomes incapacitated, the F/O would be far more comfortable controlling the aircraft from the right seat as he always does on any sector where he is the PF. The FE knows what he has to do and I would think the pilot flying has enough on his plate just flying, without having to "check" that the FE panel is properly configured.

For ASFKAP. Have you anything worthwhile to contribute or can we expect more of the same meaningless posts?

I agree Old Fella - with the Captain incapacitated, the F/O should certainly remain in the RH seat, where handling will be much more familiar.

As far as seeing the F/E panel is concerned, you can do so from the RHS by leaning left and back from the seat, and then turning to the right, which gives a good view of most of the panel. I've done it many times. You can even reach some of the fuel pump switches with the right hand from that position.


JD
:)

FO flying from RH seat
 

Thanks JD. I guess I still have a question about why 18-Wheeler believes "You'd really need to see the FE's panel" as reason for the Captain to have to be removed from the LH seat so that the FO could occupy it. Don't quite understand where he is coming from, but the inference could be that the FE has to be monitored. I certainly hope that is not his reasoning.

reason for not answering is...... he is flying 2 classics at the same time.

The presumtion of being able to operate a Classic B747 without a Flight Engineer or someone at the panel is that nothing needs to be changed during the flight. There is a very big diffence between setting up an unpressurised aircraft, set tank to engine for a quick circuit and a 12 hour sector say PER/JNB. My 18,000 hours as a B707/747 FE kept me busy constantly adjusting cabin temps, pressurisation and ballancing fuel. Some 747 models have 9f uel tanks which have to be used in a set order. Over a 12 hour sector the fuel use on each engine varies tremendously and rebalancing is a must.


The other presumption is that no abnormal precedures have to be carried out.
For most abnormals that would be difficult co ordinating switching from the pilots seat.On a long sector I found that there was often an abnormal checklist to run. The operator that I spent most of my time with also designated the FE as the checklist handler. While I am in no way saying the pilots couldnt handle a checklist, the crew training had the FE do it. In time of problems we do things as we are trained so no FE means pilots doing what they have not practised and on the B747 multiple checklists are common when a primary system fails.

I agree with earlier comments. The only 2 man situation that works for all circumstances is Capt/FE. I've done it a few times and it works because both can check each other. It's impossible for the F/O to check the FE as the panel can't be seen from the F/Os seat.

As far as the Ansett B767 FEs are concerned, I'ver said on PPRUNE before that I have seen an original B767 sales book which promoted the aircraft as a 3 crew aircraft. Ansett was a launch customer and bought the aircraft as advertised. It then made an agreement with the AAFEA on crewing the aircraft that it purchased. The aircraft then changed but Ansett stuck to its agreement. For the first year at least it was a good decision because of the many problems that they had and the MEL relief that was given by carrying the FE. After that the situation was more equestionable. I can also remember seeing B767 FEs at NRT for an Asian airline??? in the very early days of B767 ops.
For the record I am not ex Ansett and never flew as a B767 FE.

Wunwing

Old Fella, I think there are always times when the guy at the panel needs to be monitored. For example, when going on to straight feed or for any other fuel configuration change - that's just the way the flight deck operation always has been in my experience on the Classic. I certainly don't think the F/E needs to be monitored otherwise.

There are always individual exceptions, of course, as there also are in both the other seats, but I've trusted F/Es for best part of 30 years (far more in fact than some of my ex-shorthaul pilot colleagues who came over to the fleet more for pension reasons than for operational aptitude) and I'm certainly not about to change that habit now. The Classic 3-man crew (CPE) operation was about as good as it gets, in my opinion ... :ok:


Absolute not so, Wunwing - it can be done, as I have said earlier. I've done it more times than I care to remember.


JD
:)

You presumed incorrectly - I was talking about a single crewmember flying the aeroplane.
If there was two crew, either pilot incapacitated would be no great hardship .... most times, as long as the FE is good and the vast majority of them are.

All of the Ansett 767's were 'reconverted' back to 2 Pilot operation eventually.

.. that conversion must have cost an arm and a leg ..

The original tale was that it just wasn't worth the dollars ... another of Sir Peter's little idiosyncratic legacies ..

TriStar Flight Engineer
 

For the most part, set and forget logic, except for routine fuel feed management to keep within specific aircraft limitations...

FE asleep
 

18-Wheeler. How kind of you to concede that most FE's are good. So too are most Pilots!!

JD. In all my years operating as a FE I was never conscious of being "monitored" by either pilot when managing the fuel, or the pressurisation, or the hydraulics, or the environmental system etc etc. If I was ever monitored other than in the Sim or on a Line Check it was done without being apparent.

I did some TCAS training in the 747 Classic at Burgress Hill, whilst doing a 727 conversion course, with an ex BA 747 Captain. After the training he demonstrated a take off couple of circuits and a 2 engine landing all by himself it was impressive.

So yes you can fly the aircraft with no other person to assist but that was in the Sim would you want to do it for real. Personal opinion no the extra pair of eyes and team work all ways reduces the work load which is invaluable in those high stress situations

Well, you can also fly a 767 or a 330 with just 1 pilot but that doesnt mean we should do it all time. So, yes, you can get it into the air, but do you want to fly, navigate and talk to atc while you doing checklist at the panel, well, have fun.

Anyway, its less fun to fly without the Engineer :p

Don't you and old fella get in a snit, old boy, just a little humour...:E

Actually, our F/E does quite a lot prior to engine start...trimsheet, bug card, keeps an eye on fueling, exterior inspection, etc....so 'dozing for dollars' enroute is OK with me.:ok:

Fat-fingured Fred over KMEM was a complete waste of time, however...:}