Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Flight Engineer, Where Did They Go  
User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 623 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4733 times:

As 727, 747 Classis, DC10 and the like being retired, where did the F/E once served them go? Did they move on as pilot, return as engineers? Or do they simply retired?

Kev


Live life to max!!!
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAwacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1878 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4714 times:

They're headed the same way that my position in my jet is headed...towards extinction.

User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4678 times:



Quoting Awacsooner (Reply 1):
They're headed the same way that my position in my jet is headed...towards extinction.

Not necessarily. Certainly the position is, but not the professional viability of the men and women who filled those positions.

At many US airlines, the FE position was staffed by the most junior pilots on the seniority list. These individuals posess the proper credentials to transition to an FO position when seniority permits. As the older jets are retired, these sorts of FE's simply transition to the right seat of a newer aircraft, or get furloughed depending on the staffing situation. In the latter case they would await recall for an FO position or seek employment elsewhere.

There are many US FE's who are older (over 60 or 65) pilots that were no longer able to hold a CA or FO position due to the mandatory reirment age. These FE's would in fact be forced into retirement if they weren't granted a few more years of employability by the age 65 rule.

I understand that airlines outside the USA sometimes staffed the FE seat with a maintenance engineer or some oher type of non-pilot person. I'd imagine that in these cases, the FE's would simply transfer back to a ground-based maintenance position if available.


User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4641 times:



Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 2):
There are many US FE's who are older (over 60 or 65) pilots that were no longer able to hold a CA or FO position due to the mandatory reirment age. These FE's would in fact be forced into retirement if they weren't granted a few more years of employability by the age 65 rule.

So FE's don't have to retire at age 60 or 65 like pilots, correct? If so, why is that the case for FE's but not pilots? Would the FO be able to do the FE's job if something were to happen to them?


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4612 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 3):
So FE's don't have to retire at age 60 or 65 like pilots, correct? If so, why is that the case for FE's but not pilots? Would the FO be able to do the FE's job if something were to happen to them?

Right, I believe FE's can continue to work indefinitely as long as they pass their medical exams. Yes, I'm sure the FO and CA in coordination could fly the airplane successfully without the FE in a pinch. Having never operated an aircraft with a 3+ person flight crew myself, I can't say for certain what that would entail. From what I understand many of the FE's instruments and switches are redundant on the pilot's displays and much of what the FE does involves routine systems monitoring.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4425 times:

The pilots seated in the F/E position are NOT flight engineers. They are "Second Officers" and as such simply system operators and button pushers.
A real professional F/E, as existed in the olden days, had a ground maintenance background, in many cases he was authorised to carry out and certify for maintenanceaction on the plane (e.g. changing a wheel somewhere in the boonies) and due to his system knowledge, he was a valuable aid in troubleshooting technical defects. He could start troubleshooting while still in the air and could give ground maintenance valuable information.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 4):
Right, I believe FE's can continue to work indefinitely as long as they pass their medical exams. Yes, I'm sure the FO and CA in coordination could fly the airplane successfully without the FE in a pinch. Having never operated an aircraft with a 3+ person flight crew myself, I can't say for certain what that would entail. From what I understand many of the FE's instruments and switches are redundant on the pilot's displays and much of what the FE does involves routine systems monitoring.

I don't think so. E.g. on the 727 somebody would have to be sitting at the F/E panel e.g. to monitor and adjust the cabin pressure (all manual), also all electrical, fuel, aircon and hydraulic system controls are located on this panel, as well as all, secondary engine instruments. Remember this and the 747 classic were planes designed BEFORE automatisation kicked in ( e.g. on the 727 and 747 classic the F/E had to manually synchronize and link up the various generators). You could maybe replace the F/E with an experienced ground tech, but while he would be able to operate the systems, he would be missing the knowledge about flight procedures and interaction with the other two crew members.

Jan


User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

I would imagine that the ones who still want to fly are kept as trainers or go to some sort of management/supervisor position

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

As aircraft grew more complex, the flight engineer became necessary. The first flight engineers were mechanics by trade. In the 60s and 70s, flight engineers went from being the highest level of mechanic to the lowest in the pilot ranks. These days with fewer and fewer aircraft requiring flight engineers, the professional flight engineer is back in style.

