You wrote : "Oh, flight engineers do not maintain airspeed as airspeed is maintained through "pitch" control which either requires a control stick or yoke ". True, but they make sure the pilot has the requisite power to maintain said air speed. Also, a third WORKING pilot or engineer, not two additional resting pilots NOT in the cockpit, is a third eye, observer who helps fly what is a very complex/complicated machine.<quoted text>
Yes, in December 1958 I flew in a TWA Super Connie from Frankfurt Germany to Idlewild, New York with stops in Shannon and Gander.
Oh, flight engineers do not maintain airspeed as airspeed is maintained through "pitch" control which either requires a control stick or yoke and the FE does not have access to either in flight.
Do you know what a turbo-compound engine is?
Oh, here is a picture of a B-36 Flight Engineer's station.
On a Chinook, the FE does not make any adjustments to the engines. A Chinook has two engines and one APU. And do you know the Boeing 777 also has just TWO engines and ONE APU? So why should they need an FE when the pilots can do that???
You need to stay in the passenger seat as you are clueless what is going on on the flight deck.
There is an excellent article in this morning's Citizen on how pilots are losing their flying skills to automation. I recall the Airbus 330 crash in the Atlantic off Brazil, what, 2 years ago. Total total pilot error, both of them. A flight engineer may have helped. A new pilot may not have been able to successfully ditch his A320 on the Hudson the way Capt Sullenberger did. But Sullenberger had so much manual flying experience, he was able to pull it off. The Bombardier Winter and ice-laden wings crash a few years back, again, total pilot error, both of them.