Strange Question: Test Pilots' Career Paths?

[Pythagoras_]

Hopefully I'll be forgiven for asking a couple of slightly left field questions immediately after joining the forum.

Partly "to get it out of my system" I'm working on an extended short story which I might eventually self publish. I'm developing the background of some of the secondary characters and am trying to find the answers to a couple of questions:

Would a test pilot be posted to 41(R) Squadron ?

Would a graduate of one of the service test pilot school, say ETPS or Istres, ever return to a front line squadron as a flight or squadron commander or would they remain in flight test roles?

Thank you

[nimbev]

I have certainly flown on operational squadrons with ex Boscombe Down and Bedford test pilots doing a normal squadron tour. This was a few years ago so things might have changed, but I suppose they have to go somewhere after their test pilot tours?

[big v]

I served with a chap in the 1980s who had just come back from Boscombe, having done the AR5 hot weather trials. Judging by the photos I think he'd probably had enough!

Cheers,

Vernon

[Basil]

I once did some test flying out of Istres.
Had a glass of wine with lunch and STILL managed to fly to Malta :}

[Old-Duffer]

There are several different 'generic' types of test pilot: experimental, service and production, as examples.


I am assuming that you refer to the service TP who has graduated from ETPS or another appropriate test flying academy.


Service TPs - according to the plot - undertake test flying within the flight envelope, already opened by the experimental TPs. The tasks they perform are, therefore, very wide and can vary from fairly straight forward tasks eg to clear a piece of equipment for in-service use, through to the acceptance of a new aircraft type into the service and to lead on all the work that entails.


TPs are not employed exclusively on testing work and might reasonably expect to have a balanced career, which may include returning to test flying perhaps in a more senior capacity. They are, of course, an attractive target for industry and might be loaned to a manufacturer or leave the service and join a company. Of course their TP training, which develops - inter alia - their analytical skills and extends their flying experience, is useful in all sorts of roles.


Why not canvas this forum for a TP? On the promise of a decent dinner, I'm sure you would be able to gain a much better insight into the TP and their 'world' than I can offer in a few sentences.


Old Duffer

[LOMCEVAK]

41(R) Squadron is currently the Test and Evaluation Squadron for Tornado GR4 and Typhoon. Test pilots for those types are posted to 41(R) after finishing their test pilot school course. Also, some test pilots who have returned to front line squadrons after a tp tour may be posted back to undertake a further tp tour on 41.

Test pilots have certainly been posted back to front line units and become flight and squadron commanders as part of their career progression.

Hope this helps.

[Flap62]

Here we go!

In my experience there was certainly a considerable proportion of people who went off to ETPS because they didn't quite cut it on the front line on their first or second tour. These people in general disappeared into the TP world, never to be seen again. There were also a lot of people who were very competent and either stayed in the TP world or returned to the front line (with varying degrees of success!)

It was often extremely frustrating to have restrictions put upon you on day to day Sqn ops by people who didn't have the ability to cut it in the first place!

[hello1]

didn't quite cut it on the front line on their first or second tour.

In 'the day', that might have been the case but to get selected for test pilot training these days you have to be above average or exceptional in the air and the application form is completed by both your sqn cdr and the stn cdr. Your 5000 gets a good scrub and you have to convince 2 separate selection boards. Test pilots are just experienced and competent pilots in whom we have invested a year of intensive training.

The UK trains 9 test pilots and flight test engineers a year, including RN and Army officers. Following the course, most fast jet test pilots are posted to 41. A handful of test pilots do return to the front line - in all 3 services but the demand for second tourist test pilots (as sqn execs, teaching on ETPS or in a staff job at a PT or in the MAA) generally outweighs the pool of available people.

Help this helps.

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

Can think of one right now:

RAF Shawbury - RAF Station homepage (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafshawbury/)

[LOMCEVAK]

hello 1,

I am intrigued to know to when you refer as "in 'the day'". Let's go back 30 years. There were 2 written exams and 3 interview boards. 5000 series were still scrutinised and Flight and Squadron Commanders still wrote recommendations. There were far more pilots applying for each slot than there is now and selection was far more competitive. Most of the fast jet tps then were already QWIs so hardly pilots who did not 'cut it' on the front line. Therefore, there is nothing to support your assertion in support of flaps 62's comment.

[Flap62]

Lom,

I did say that some very good guys went but in my 9 odd years on the front line, single seat of the half dozen or so guys that went TP from my fleet, none were QWI and I think 1 was QFI. It's also not necessarily a conclusion that they were not good pilots, they were I am sure rated at least Above Average (although in some of the cases I would be surprised!) but sometimes cutting it in a certain role is about rather more than that. Perhaps that's why no QWIs felt the need to go.

[alf5071h]

Please forgive a reminiscence:
I would expect current policy to follow the mood of personal management amongst other things.
My mid 1970s experience, as a weapons instructor, was during a period of change. Previously pre-qualifications for ETPS were frowned on, no IWI / QFI, because it was additional expenditure. Then with increasing focus on systems evaluation and testing, frontline qualifications were sought (three IWIs). Furthermore there were ‘career’ arguments with the new CTTO concept or trial elements in front-line squadrons which required experienced system-tps.

My selection was ‘muddled’ by an in-fight between command plans for future weapons instruction (and unknown to me, promotion), vs ETPS who had earmarked me for a next-generation systems project in a year’s time. ETTPS won, and my volunteering was rewarded by a life-expanding overseas tour.

Then the system fouled up, the project was late; –1yr in 1yr; no job at Boscombe so go to Bedford;– Ah Aero Flight, fast jet research, etc. No; so a fast jet IWI becomes a civil research Flt Cmdr (but with the bonus of a personal Sea Vixen – ex Admiral’s Barge).
RAE research provided an exceptional opportunity for tp development; there were many projects, civil money, a demand for free thought, and was sufficiently remote from the RAF that after a double tour the next move for another 20 yrs civilian testing was a no-brainer. During civilian times some of the most valuable experiences were in guesting as a line Capt or even as a Trainer, which without appropriate background the latter far more hazardous than testing!

Moral of the story: never base plans on the expectations of the military – policy changes in proportion to the poster’s tour length. If you volunteer, argue for the best option and make the most of it. Arm yourself with options, both civil and military qualifications which could be attractive to several career paths, and take a long term view, not excluding any possibility.
Don’t expect any plan to work – rules of war, plans do not survive contact with the enemy.
Enjoy every opportunity for test flying, learning, and thinking, particularly about oneself.

To answer the question – would a tp be posted to a front line squadron I hope so, but I doubt that it happens very often.

Flap, I would not agree with your views.
One misconception in aviation is that the more senior or more experienced pilots have the requisite abilities to test and assess systems – when asking an airline to send a range of pilots to evaluate a new display, including the below average – only the Chief pilot turns up.
Flying and systems testing is more about understanding yourself and ability to see other points of view. Pilots need to be able to understand the reasons behind occurrences and to communicate across the full design and operational spectrum (USNTS is a staff college for the Pentagon via operational command). Also, most important, not believing that you know better than others, which is often be found in squadron ‘expertise’.

[Flap62]

Alf,

It sounds like you have had a marvellously entertaining and rewarding flying career.

My own views were perhaps unfair in that they were simply a 9 year snapshot on one particular fleet. I would not at all argue with your point that different roles demand different skill sets. It was simply my view that (in my opinion) some of the people I saw go to TP had "baled out" of a challenging environment, perhaps because they knew they were struggling and their subsequent handling advice to the Sqns was poor to say the least. I am sure other fleets and times had different experiences.

[bonajet]

OK I'll bite, F62. Which years and what fleet are you talking about?

[Evalu8ter]

By the time the "product" gets to the FL it will have passed through the hands of both TPs and Evaluator Pilots (EPs). These EPs are the "traditional" OEU function, and provide the Operator input to the capability to ensure, as much as possible, that the FL gets the kit it needs - though sometimes not the kit it wants. On 41R these roles are fused with TPs, EPs and Trial Management Officers all on the same unit, and I believe it is the same for 206R. It's slightly different with RW; the tri-service RWTS is TP only, whilst the JHC OEU covers off RAF/AAC needs. The RN, interestingly, don't have a permanent OEU preferring to stand up, and then stand down, "W" suffixed Sqns for entry to service.

Re pre-cse quals, it seems the system is happier now to allow QFI/QHI and TI/WI to attend ETPS when it helps - eg CtoI on core types post course and to help the EPs with Course Development etc as part of a CTT.

As for post TP careers, well there remain a few posts at BDN for promoted TPs to backfill (CTP, DCTP, Wings etc) but most need to step away from the TP world to advance - Manning will counsel you prior to ETPS that you will be prejudicing your career by attending (time away from the FL, not a 'crunchy' Staff Job, tall poppy syndrome....). Jobs outside are not as plentiful as before, so more TPs will return to the FL in future; as usual the ebb and flow of Industry and programmes will dictate what happens post a TP tour. In the RW world many TPs simply join the pool of civ RW pilots in Offshore, PAS and HEMS when they leave.