As far as the functions go, the FE position is now mostly automated or reduced to a single switch that doesn't require a lot of attention from the pilots. Planes these days are a lot better at taking care of themselves without human intervention.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4344 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):
I don't think so. E.g. on the 727 somebody would have to be sitting at the F/E panel e.g. to monitor and adjust the cabin pressure (all manual), also all electrical, fuel, aircon and hydraulic system controls are located on this panel, as well as all, secondary engine instruments. Remember this and the 747 classic were planes designed BEFORE automatisation kicked in ( e.g. on the 727 and 747 classic the F/E had to manually synchronize and link up the various generators). You could maybe replace the F/E with an experienced ground tech, but while he would be able to operate the systems, he would be missing the knowledge about flight procedures and interaction with the other two crew members.

If that's the case then why were (or are) F/E's not required to retire at the same age as pilots? I would think if you need an F/E to do all that stuff they would be just as important as the pilots.


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4227 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):
I don't think so. E.g. on the 727 somebody would have to be sitting at the F/E panel e.g. to monitor and adjust the cabin pressure (all manual), also all electrical, fuel, aircon and hydraulic system controls are located on this panel, as well as all, secondary engine instruments. Remember this and the 747 classic were planes designed BEFORE automatisation kicked in ( e.g. on the 727 and 747 classic the F/E had to manually synchronize and link up the various generators). You could maybe replace the F/E with an experienced ground tech, but while he would be able to operate the systems, he would be missing the knowledge about flight procedures and interaction with the other two crew members.

Oh, no doubt they are necessary, I'm saying in an emergency the two pilots could get the job done should the FE, or SO if you prefer, became incapacitated. If nothing else the flying pilot would work the radios and fly simultaneously while the non flying pilot took the FE's panel as required.

[Edited 2009-05-06 13:24:20]

User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7509 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4180 times:



Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 9):
If nothing else the flying pilot would work the radios and fly simultaneously

I used to fly in the US Navy on aircraft where the pilots could not work the radios - they could not reach them - that was my job.

But on those EC-121 aircraft, no way a pilot could handle the FE job. Much to complex and detailed with those four big recips.

BTW, there was a fourth cockpit crew position which was often filled by junior pilots - Navigator. As those systems got better and more automated - they were phased out before the FE job went away.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10332 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4155 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 10):
BTW, there was a fourth cockpit crew position which was often filled by junior pilots - Navigator. As those systems got better and more automated - they were phased out before the FE job went away.

Weren't most navigators, individuals that had washed out of the pilot training program?



From what I can remember of the FE's that we had at DL on the 727 were used to turn on the gasper fan, let us know if the a/c needed potable water, started the apu and let us know if an engine needed oil.  Wink



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1636 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In my Air Force days on the Boeing KC/C-97, 2 flight engineers were required in addition to the 2 pilots, if they only had one FE and he became incapacitated, the pilots were not trained to operated the FE’s position, and the FE controlled all engine operations including the throttles, which was the only engine control the pilots had, via a duplicate set of throttles.

All other engine controls, props, cowl flaps, mixtures, etc was at the FE’s station.

JetStar


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7509 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3805 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 11):
Weren't most navigators, individuals that had washed out of the pilot training program?

Most military navigators I've met were wanna be pilots. Washed out pilots usually lost their commision or left aviation. Navigators were normally those who could not pass the pilot physical. Things like 20/25 vision, etc.

Most of the civilian navigators I've met were pilots. Some moving up to the aircraft. Some on a temporary medical which kept them out of the pilot seat. Some gaining experience/ seniority.

But this was 35+ years ago, and as far as the military - that may have been the norm 10-20 years earlier than my experience, or since I retired.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10332 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3717 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 13):
Most military navigators I've met were wanna be pilots. Washed out pilots usually lost their commision or left aviation. Navigators were normally those who could not pass the pilot physical. Things like 20/25 vision, etc.

