Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Trimeresurus
Topic Author
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:06 pm

Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:50 pm

Was it because they were twinjets? Were all of the duties of the flight engineer delegated to Pilot Not Flying? Wasn't he overwhelmed by being a human-FMS(I guess what flight engineer did, oversimplified) and ATC operator and also a monitoring pilot at the same time? If it was doable and safe, why trijets or quadjets like 727/747/DC-10 weren't also two-man flight decks, considering that it would cut employment costs to the airline. I know it had to with FAA requirements for a flight engineer for an airplane heavier than a set weight, but what was the reasoning behind that decision in the first place? An extra(or two) engine shouldn't have made a major difference in 99% of the common procedures, at least not enough to require another person when two was enough.
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:31 pm

Others can probably provide better answers than me, but aircraft systems have simply evolved from being complex with manual operation to becoming automatic during last 50 years. Airliners of the 50's - 70's needed professional flight engineers to manage and monitor the switches, valves, etc because that kind of attention was needed, while the pilots were busy flying the aircraft. EG: correctly feeding fuel from the desired tanks to the desired engines was the FE's responsibility. Later, in two crewmember aircraft these type of operations were automatically done with technology advancements. Yes, more engines did increase the complexity, but going from a 3 pilot 747-200 to 2 pilot 747-400, the previous FE duties were mainly automated.

I flew in in both 2 and 3 pilot positions with several years in the FE (SO) position. I would agree the pilot not flying did pick up some additional tasks, but nothing overwhelming. The damn walk-around though was picked up by the FO (usually) whereas in the 3 pilot aircraft it was done by the FE.

Airliners used to carry navigators too, but technology improvement eliminated that position. Just my 2 cents.
 
Lemmy
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:40 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:54 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
Airliners of the 50's - 70's needed professional flight engineers to manage and monitor the switches, valves, etc because that kind of attention was needed


This brings up a related question I've wondered about for a long time: Why does the B-52, an airplane designed in the 50s, not require an FE? It seems like an awfully complicated beast. They have extra crew members for all of the weapons systems, but it seems like all of the "flying" systems are managed by the two pilots. Is that just a normal military thing? Does the B-52 have fewer systems than a commercial airplane of the same vintage? Are the two pilots much busier than normal?
I am a patient boy ...
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:09 pm

Trimeresurus wrote:
Was it because they were twinjets? Were all of the duties of the flight engineer delegated to Pilot Not Flying? Wasn't he overwhelmed by being a human-FMS(I guess what flight engineer did, oversimplified) and ATC operator and also a monitoring pilot at the same time? If it was doable and safe, why trijets or quadjets like 727/747/DC-10 weren't also two-man flight decks, considering that it would cut employment costs to the airline. I know it had to with FAA requirements for a flight engineer for an airplane heavier than a set weight, but what was the reasoning behind that decision in the first place? An extra(or two) engine shouldn't have made a major difference in 99% of the common procedures, at least not enough to require another person when two was enough.


Did the maximum range/endurance of the aircraft involved not have something to do with it?

The aircraft with 3 flight deck positions were generally capable of flying further/longer. Maybe the amount of time manning the controls made the addition or retention of an FE necessary.

Granted, this is not the case between the B727 and B732 but I'm just spitballing here...
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
Trimeresurus
Topic Author
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:14 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
Others can probably provide better answers than me, but aircraft systems have simply evolved from being complex with manual operation to becoming automatic during last 50 years. Airliners of the 50's - 70's needed professional flight engineers to manage and monitor the switches, valves, etc because that kind of attention was needed, while the pilots were busy flying the aircraft. EG: correctly feeding fuel from the desired tanks to the desired engines was the FE's responsibility. Later, in two crewmember aircraft these type of operations were automatically done with technology advancements. Yes, more engines did increase the complexity, but going from a 3 pilot 747-200 to 2 pilot 747-400, the previous FE duties were mainly automated.

I flew in in both 2 and 3 pilot positions with several years in the FE (SO) position. I would agree the pilot not flying did pick up some additional tasks, but nothing overwhelming. The damn walk-around though was picked up by the FO (usually) whereas in the 3 pilot aircraft it was done by the FE.

