Around 1965, the FAA lifted the regulation that required all aircraft with a MTOW above 80,000 pounds to have a Flight Engineer. This led to the design and certification of two man crew aircraft such as the B-737 and the DC-9.

Yet, the L-1011, the DC-10 and the B747-100 which were all certified after the 80,000 rule was lifted, were all designed and certified with Flight Engineers.

Why ?

bigger, longer range, more passengers, much more complex than a 732 or a dc9, and much more likely to be far away from a suitable diversion airport if something breaks. another brain and a set of eyes up front would help in a situation like that. Imagine UA232 with a 2 man crew

Part of this was due to the fact that, even though the rule was lifted, these aircraft were so large and complex that it still took a third crewmember to adequately monitor the systems and respond to malfunctions. After all, the text of the new rule reads: "For each airplane type certificated after January 1, 1964, the requirement for a flight engineer is determined under the type certification requirements of 25.1523." The regulation 25.1523, in turn, reads: "The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation, considering (a) the workload on individual crewmembers, [and] (b) the accessibility and ease of operation of necessary controls by the appropriate crewmember..." So, a manufacturer could certify an airplane with a FE today, but as technology has progressed quite a bit since 1964 even a large and complex airplane like the A380 would meet the requirements of 25.1523 with only two pilots.

Another element is regulatory inertia and union resistance. In 1965, while manufacturers were indeed on the verge of successfully convincing the FAA (actually the CAA at that time) to certify relatively small, twin-engined jetliners like the 737 and DC-9 without a FE they were likely concerned that regulators would not be so welcoming to a two-man crew on a widebody, which was also a fairly new concept at the time. As we know, the FAA can only handle so much new at once. Unions, as one might imagine, were also vehemently opposed to the elimination of FEs and even succeeded in forcing United to fly their 737s with a FE throughout the 1970s. Facing this resistance, Boeing even offered a 3-man cockpit as an option on the 767 when it first came out in 1982, although only one airline (Ansett Australia) bought them so configured and none of the 13 unique airframes are currently flying. United also originally ordered the 3-man version, but later changed their mind and bought what would become the normal 2-man version..

Before the days of screens and EICAS, there was just too much information to feasibly be monitored by two pilots. If you compare the cockpits of a 747 classic and a 747-400, you see that the classics are packed to the gills with gauges. Look through the screens in a -400 or -8 ECAM, and realize that those 9 pages of screens worth of information had to be conveyed to pilots without screens in the not so distant past.

Interestingly, after upgrading to Captain on the 747 Classic and sitting in the left seat, we developed the ability to scan the FE"s panel and quickly digest and analyze the displayed information about as quickly as scanning an EICAS display. It was the only aircraft that I've flown with an FE, and I thought that the panel was very well laid out.

The even more important reason than monitoring the systems was operating the systems. Fuel transfers for example had to be done manually i.e. switching on/off certain pumps, opening/closing the correct valves at the right time. Nothing was automated. Already in normal operation this meant quite some workload, let's not speak about failure cases..

N1120A wrote:

glen wrote:

The even more important reason than monitoring the systems was operating the systems. Fuel transfers for example had to be done manually i.e. switching on/off certain pumps, opening/closing the correct valves at the right time. Nothing was automated. Already in normal operation this meant quite some workload, let's not speak about failure cases..

Think about everything that went on with Olympic Flight 411. The FE had almost as much to do with managing that monster as Captain Migadis had flying it.

Wouldn’t that be mismanaging ?


That FE turned off the water injection to the engines causing a significant loss of thrust after they had already lost one engine


He made a bad situation much worse, they were lucky they managed to remain airborne

ArcticFlyer wrote:

Facing this resistance, Boeing even offered a 3-man cockpit as an option on the 767 when it first came out in 1982, although only one airline (Ansett Australia) bought them so configured and none of the 13 unique airframes are currently flying. United also originally ordered the 3-man version, but later changed their mind and bought what would become the normal 2-man version..