Well, when I said "washed out" I meant those that couldn't complete the pilot course, whether because of a failed physical or otherwise.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7509 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

I've only met one military navigator who even started the pilot training course. He was actually a pilot injured in an ejection over the GOT and not being able to pass physical anymore, was retrained as a b/n at his request.

The usual process I saw from 1967 when my cousin tried to fly for the USMC through a lot of work with Navy flight training in the early 90's was that navigator candidates were almost always selected in the recruiting process.

Yes, many wanted to be pilots, but did not meet the qualifications. The competition for pilot training positions was very high, so the few candidates who made the initial cut and got into pilot training did extremely well.

Now back in WWII, that wasn't the case - a lot of people went into pilot training and ended up as Navigators and Bombadiers.

But by the 60's - 90's the military had gotten much better at selecting candidates who would be successful in pilot training.

The primary failure point for the Navy in the 80's and early 90's was carrier qualification training. More pilots could not meet that requirement successfully and were moved to non-carrier aircraft than 'washed out'.

A friend of mine started in late 2002 and went from a USAF Reserve - full time program - E-5 C-17 crew chief to a 1st LT C-17 pilot. He mentioned to me that he saw no one at Laughlin during his training who did not successfully complete their flight training and earn their wings.

A military pilot earning his wings has to go far, far beyond a PPL. Closer to an ATP rating with the number of hours and aircraft.

When I was stationed in Meridian Mississippi in the 70's, a pilot did not earn his wings until completing T-34 Primary, T-2 Basic Jet and TA-4 Advanced Jet training, including successfully completing carrier qualifications.

My friend had almost 500 hours in T-9 and T-1 aircraft before earning his USAF wings.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5602 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3597 times:



Quoting B-HOP (Thread starter):
As 727, 747 Classis, DC10 and the like being retired, where did the F/E once served them go? Did they move on as pilot, return as engineers? Or do they simply retired?

Qantas retired its B743 in Dec08. This ment the end of the professional FE position in Australia. FE were not pilots, in Oz, but rather mainly ground engineers, frequently LAMEs (licienced). My understanding from friends is that most QF FE retired, a few, who had some pilot qualifications, were retrained as Second Officers and some went back to ground engineer, but most were plenty senior enough to retire.

Talking about other flight deck positions, QFs early B707s had a flight deck crew of 5! 2 pilots, FE, Navagitor and Radio Operator. The NAV & RO were there because the airline operated in parts of the world where radio navigation aids and VHF comms were unknown at the time, eg Indian Ocean, South Pacific and the remoter parts of Asia. The Nav had his sexton and the aircraft had a sighting bubble & Doppler radar to measure over surface speed/drift. The RO spent most of his time on HF, and as this was before Selcall, a listerning watch had to be maintained. All Nav, ROs were retired by the time the B742 took over.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineLMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3546 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 11):
rom what I can remember of the FE's that we had at DL on the 727 were used to turn on the gasper fan, let us know if the a/c needed potable water, started the apu and let us know if an engine needed oil.

........don't forget the all important galley power switch without which there would be "no meals for you".........


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10332 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3369 times:



Quoting LMML 14/32 (Reply 17):
Quoting Mayor (Reply 11):
rom what I can remember of the FE's that we had at DL on the 727 were used to turn on the gasper fan, let us know if the a/c needed potable water, started the apu and let us know if an engine needed oil.

........don't forget the all important galley power switch without which there would be "no meals for you".........

I can remember several complaints that there was no potable water. Finally, we realized that someone was pulling the circuit breaker for the water gauge. They would call down, complain about the water and before we tried to fill it up, go up into the cockpit, with the crew sitting there, reach behind the S/O on the panel and push the circuit breaker back in. Problem solved.  Wink



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePeterpuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3213 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):
The pilots seated in the F/E position are NOT flight engineers. They are "Second Officers" and as such simply system operators and button pushers.

Sometimes they ARE flight engineers even these days. I've worked with many of them.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3184 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 11):
Weren't most navigators, individuals that had washed out of the pilot training program?

I used to know a captain who used to be one of the first postwar Lufthansa pilots (acutally he flew Ju-52s during the war). According to him 1950s LH pilots, who were exceptionally good in groundschool topics like navigation were rostered as navigators, while those who had less good grades, were actually flying the plane, a policy which p*ssed the good piltos off, because they also wanted to get stick time (e.g. on a Superconstellation).