Airliners used to carry navigators too, but technology improvement eliminated that position. Just my 2 cents.


But, the 737 and the DC-9 both came before the 747 and they were both two-crew cockpits since the first day, that's what I am asking about.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:53 pm

Part 25 required an FE if design TOGW exceeded 80,000 pounds which eliminated the -9. Not sure about the 737, but the requirement was weight based.


WRT the B-52, General Lemay was pretty adamant enlisted crew weren’t welcome. The B-52 probably could use an FE, but the co-pilot as on the KC-135 handles most of the duties of an FE. It military certified, so Part 25 doesn’t apply.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:55 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
WRT the B-52, General Lemay was pretty adamant enlisted crew weren’t welcome. The B-52 probably could use an FE, but the co-pilot as on the KC-135 handles most of the duties of an FE. It military certified, so Part 25 doesn’t apply.


Ahem... Lemay was fine with enlisted fliers, he just hated Flight Engineers. Most likely from his experiences of mission cancellations in the B-17/29/36 as a result of Flight Engineers - correctly or not - spooking the cattle by telling the pilot whether the aircraft was safe for flight or not. Agree or not, he wanted pilots to be the word, not the FE.

The FE aversion was so ingrained in SAC’s culture the KC-10’s FE position was originally programmed to be filled by a higher-experience boom operator, rather than admit FEs into the command.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:30 am

North American managed to build the extremely complex by any standard XB70 without an FE in the early ‘60’s while most civil transports in that era included one
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Philippine747
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:54 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:54 am

Related to the question... but United and Wien Alaska had a third crewmember in the cockpit for a while after the 737's introduction. I'm pretty sure the third crewmember's role was purely symbolic... maybe someone with more knowledge can explain?
A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 AT75 AT76 B732 B733 B738 B744 B752(M) B763 B772 B77W DHC7 DH8C DH8D D328 MA60

2P 5J 6K CX DG EK GA KE MI PR VN OS QR A3 OK TG RA U4 JL GK UB K7 WE BR
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:23 am

Philippine747 wrote:
Related to the question... but United and Wien Alaska had a third crewmember in the cockpit for a while after the 737's introduction. I'm pretty sure the third crewmember's role was purely symbolic... maybe someone with more knowledge can explain?



That was a Union contract requirement at the time
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Philippine747
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:54 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:54 am

Max Q wrote:
Philippine747 wrote:
Related to the question... but United and Wien Alaska had a third crewmember in the cockpit for a while after the 737's introduction. I'm pretty sure the third crewmember's role was purely symbolic... maybe someone with more knowledge can explain?



That was a Union contract requirement at the time


So I've heard. Wien Alaska apparently got into a labor dispute since they abused this role. Apparently, new hires would be fired just as they were about to finish their probationary period, and would only be rehired if they flew the right seat on the F-27 which paid less...
A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 AT75 AT76 B732 B733 B738 B744 B752(M) B763 B772 B77W DHC7 DH8C DH8D D328 MA60

2P 5J 6K CX DG EK GA KE MI PR VN OS QR A3 OK TG RA U4 JL GK UB K7 WE BR
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:03 am

Trimeresurus wrote:
But, the 737 and the DC-9 both came before the 747 and they were both two-crew cockpits since the first day, that's what I am asking about.


Could be related to pilot union issues as well. In Indian Airlines service, the Caravelles had a 3 man crew so when the slightly larger 737-200 was inducted, there were many issues wrt 2 man cockpit. I believe some US airlines also initially operated 737-200's with 3 man cockpit crew? United?
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:32 am

Obligatory mention of the FE station on Ansett's 767. Union rules mandated it, so Boeing had to design a custom station. I believe it was the same with Aeroflot.

Thinking about the required custom FCOM procedures, and all the subsequent update, is giving me a headache.

