Flight Engineers?

Question

Pilots, what's your take on the Flight Engineer Position. I know computers do a lot of the operations performed by Flight Engineers but from a safety and security standpoint of a third input and/having specific system knowledge for in-flight trouble shooting, do you prefer an FE available. Is it worth the cost savings?

Answer 1

The only aircraft I have handled (tech. release) with FE is DC-10, A300 & Classic 742. With these plane gone in our fleet all aircraft now are two man crew. If we mechanics /engineers are trained to have Human Factor Course, pilots have their own course which is CRM. With this Crew Resource Management, a third man in the cockpit whether an observer or mechanic is a welcome sight to the cockpit crew. Twice, I am in the cockpit when I have notice a fuel imbalance in the tank nearing the limit yet I did not sound off, another we were eating while pax are boarding and they hastened us to vacate the ramp so the local aircraft can park, an engine is being started with the parking brake not set and too late when I sound off the guy below cried out. That is the time I learned about CRM, the pilot telling me that since I am in the cockpit i must participate or call-out when I see something a miss. Call-out only but not touch (pilots will smack your hands if you touches their k***s. It is always better when another presence in the cockpit is welcome I think either he is an observer or an accompanying mechanic.

Answer 2

Most modern commercial aircraft are set up for a two-person flight crew. The flight enginer position is rapidly becomming obsolete, and soon will go the way of the Dodo bird and the Great Auk... Extinct!

Answer 3

Obviously our executive 727 still must have a flight engineer and I'm sure you're not referring to them. In the older airplanes, of course the third guy was needed but with the automation of today he is not. Human error has been a causual factor in eighty five percent of aircraft accidents throughout aviation history. I'm a firm believer that the more cockpits are automated the less human error that can happen. When the engineer was eliminated the potential for human error was reduced by one third. When the technology advances to the point where all humans are eliminated from the cockpit, the possibility of human error will be zero. Will safety improve? I think so.

Answer 4

Interesting question.  I think 2 pilots are adequate.  There is good cause for debate on either side.  But I must concur with the manufacturers and airlines that it makes sense that computerization is an adequate replacement for a third pilot.

  

   FE's originated from the high workload requirements of multiple round engines, and from the need to have a mechanic on board who could do minor maintenance during layovers.  This isn't the same situation today.



   Although I will always miss the FE position since my Dad was one for 29 years with Pan American.  He started with them flying on the Stratocruiser and ended his career on the 747.  He knew those planes VERY well.  His basis for getting hired on was that he was a mechanic first.  He wasn't even a pilot until the 70's when Pan Am paid for his pilot ratings!



  He came up with a saying which sarcastically showed the dwindling significance of the Flight Engineer on jet aircraft:

"If you see a light go on: push the button next to it; If there is no button next to it: write it up."

Answer 5

Of course they are need it.. what if there's a problem that the pilots can't solve.. they poorly communicate with a flight engeneer through the nearliest ATC.. Don't you think it would be easier if there was a flight engeneer in the cockpit.. think about it, computers are very reliable and safe but who made them?? Humans..

Answer 6

Eliminate the pilots, not the engineer.