[LOMCEVAK]

flap62,

Your second post has put your first one in context and there is nothing that you have said that I would disagree with. You have hit the nail on the head for this thread with ".. other fleets and times ..".

One aspect that must be considered is that everyone who applies to ETPS is a volunteer. For each available slot, the most suitable candidate is selected. He may not be the best from his fleet but if the best do not apply then we will not see them in the tp world. Everyone has different aspirations and suitabilities so the spectrum of tps is wide. There have been cases were ETPS wished to select very good applicants but 'manning' wanted those individuals for other appointments, and usually ETPS have lost. But, in the best interests of the service perhaps that was the correct decision.

[LOMCEVAK]

And it was awarded during a Flight Commander tour following a tp tour.

[Brian 48nav]

Excuse a Herc' nav from donkey's years ago having a say, but were you on the Jag' by any chance?


If so you may know my No1 son; QWI on 2nd tour, QWI instructor 3rd tour then TP. Top of the course at Istres despite initially struggling with the foreign language, then to Boscombe where he became Combat Ready again on the Jag' at Coltishall while on Fast-Jet Test.


Sensibly he has no time for Prune - full of whinging know-alls he says! I wouldn't give him your opinion of TPs if I were you - 6' 4" and mean with it ;).

[Flap62]

Hi Brian,

No, not Jag, Harrier.

You sound justifiably proud of your son but I would be happy to defend my views for the candidates that went during my time (honourable exceptions of course!)

Btw Brian, your son doesn't work in the Cambridge area does he?

[Brian 48nav]

Hi, Until recently yes - he was CTP with Marshalls for 3 years ( I hope you didn't 'cross' him ;) ) and then got the job of his dreams in April,a TP with Airbus at Toulouse. The family are still near Bury S E until the boys finish school in a couple of years; he gets back a couple of times a month.


2 of his JP course went on to the Harrier, Bill Auckland ( RIP ) and JP - a Test Pilot too!

[Dominator2]

I have been involved with TPs for many years both from an OEU and Release To Service Standpoint. There is no doubt that there is a place for TPs in the RAF but it has changed over the past 40 years. The pilots selected for ETPS are all Well Above The Average.
Most of the bad press received by TPs has been out of frustration by the FL not receiving what they think they want. The blame lay at "the system", MODPE, BD and QinetiQ. The tardy way that they have done their business and ripped off the tax payer was a disgrace.
The remit of the person responsible for an aircraft's RtoS is to seek BEST ADVICE. If the established system could not provide it, then look elsewhere.
A certain GC at the AWC some years ago had the vision to incorporate TPs within OEUs. I believe that within the FJ community this has worked well. It managed to take much of the power away from BD without them realising. BAEs realised that their TPs lacked credibility with the FL and so the new breed maintained CR status on a squadron as Reservists.
Being a TP is a laudable achievement within the aviation community. It is only the w*****s in high places that have been responsible for the qualification being under rated. Hopefully, that is all in the past!

[Pekanbaru]

Brian

I know your son well, thoroughly enjoyed flying with him. Last saw him in SA where we enjoyed some great food and just a few glasses of red....please send my regards.

ET

[LOMCEVAK]

When the Tornado OEU (TOEU) was first formed in the early '80's a Tornado tp from 'A' Sqn was posted in deliberately as a tp. When he was tourex they decided to replace him with a non-tp. However, then boss (RB) shortly after realised the advantages of integrating a tp into an OEU and I was asked by him if I would like to move across. I said yes but the politics between A&AEE and CTTO at the time were such that it never happened. However, the working relationship on Tornado between 'A' Sqn/Fixed Wing Test Squadron and the TOEU (later SAOEU) was always excellent and very productive. Unfortunately, our relationship with the F3 OEU was never as productive, probably because it was not co-located and perhaps due to personalities.

Although it was some years before the Jaguar was integrated into the SAOEU there was always an excellent working relationship between FWTS and CTTO on the Jag. The highlight of this was the integration of TIALD for Bosnia (Op Deny Flight). The development sorties were flown in a modified T2 and for about 95% of the sorties there was a tp in one cockpit and a front line QWI/Staneval/CTTO pilot in the other. Agreement was reached in the debrief on the way ahead, and it was the most fascinating and satisfying project on which I have ever worked, resulting in a system that worked well, came in on time and under cost!

[Flap62]

Brian,

I do indeed know your son, and have enjoyed many a beer with him. Bill and JP were also of around my vintage. Happy days.