Image

There seem to have been two different panel versions, one with a screen.
Image
Image
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Trimeresurus
Topic Author
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:55 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Obligatory mention of the FE station on Ansett's 767. Union rules mandated it, so Boeing had to design a custom station. I believe it was the same with Aeroflot.

Thinking about the required custom FCOM procedures, and all the subsequent update, is giving me a headache.

Image

There seem to have been two different panel versions, one with a screen.
Image
Image


Haha, imagine something like that in the A350!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:05 am

Trimeresurus wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Obligatory mention of the FE station on Ansett's 767. Union rules mandated it, so Boeing had to design a custom station. I believe it was the same with Aeroflot.

Thinking about the required custom FCOM procedures, and all the subsequent update, is giving me a headache.

Image

There seem to have been two different panel versions, one with a screen.
Image
Image


Haha, imagine something like that in the A350!


Funnily enough, the A350 center observer seat has a screen and keyboard. It is used by the engineers to do their thing on the ground. The A330 equivalent is the engineering/maintenance functions accessed through the MCDU.

You can see it on the right here. The keyboard is stowed in a bracket on the rear bulkhead.

Image
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:47 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
Obligatory mention of the FE station on Ansett's 767. Union rules mandated it, so Boeing had to design a custom station. I believe it was the same with Aeroflot.

Thinking about the required custom FCOM procedures, and all the subsequent update, is giving me a headache.

Image

There seem to have been two different panel versions, one with a screen.
Image
Image




The lower picture is the auxiliary panel on the standard two pilot 767
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:33 pm

Max Q wrote:
North American managed to build the extremely complex by any standard XB70 without an FE in the early ‘60’s while most civil transports in that era included one


Military certification rules are very different than Part 25. None of the SAC jets had engineers until the KC-10. B-47, B-52, B-58, KC-135 all made engineering the pilot’s job.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:13 pm

Max Q wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Obligatory mention of the FE station on Ansett's 767. Union rules mandated it, so Boeing had to design a custom station. I believe it was the same with Aeroflot.

Thinking about the required custom FCOM procedures, and all the subsequent update, is giving me a headache.

Image

There seem to have been two different panel versions, one with a screen.
Image
Image




The lower picture is the auxiliary panel on the standard two pilot 767



Aaaah. That makes sense. It does indeed seem a bit less than ideally instrumented for an FE panel. Thanks for info.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:20 pm

It goes back to the DC-6 era and CAR 4b. The -4 didn’t have an engineer, but the CAB required one on -6 due to complexity. Then, the 80,000 pound TOGW was decided on, but Part 25 (C. 1967) made it a decision based on complexity, workload. The 747 was already in design, so it had an engineer and the technology wasn’t there yet. The automatic pressurization controller on the 737 was developed for 2-man workload issues. The next US design was the 767; which was planned for an FE, but Boeing, the airlines and US unions agreed on it eliminating the FE.
 
tnair1974
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:17 am

Philippine747 wrote:
Related to the question... but United and Wien Alaska had a third crewmember in the cockpit for a while after the 737's introduction. I'm pretty sure the third crewmember's role was purely symbolic... maybe someone with more knowledge can explain?

When I was a kid, I recall an early copy of Airliners discussing how the third pilot issue hindered early sales of the 737 (the same Airliners issue also had an article on Piedmont Airlines as the carrier was about to be absorbed by USAir). Yes, as mentioned some airlines like UA went with three pilots (union requirements were mentioned earlier). But IIRC, PI and other early operators were able to have two pilots from the start (late 1960s) of their 737 operations. Still, Air France wasn't able to introduce the 732 (with two pilots) until the early 1980s partly because of continued disagreements about a third cockpit crew member.

The DC-9 cockpit would have been rather cramped for three pilots as it is. Anyway, seems any efforts to require three pilots on DC-9s were undermined by airlines like DL that had already agreed to use only two pilots.
 
wr911
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:49 pm

I still recall flying on an LH 747-200 in the mid 1990s and they still had three officers in the cockpit. In those where the days they would leave the door open and if you were in the bubble in the old first class seats you could have a fantastic view over there shoulders through the door while sitting very comfortable.