I've been searching the forums for a while now, and never got good info about this. For the 3-man crewed 767, what exactly did Boeing do? Dumb down the EFIS, EICAS, or relegate 3rd-level redundancy (avionics, hydraulic systems, etc), to a station designed for an FE? Or was everything kept the same, with the FE's panel just replicating all information available to the pilots? Did they have thrust levers? ...And what exactly WOULD said 767 Flight Engineer have actually done throughout a flight?

rjsampson wrote:

ArcticFlyer wrote:

Facing this resistance, Boeing even offered a 3-man cockpit as an option on the 767 when it first came out in 1982, although only one airline (Ansett Australia) bought them so configured and none of the 13 unique airframes are currently flying. United also originally ordered the 3-man version, but later changed their mind and bought what would become the normal 2-man version..

I've been searching the forums for a while now, and never got good info about this. For the 3-man crewed 767, what exactly did Boeing do? Dumb down the EFIS, EICAS, or relegate 3rd-level redundancy (avionics, hydraulic systems, etc), to a station designed for an FE? Or was everything kept the same, with the FE's panel just replicating all information available to the pilots? Did they have thrust levers? ...And what exactly WOULD said 767 Flight Engineer have actually done throughout a flight?

The three man 767 certainly had thrust levers !


If you can find a picture of that particular cockpit it will answer your questions but basically Boeing took most of the system panels from the overhead and put them on the FE panel, fuel, electrics , APU control, bleed air / packs / pressurization, hydraulics and fire detection/ warning as well leaving the overhead between the pilots quite bare, I think they had the seatbelt/ no smoking signs still !


The EICAS was not ‘dumbed down’ but an additional screen with the same messages / cautions and warnings was also added to the FE panel


Basically the systems and automation all worked the same way, the displays and control of them were just moved around the cockpit !


That FE would not have had much to do

Some pics of the 767 cockpit with FE panel. The one with the screen is Ansett I think.

Starlionblue wrote:

Some pics of the 767 cockpit with FE panel. The one with the screen is Ansett I think.

So what happens if the FE becomes incapacitated? Would the PNF have to go sit on the FE's seat?

Your first two pictures show a pretty standard B767/B757 panel. Nearly all the things you can see are test switches usually used by the ground engineers. At least most of the B767 I worked on looked like that. Some also had an EICAS screen there for the ground engineer.
Typical Boeing from 1980s with unlimited options , so each airline is different!

Tristarsteve wrote:

Your first two pictures show a pretty standard B767/B757 panel. Nearly all the things you can see are test switches usually used by the ground engineers. At least most of the B767 I worked on looked like that. Some also had an EICAS screen there for the ground engineer.
Typical Boeing from 1980s with unlimited options , so each airline is different!

Exactly, those first two pictures show the standard, auxiliary panel behind the FO and that is what was installed in every 757/67 I flew, we did not have an EICAS there in our aircraft but it is not an FE panel


The last picture looks like the FE panel in the Ansett 767


It’s worth looking at a video of their cockpit set up, not too difficult to find, the overhead between the Captain and FO has almost nothing there

It was the El Al B767 that had an EICAS screen, and some more buttons. Something for the 3rd pilot to do!!

Tristarsteve wrote:

It was the El Al B767 that had an EICAS screen, and some more buttons. Something for the 3rd pilot to do!!

Very interesting

I jumpseated on a Delta 767-400 once, interesting in that they had an AOA display on the PFD and a very large spirit level on the auxiliary panel !

889091 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Some pics of the 767 cockpit with FE panel. The one with the screen is Ansett I think.

So what happens if the FE becomes incapacitated? Would the PNF have to go sit on the FE's seat?

I doubt it. Just manage it from the fully equipped panels in the front. Caveat. I'm not a 767 driver.

Side note: PNF is deprecated terminology. It's PM in modern parlance.

Tristarsteve wrote:

Your first two pictures show a pretty standard B767/B757 panel. Nearly all the things you can see are test switches usually used by the ground engineers. At least most of the B767 I worked on looked like that. Some also had an EICAS screen there for the ground engineer.
Typical Boeing from 1980s with unlimited options , so each airline is different!

Aaaah. Thx.

When did the navigator position end? I know some early 707's had them I believe.

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

So early 70's. Interesting.

77west wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

So early 70's. Interesting.

TCA did MAC expansion to EDDF using navigators on the ocean. PA had navigators on the 707s for most of the time they operated them. Not sure, if they fitted the planes with a pilot operated navigation system. EA DC-8 going to Vietnam did not have navigators, IIRC.

Max Q wrote:

The three man 767 certainly had thrust levers !

Ahh Max, your posts always brighten my day. I'm sure you're joking, as I was referring to the FE having thrust levers, not the entire cockpit

77west wrote:

When did the navigator position end? I know some early 707's had them I believe.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

Certainly true in the West.

Some Soviet-era airliners had (still have?) 5-man cockpits (Captain, FO, FE, Navigator, Radio Operator) well into the 21st century to (as I understand it) maximize employment. Didn't do much for their safety record, but I digress.

Regular Navigators persisted well beyond the 707 era. I'll stay away from current events, but I have to suspect that there at least are a few navigators currently flying reactivated airliners in a certain country, by necessity.

On a lighter note: Imagine a 5-person cockpit arrangement being mandated on an A350. You could have a rotating poker game on a long-haul flight!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

77west wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

So early 70's. Interesting.

TCA did MAC expansion to EDDF using navigators on the ocean. PA had navigators on the 707s for most of the time they operated them. Not sure, if they fitted the planes with a pilot operated navigation system. EA DC-8 going to Vietnam did not have navigators, IIRC.

Air Canada’s DC-8-43s had navigators right up until they were retired in 1976. The -61s came without INS but were re-equipped with INS when the -63s came, as they did have INS. The -53s were delivered with INS but the -54JTs were not, but were re-equipped. (This was a factor of delivery time, as the -53s were factory delivered around the same time as the -63s).

Interestingly, when the pilot operated NAV systems were used, (INS) the three pilots divided up the navigator pay! That is still in the AC pilot contract and is payed on some types.

Some navigators accepted the offer of an attempt at an upgrade to pilot and were successful.

I would suspect the EA DC-8s flying to Viet Nam without navigators were their -63s.

rjsampson wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The three man 767 certainly had thrust levers !

Ahh Max, your posts always brighten my day. I'm sure you're joking, as I was referring to the FE having thrust levers, not the entire cockpit

77west wrote:

When did the navigator position end? I know some early 707's had them I believe.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

Certainly true in the West.

Some Soviet-era airliners had (still have?) 5-man cockpits (Captain, FO, FE, Navigator, Radio Operator) well into the 21st century to (as I understand it) maximize employment. Didn't do much for their safety record, but I digress.

Regular Navigators persisted well beyond the 707 era. I'll stay away from current events, but I have to suspect that there at least are a few navigators currently flying reactivated airliners in a certain country, by necessity.

On a lighter note: Imagine a 5-person cockpit arrangement being mandated on an A350. You could have a rotating poker game on a long-haul flight!

The A350 flight deck certainly is big enough for it.

When we got the A350, cabin crew would come in and immediately get a look of mixed surprise and annoyance on their faces. "Why do you get this ballroom when the front galley is so tiny?!?"

rjsampson wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The three man 767 certainly had thrust levers !

Ahh Max, your posts always brighten my day. I'm sure you're joking, as I was referring to the FE having thrust levers, not the entire cockpit

77west wrote:

When did the navigator position end? I know some early 707's had them I believe.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

Certainly true in the West.

Some Soviet-era airliners had (still have?) 5-man cockpits (Captain, FO, FE, Navigator, Radio Operator) well into the 21st century to (as I understand it) maximize employment. Didn't do much for their safety record, but I digress.

Regular Navigators persisted well beyond the 707 era. I'll stay away from current events, but I have to suspect that there at least are a few navigators currently flying reactivated airliners in a certain country, by necessity.

On a lighter note: Imagine a 5-person cockpit arrangement being mandated on an A350. You could have a rotating poker game on a long-haul flight!

Understood !

The only western jet transport I can think of which had a dedicated set of throttles for the FE was the Vickers VC10

Max Q wrote:

rjsampson wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The three man 767 certainly had thrust levers !

Ahh Max, your posts always brighten my day. I'm sure you're joking, as I was referring to the FE having thrust levers, not the entire cockpit

77west wrote:

When did the navigator position end? I know some early 707's had them I believe.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

Certainly true in the West.

Some Soviet-era airliners had (still have?) 5-man cockpits (Captain, FO, FE, Navigator, Radio Operator) well into the 21st century to (as I understand it) maximize employment. Didn't do much for their safety record, but I digress.

Regular Navigators persisted well beyond the 707 era. I'll stay away from current events, but I have to suspect that there at least are a few navigators currently flying reactivated airliners in a certain country, by necessity.

On a lighter note: Imagine a 5-person cockpit arrangement being mandated on an A350. You could have a rotating poker game on a long-haul flight!

Understood !

The only western jet transport I can think of which had a dedicated set of throttles for the FE was the Vickers VC10

Do you know of any others ?

Best wishes

Max Q wrote:

Max Q wrote:

rjsampson wrote:

Ahh Max, your posts always brighten my day. I'm sure you're joking, as I was referring to the FE having thrust levers, not the entire cockpit





Certainly true in the West.

Some Soviet-era airliners had (still have?) 5-man cockpits (Captain, FO, FE, Navigator, Radio Operator) well into the 21st century to (as I understand it) maximize employment. Didn't do much for their safety record, but I digress.

Regular Navigators persisted well beyond the 707 era. I'll stay away from current events, but I have to suspect that there at least are a few navigators currently flying reactivated airliners in a certain country, by necessity.

On a lighter note: Imagine a 5-person cockpit arrangement being mandated on an A350. You could have a rotating poker game on a long-haul flight!

Understood !

The only western jet transport I can think of which had a dedicated set of throttles for the FE was the Vickers VC10

Do you know of any others ?

Best wishes

Found a picture of the VC10 - interesting

77west wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Understood !

The only western jet transport I can think of which had a dedicated set of throttles for the FE was the Vickers VC10

Do you know of any others ?

Best wishes

Found a picture of the VC10 - interesting

Great picture

Just in front of the Flight Engineer’s set of throttles on the left side of his desk is a transparent cover that can be opened

Underneath are the engine start switches and several warning lights, another unique feature

If you're a VC-10 buff, or just an "ops with FE" buff, there's a really interesting documentary about BOAC cadet and induction training around 1970 on YouTube. The initial sim conversion and base training bits are particularly good, starting around the 23-minute mark.

There is definitely more formality, but the feel of things is very similar to modern training, except for doing 30-40 landings in the actual aircraft during base training! Modern simulators have reduced this to 3 for us. The expressions on the trainees' faces during their first circuits are easily recognisable. And the Base Training Captain's comment about not doing anything with an engine under 400ft (after a V1 cut) is exactly what we are taught today!

https://youtu.be/03ppjh8lg_8?list=FL9PN ... ADA&t=1398

Max Q wrote:

77west wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Do you know of any others ?

Best wishes

Found a picture of the VC10 - interesting

Great picture

Just in front of the Flight Engineer’s set of throttles on the left side of his desk is a transparent cover that can be opened

Underneath are the engine start switches and several warning lights, another unique feature

I guess they would have been mechanically linked as well, I always marvel at the complexity of the old electro-mechanical flight decks.

77west wrote:

Max Q wrote:

77west wrote:

Found a picture of the VC10 - interesting

Great picture

Just in front of the Flight Engineer’s set of throttles on the left side of his desk is a transparent cover that can be opened

Underneath are the engine start switches and several warning lights, another unique feature

I guess they would have been mechanically linked as well, I always marvel at the complexity of the old electro-mechanical flight decks.

Im sure they were linked, another unique feature at the VC10 FE station that I can’t see in this picture was a fold out pencil sharpener !

rjsampson wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The three man 767 certainly had thrust levers !

Ahh Max, your posts always brighten my day. I'm sure you're joking, as I was referring to the FE having thrust levers, not the entire cockpit

77west wrote:

When did the navigator position end? I know some early 707's had them I believe.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Trans Caribbean had navs on DC-8s right up to the AA merger. At least one NAV was trained to be a pilot at AA.

Certainly true in the West.

Some Soviet-era airliners had (still have?) 5-man cockpits (Captain, FO, FE, Navigator, Radio Operator) well into the 21st century to (as I understand it) maximize employment. Didn't do much for their safety record, but I digress.

Regular Navigators persisted well beyond the 707 era. I'll stay away from current events, but I have to suspect that there at least are a few navigators currently flying reactivated airliners in a certain country, by necessity.

On a lighter note: Imagine a 5-person cockpit arrangement being mandated on an A350. You could have a rotating poker game on a long-haul flight!

At least some of the An-124's still use FE's and Navigators. I had a chance to climb up to the flight deck of a An-124 belonging to Antonov Airlines several weeks ago and was surprised to see a navigator station!

77west wrote:

Max Q wrote:

77west wrote:

Found a picture of the VC10 - interesting

Great picture

Just in front of the Flight Engineer’s set of throttles on the left side of his desk is a transparent cover that can be opened

Underneath are the engine start switches and several warning lights, another unique feature

I guess they would have been mechanically linked as well, I always marvel at the complexity of the old electro-mechanical flight decks.

Either mechanically linked, or servolinked. Either way as you say rather complex. In particular, ADIs with mechanical flight director bars have always fascinated me. Amazing stuff.

I try not to roll my eyes every time someone says, "but what if the screens break?" about modern glass cockpits.

- Glass is way more reliable than steam. No moving parts for one thing.
- If one screen breaks, replicating the information on another screen is trivial. Not quite the same with a carefully calibrated steam gauge.

Starlionblue wrote:

77west wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Great picture

Just in front of the Flight Engineer’s set of throttles on the left side of his desk is a transparent cover that can be opened

Underneath are the engine start switches and several warning lights, another unique feature

I guess they would have been mechanically linked as well, I always marvel at the complexity of the old electro-mechanical flight decks.

Either mechanically linked, or servolinked. Either way as you say rather complex. In particular, ADIs with mechanical flight director bars have always fascinated me. Amazing stuff.

I try not to roll my eyes every time someone says, "but what if the screens break?" about modern glass cockpits.

- Glass is way more reliable than steam. No moving parts for one thing.
- If one screen breaks, replicating the information on another screen is trivial. Not quite the same with a carefully calibrated steam gauge.

Yeah people dont know that you can change the config to operate with multiple broken screens if need be. Highly unlikely more than 1 would fail without a common cause though.

It is amazing that for example the 747-400 and -8, I can, on the simulator (PMDG), manage a full flight from gate to gate in a single pilot config, which while not a real world situation, shows how advanced the flight deck automation has become. Essentiaially if they really had to, one person can perform the duties of 2 pilots, a FE and a navigator.

77west wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

77west wrote:

I guess they would have been mechanically linked as well, I always marvel at the complexity of the old electro-mechanical flight decks.

Either mechanically linked, or servolinked. Either way as you say rather complex. In particular, ADIs with mechanical flight director bars have always fascinated me. Amazing stuff.

I try not to roll my eyes every time someone says, "but what if the screens break?" about modern glass cockpits.

- Glass is way more reliable than steam. No moving parts for one thing.
- If one screen breaks, replicating the information on another screen is trivial. Not quite the same with a carefully calibrated steam gauge.

Yeah people dont know that you can change the config to operate with multiple broken screens if need be. Highly unlikely more than 1 would fail without a common cause though.

It is amazing that for example the 747-400 and -8, I can, on the simulator (PMDG), manage a full flight from gate to gate in a single pilot config, which while not a real world situation, shows how advanced the flight deck automation has become. Essentiaially if they really had to, one person can perform the duties of 2 pilots, a FE and a navigator.

And a radio operator.

Starlionblue wrote:

77west wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Either mechanically linked, or servolinked. Either way as you say rather complex. In particular, ADIs with mechanical flight director bars have always fascinated me. Amazing stuff.

I try not to roll my eyes every time someone says, "but what if the screens break?" about modern glass cockpits.

- Glass is way more reliable than steam. No moving parts for one thing.
- If one screen breaks, replicating the information on another screen is trivial. Not quite the same with a carefully calibrated steam gauge.

Yeah people dont know that you can change the config to operate with multiple broken screens if need be. Highly unlikely more than 1 would fail without a common cause though.

It is amazing that for example the 747-400 and -8, I can, on the simulator (PMDG), manage a full flight from gate to gate in a single pilot config, which while not a real world situation, shows how advanced the flight deck automation has become. Essentiaially if they really had to, one person can perform the duties of 2 pilots, a FE and a navigator.

And a radio operator.

Right back to the 50s/60s there! but true. Can be a little tense at times but with modern planning tools (EFB) and modern jets, it really is amazing how much can be done by one person. (Cue single-pilot ops arguments)