Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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..
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.
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..
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?
Starlionblue wrote:Some pics of the 767 cockpit with FE panel. The one with the screen is Ansett I think.
Max Q wrote: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
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!
Tristarsteve wrote:It was the El Al B767 that had an EICAS screen, and some more buttons. Something for the 3rd pilot to do!!
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?
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!
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.
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.
Max Q wrote:The three man 767 certainly had thrust levers !
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.
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.
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 cockpit77west 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!
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 cockpit77west 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!
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 cockpit77west 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: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
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
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
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.
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 cockpit77west 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.