AJ
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:34 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Obligatory mention of the FE station on Ansett's 767. Union rules mandated it, so Boeing had to design a custom station. I believe it was the same with Aeroflot.

Thinking about the required custom FCOM procedures, and all the subsequent update, is giving me a headache.

Image

There seem to have been two different panel versions, one with a screen.
Image
Image




The lower picture is the auxiliary panel on the standard two pilot 767



Aaaah. That makes sense. It does indeed seem a bit less than ideally instrumented for an FE panel. Thanks for info.




You’re welcome
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:38 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It goes back to the DC-6 era and CAR 4b. The -4 didn’t have an engineer, but the CAB required one on -6 due to complexity. Then, the 80,000 pound TOGW was decided on, but Part 25 (C. 1967) made it a decision based on complexity, workload. The 747 was already in design, so it had an engineer and the technology wasn’t there yet. The automatic pressurization controller on the 737 was developed for 2-man workload issues. The next US design was the 767; which was planned for an FE, but Boeing, the airlines and US unions agreed on it eliminating the FE.



The automatic pressurization controller on the 737 is a good, workload reducing design but it’s basically identical to the unit installed in the older 727-200, it was nothing new


And a huge improvement over the pneumatic controller on the 727-100
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:54 am

wr911 wrote:
I still recall flying on an LH 747-200 in the mid 1990s and they still had three officers in the cockpit. In those where the days they would leave the door open and if you were in the bubble in the old first class seats you could have a fantastic view over there shoulders through the door while sitting very comfortable.

Three was the minimum crew on the 747-200. It wasn't until the 747-400 came along that it went down to two crew.
Captain Kevin
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13459
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:11 pm

AirKevin wrote:
wr911 wrote:
I still recall flying on an LH 747-200 in the mid 1990s and they still had three officers in the cockpit. In those where the days they would leave the door open and if you were in the bubble in the old first class seats you could have a fantastic view over there shoulders through the door while sitting very comfortable.

Three was the minimum crew on the 747-200. It wasn't until the 747-400 came along that it went down to two crew.


I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
T54A
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:55 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
Obligatory mention of the FE station on Ansett's 767. Union rules mandated it, so Boeing had to design a custom station. I believe it was the same with Aeroflot.

Thinking about the required custom FCOM procedures, and all the subsequent update, is giving me a headache.

Image

There seem to have been two different panel versions, one with a screen.
Image
Image


That with without a doubt, the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3 A359
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:45 am

tommy1808 wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
wr911 wrote:
I still recall flying on an LH 747-200 in the mid 1990s and they still had three officers in the cockpit. In those where the days they would leave the door open and if you were in the bubble in the old first class seats you could have a fantastic view over there shoulders through the door while sitting very comfortable.

Three was the minimum crew on the 747-200. It wasn't until the 747-400 came along that it went down to two crew.


I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere.

best regards
Thomas




Not sure what that even means ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:46 pm

Max Q wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Three was the minimum crew on the 747-200. It wasn't until the 747-400 came along that it went down to two crew.


I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere.

best regards
Thomas




Not sure what that even means ?


Means, the FE didn’t qualify as a pilot and flights over 8 hours needed an augmenting pilot whereas in the FAA the FE did augment the crew.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:04 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Max Q wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere.

best regards
Thomas




Not sure what that even means ?


Means, the FE didn’t qualify as a pilot and flights over 8 hours needed an augmenting pilot whereas in the FAA the FE did augment the crew.



My question refers to the meaning of the posters last statement ‘I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere’
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13459
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:10 am

Max Q wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Max Q wrote:



Not sure what that even means ?


Means, the FE didn’t qualify as a pilot and flights over 8 hours needed an augmenting pilot whereas in the FAA the FE did augment the crew.



My question refers to the meaning of the posters last statement ‘I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere’


I mean in some jurisdictions the FE might be an officer, while other consider the position as just "enlisted" Crew...

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:33 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Max Q wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Means, the FE didn’t qualify as a pilot and flights over 8 hours needed an augmenting pilot whereas in the FAA the FE did augment the crew.