[LOMCEVAK]

Brian,

Please tell S that he has no excuses for not joining in on this thread (he knows who I am)!!!! And you have failed to mention your Boscombe connection!

Best regards

[Brian 48nav]

Do you mean when I was in ATC there (83-86 )? In the good old days before CAA lost the contract!


I don't suppose many people know that ATC at the MOD(PE) airfields, previously Ministry of Supply, was done by civilian ATCOs. The Boscombe contract was lost in '92 to Airwork, who IIRC were unable to obtain sufficient staff and so the RAF took over in '93.


I did a 5 month attachment to JATE, then at Abingdon, in 72/3 and flew into Boscombe on numerous occasions to pick up various loads to throw out on Salisbury Plain.


I don't think I can persuade Shaun to Prune ( a new verb! ), No2 son an ATCO at Swanwick isn't interested either - perhaps it's because their old man upsets people on it :=.

[LOMCEVAK]

Hi Brian,

I certainly was referring to your ATC days. I was Tester 67 then Evergreen 18 - those were the days.

Best regards

[lightningmate]

Brian,

If I recall correctly, the RAF had to man-up Boscombe ATC with about 24hrs notice following Airwork admitting it had insufficient staff the day prior to its contracted takeover date.

The Centre has still not 'learnt lessons' particularly the one about Cheapest is never Best!

lm

[Dominator2]

LOMCEVAK, I agree with most that you stated about the TOEU and the SAOEU. However, for much of it's early life the F3OEU was committed to make the Foxhunter and then Link16 work. This was done through a CTT with Marconi and BAEs being the other partners. The CCT was an example of how development should be conducted.
A&AEE were involved through their partnership agreement at Warton. I would still maintain that the best people, and their qualifications/experience were utilised correctly. The fact that some felt that their flying had been stolen is by the by. The final result justified the path that was taken. By the time the radar had matured to Stage 1Plus and then Stage 2 it was among the best at that time. A shame it was 15 years too late.
The final outcome, with the Fast Jet OEU being located with the Front Line with TPs embedded is as it should be.

[Stitchbitch]

LOMCEVAC, how are this years course doing? Almost preview time.. All the best :ok:

[DITYIWAHP]

Gripen phase and prog check in the Hunter first... :)

[LOMCEVAK]

Dominator2,

The problem that we had with relationships with the early F3 OEU was that there was a great reluctance to have any contact with FWTS at all. We were conducting trials exactly as you say and it was going to be helpful to all to communicate what was happening on both sides of the fence but what we encountered was not a helpful attitude.

I could continue about why AWSMDS never entered service on the aircraft but perhaps that is too much thread creep. If anyone is interested, please start a thread asking the question and I will reply!

[Dominator2]

LOMCEVAK.

The fact that you talk about "sides of the fence" typifies the attitude of FWTS of "not invented here". Why should there have been only one unit that had primacy over Release To Service advice?

We shall all be very interested in your version of why AWSMDS did not enter service in the RAF but did in the RSAF. I do hope that you have the correct facts to hand!

[lightningmate]

Here we go again, re-fighting old battles!

Test and Evaluation Organisations, and that includes everyone involved, have always and only delivered Advice to a nominated Central Organisation. The Central Organisation responds to the Advice based on numerous factors. Many of those factors are hardly conducive to delivering the best outcome.

Oh, and of course The Contractors also deliver plenty of Advice.

Historically, the end result has invariably been an unhappy one. We all know of the problems, the pressures, late spec changes, failure to meet the spec, someone new and senior arriving in an influential position and wanting changes and so on.

There is no point in banging on about things long past. It would be refreshing to believe things were now better because of 'Lessons Learnt' - how many times do we hear that statement - but things are not any better by far from where I sit.

lm

[Dominator2]

LM, It is worth shaking the tree every now and then, just to see what falls out.
I agree with your sentiment that hopefully things are now better due to "Lessons Learnt". I also, from outside the fence, hear that this is not so. They can apply as much "process" as they like but where is the common sense?

[LOMCEVAK]

Dominator2,

Apologies for my poor, ambiguous use of a coloquialism. In stead of '.. both sides of the fence ..' I should have said '.. between the two units that were responsible for F3 T&E at the time ..'.

I am quite happy to discuss personally with you the communication problems at the time, although I will say that during the latter stages of my tour on FWTS during the run-up to Op Granby things improved significantly and by talking we helped each other.

I agree that there were some personalities around at the time who felt that their flying was 'being stolen' or that 'they should be giving the R to S recommendations' but please understand that these were more personality issues and did not reflect an overall belief within FWTS; I certainly was not one who subscribed to that philosophy.

Rgds

L