Quoting Max550 (Reply 8):
If that's the case then why were (or are) F/E's not required to retire at the same age as pilots? I would think if you need an F/E to do all that stuff they would be just as important as the pilots.

The F/E does a different job from the pilots, but not less important. On older aircraft he runs the systems, the pilots on the other hand make sure that the plane goes into the right direction (on even older aircraft with navigators, the pilots would fly the course given to them by the navigator on a piece of paper).
That pilots have to retire so early is a purely American thing, AFAIK in the EASA countries retirement age is the same for F/E's and pilots.
In short: An older aircraft designed for three cockpit crewmembers won't go if there is no F/E (or at least a S/O) to operate the technical systems. This applies even more to big piston engined aircraft. These engines are so complicated to operate that the F/E would set the power and adjust the engines. There was too much danger of a pilot f*cking up the engines.

Quoting Peterpuck (Reply 19):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):
The pilots seated in the F/E position are NOT flight engineers. They are "Second Officers" and as such simply system operators and button pushers.

Sometimes they ARE flight engineers even these days. I've worked with many of them.

I don't doubt that there are still a few real PFEs around (I used to work with them as well, when in a previous job), but I just wanted to point out the difference between a PFE and a S/O.

Jan


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2817 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3170 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 3):
So FE's don't have to retire at age 60 or 65 like pilots, correct? If so, why is that the case for FE's but not pilots? Would the FO be able to do the FE's job if something were to happen to them

FE's have no mandatory retirement age in the US.

Part of the Captain's oral for a type rating covers the controls, indicators, and functioning of the FE's panel. The pilots must have a working knowledge of how to run the panel, although they are not required to hold FE certificates. Most people who have type ratings in 3-person aircraft will tell you that their oral was quite thorough on the panel. I only have type ratings on two 3-person aircraft (B-727, L-1011), and can assure you that in each case the panel was VERY thoroughly covered in the type rating and recurrent orals, especially in the L-1011 which is a very complex aircraft.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):
The pilots seated in the F/E position are NOT flight engineers. They are "Second Officers" and as such simply system operators and button pushers.

Oh, whatever. Yeah sure Why do their certificates say "Flight Engineer"?


User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1406 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3152 times:



Quoting Peterpuck (Reply 19):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):
The pilots seated in the F/E position are NOT flight engineers. They are "Second Officers" and as such simply system operators and button pushers.

Although these pilots probably did not have a maintenance background they still had to pass the F/E exams to sit in the F/Es position so to say they were not F/Es is not correct. What we would call the professional F/E brought to the operation was as MD11 stated, or at least it was hoped they did , was a greater technical knowledge to the aircraft both in the air and on the ground. This was quite important in the era of poor world wide communications as it was not always possible to call base for help when things went wrong

As commications improved so the ground function was less important, but not always redundant. In the parts of the world where airlines still employed " professional F/Es"
they took on with the introduction of jet aircraft a greater and greater monitoring function of the pilots and aircraft operation and navigation,aswell as their system operation duties

On a 3 man crew if say a F/E become incapacitated then the F/O were trained to sit in the F/E seat and perform his in flight function to a basic safe degree. Similarly if one of the pilots became incapacitated the F/E would remain in his seat and assist the operating pilot with his duties. The F/E once every 3 sim checks would swop seats with the co-pilot and would demonstrate that he could bring the aircraft into land from cruise by using the auto-pilot and auto -land system or if he felt really cocky he would use the F/director and hand fly it, that being the sim you understand.Well that was how it was in BOAC/BA

When F/E requirement ended most were of an age to retire and that is what most did

Hope that is of some help
littlevc10


[


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3126 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 21):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):
The pilots seated in the F/E position are NOT flight engineers. They are "Second Officers" and as such simply system operators and button pushers.

Oh, whatever. Yeah sure Why do their certificates say "Flight Engineer"?

Well, first, the FAA F/E exam (at least the theoretical part) is not very difficult. I've got the studyguide right here (I thought about taking it a few years ago, having had a 727 to play with on while not being busyat work, which is exactly jet the FFA centered their exam questions around), but I figured that it would be quite hard for me as a non-US citizen to get an American airline to hire me.

Passing thisexam, plus the practical part in the simulator and during line training gives you the right to call yourself F/E, but IMO this doesn't make a professional F/E.
The traditional professional F/E wasn't an ATPL holder waiting for a slot to move to the right seat (as I have seen wotrking for a certain American airline), but a totally seperate profession.
The professional F/E was usually an experienced A&P who took the F/E exams based on his system knowledge.

I have worked with both types. The system operators and the real professional F/Es, who do not pretend to be pilots in waiting.
The biggest difference is that, while the system operator knows when to flip what switch when the checklist tells him to, the real F/E would know in detail what was happening BEHIND the panel. He would know which relay would switch to open which valve etc..
Obviously the second type can give much more precise information for troubleshooting. Additionally the PFE, due to his maintenance background, usually has a maintenance licence and can carry out and certify for maintenance work.
E.g. Condor used to have an extensive flyaway kit of tools and spares in their bulk cargo hold of their DC-10s for their charter flights to remote destinations. The F/E would, if necessary, change a wheel or do other repairs (if necessary with the help of a pilot or loader, DC-10 main wheels are quite big and bulky).
In LH and Condor though F/Es went through different training than pilots.
As I said, they were recruited from maintenance staff and then trained in flight duties.

Jan


User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1406 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3106 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 20):
This applies even more to big piston engined aircraft. These engines are so complicated to operate that the F/E would set the power and adjust the engines. There was too much danger of a pilot f*cking up the engines.

Actually many of these big old round engine aircraft were licensed to fly without a F/E

BOAC Argonaut carried no F/E nor did the DC-4 however the DC-6 and DC-7 required a F/E if they were carrying passenger, as there was no seperate panel for the F/E with most of the controls being on the centre console or the overhead panel, well within the reach of the pilots.

These later very long distance [for their day] aircraft such as the Dc-6/7 needed the extra person to share the work load on a very long trip and for some one to constantly monitor and trim the engines/systems so as to get the best performance and range from them. The best person at that time was thought to be a person with a maintenance /technical background, hence the professional F/E.

Now the Lockheed Constellation and some other aircraft had to have a F/E on all operation as he had a seperate panel which the pilots could not reach and not all the controls were duplicated on the pilots position

littlevc10

[Edited 2009-05-08 13:39:16]

25 Peterpuck : My company still has a few "professional F/E's" not pilots who passed the exam. They fly the charters to places we don't have a base, and actually do
26 RFields5421 : When the company I worked for until recently takes one of the Challengers or the G-550 to Russia, China, Australia - besides carrying a third pilot,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
London Snow Diversions - Where Did They Go? posted Thu Feb 8 2007 13:14:37 by Candid76
Aibus A380 And A340 Where Did They Go To? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 02:07:52 by 50watt
Rich International, Where Did They Go? posted Tue Feb 10 2004 19:06:33 by Jkw777
Air South: Where Did They Go? posted Sat Jun 22 2002 23:29:18 by BR715-A1-30
Lufthansa 747-100. Where Did They Go? posted Thu Mar 7 2002 15:10:26 by Godbless
Where Did Baggage Go On Concorde? posted Mon May 19 2008 17:13:00 by Oasis
CQ Air At MDT, Where Did It Go? posted Mon Jan 15 2007 01:58:03 by Buddys747
Airport Codes, Where Did They Come From? posted Sat Aug 19 2006 03:26:33 by Falstaff
CBA-123, Where Did It Go? posted Sun Oct 23 2005 21:58:38 by USADreamliner
A380: A Ghost Airplane? Where Did It Go? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 05:09:40 by A380900
Braniff DC-8's..Where Did They Fly? posted Wed Jun 3 2009 02:41:55 by LemonKitty
Where Did Baggage Go On Concorde? posted Mon May 19 2008 17:13:00 by Oasis
CQ Air At MDT, Where Did It Go? posted Mon Jan 15 2007 01:58:03 by Buddys747