My question refers to the meaning of the posters last statement ‘I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere’


I mean in some jurisdictions the FE might be an officer, while other consider the position as just "enlisted" Crew...

best regards
Thomas



No such thing as Officer or Enlisted in civil aviation
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13459
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:38 am

Max Q wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Max Q wrote:


My question refers to the meaning of the posters last statement ‘I am not sure the FE counted as flight officer everywhere’


I mean in some jurisdictions the FE might be an officer, while other consider the position as just "enlisted" Crew...

best regards
Thomas



No such thing as Officer or Enlisted in civil aviation


That is why enlisted as in "", and a first officer definitely has the title officer. You know, words can have different meanings in different contexts. Just like "theory" has a completely different meaning for a scientist and for a layman.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:53 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Max Q wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

I mean in some jurisdictions the FE might be an officer, while other consider the position as just "enlisted" Crew...

best regards
Thomas



No such thing as Officer or Enlisted in civil aviation


That is why enlisted as in "", and a first officer definitely has the title officer. You know, words can have different meanings in different contexts. Just like "theory" has a completely different meaning for a scientist and for a layman.

best regards
Thomas



Not really getting your point


In the military there is a significant and formal, regulated divide between Officers and enlisted personnel



In civilian aviation there is no such thing, on a transport aircraft the Captain has ultimate authority, the FO is his or her backup, performs many specific tasks and shares flying duties and the FE if still used has their own specific tasks, all operate as a crew



However there is not a completely separate Officer / Enlisted category separating any crew member from another into a completely different category


Incidentally, just because there is a First Officer position doesn’t mean he or she is literally an ‘Officer’ as in the military, it’s just a universally used term to denote their position, an FE is often also a SO or ‘Second Officer’ and the same applies
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 am

Max Q wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Max Q wrote:


No such thing as Officer or Enlisted in civil aviation


That is why enlisted as in "", and a first officer definitely has the title officer. You know, words can have different meanings in different contexts. Just like "theory" has a completely different meaning for a scientist and for a layman.

best regards
Thomas



Not really getting your point


In the military there is a significant and formal, regulated divide between Officers and enlisted personnel



In civilian aviation there is no such thing, on a transport aircraft the Captain has ultimate authority, the FO is his or her backup, performs many specific tasks and shares flying duties and the FE if still used has their own specific tasks, all operate as a crew



However there is not a completely separate Officer / Enlisted category separating any crew member from another into a completely different category


Incidentally, just because there is a First Officer position doesn’t mean he or she is literally an ‘Officer’ as in the military, it’s just a universally used term to denote their position, an FE is often also a SO or ‘Second Officer’ and the same applies


What Max Q said.

There isn't a divide amongst flight deck crew in the civilian world. Second Officers and First Officers have no formal barriers hindering their progression to the rank of Captain. By contrast, in the military non-commissioned officers do not have a natural progression to officer rank. (Of course, they can still become officers, but this requires a distinct divide in their career as they go "mustang".)
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
surrodox2001
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:09 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:38 am

Actually the first jetliner without f/e is the BAC 111, and perhaps the 737 and DC9 just extend on top of that.

British airliners are truly a pioneer!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pm

surrodox2001 wrote:
Actually the first jetliner without f/e is the BAC 111, and perhaps the 737 and DC9 just extend on top of that.

British airliners are truly a pioneer!



And like many pioneers, they went down a dead end. The British pioneered lots of innovations but never capitalized on them, unfortunately.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8502
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why didn't the 737-100/200 and DC-9 need a flight engineer when most airliners of the era needed one?

Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:25 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
surrodox2001 wrote:
Actually the first jetliner without f/e is the BAC 111, and perhaps the 737 and DC9 just extend on top of that.

British airliners are truly a pioneer!



And like many pioneers, they went down a dead end. The British pioneered lots of innovations but never capitalized on them, unfortunately.



As far as production numbers though the 1-11 didn’t do that badly with 244 delivered, after all the L1011 only sold 250
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airportugal310, Bing [Bot] and 35 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos