Becoming a Test Pilot
Very true Genghis but Eric Brown was also a product of his era.
I think you have to ask had an identical individual of equal ability been born between 1975 and 1985 how would their career progressed. Most likely they would have made it as RAF Fast Jet pilot, most likely they would have got selected for ETPS, but the variety and types available to work on would be extremely limited in comparison to the opportunities he had presented.
The chances are a "modern Eric Brown" would have been sent to the long course at ETPS.
I think you have to ask had an identical individual of equal ability been born between 1975 and 1985 how would their career progressed. Most likely they would have made it as RAF Fast Jet pilot, most likely they would have got selected for ETPS, but the variety and types available to work on would be extremely limited in comparison to the opportunities he had presented.
The chances are a "modern Eric Brown" would have been sent to the long course at ETPS.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reinhardt,
Izzy is indeed my partner (since 2013), and that's no secret. The only surprising thing is that she sees anything in me!
However, if you can contain your excitement for a moment, read my post again and you'll notice that I confine myself to the facts. There was and is no personal interest in what I've said.
This thread is about routes to becoming a test pilot, and it's important for prospective trainees to understand that test pilot courses at the recognised schools are not attendance courses. They are expensive, and there is a risk of not meeting the required graduation standard. In the case of ETPS, *a number of students have indeed not reached the required standard for short-course graduation over the years, just as is also the case for the long courses. However, those schools will take care to advise potential students on their course entry standard and likelihood of success.
Your reference to '2 day courses for airlines' must refer to training for pilots preparing to fly technical sorties such as post-maintenance checks. I don't know whether ETPS now offers such training, although the major manufacturers do. Such a course and a subsequent technical pilot role would be an excellent first step towards test flying for someone in an airline (or similar) career path, but would not be adequate preparation for immediate employment as, say, a production tp.
As regards your reference to my 30 years flying, I have no idea what you're on about. But perhaps we could keep the thread to its intended subject, of providing advice to prospective flight test professionals?
Izzy is indeed my partner (since 2013), and that's no secret. The only surprising thing is that she sees anything in me!
However, if you can contain your excitement for a moment, read my post again and you'll notice that I confine myself to the facts. There was and is no personal interest in what I've said.
This thread is about routes to becoming a test pilot, and it's important for prospective trainees to understand that test pilot courses at the recognised schools are not attendance courses. They are expensive, and there is a risk of not meeting the required graduation standard. In the case of ETPS, *a number of students have indeed not reached the required standard for short-course graduation over the years, just as is also the case for the long courses. However, those schools will take care to advise potential students on their course entry standard and likelihood of success.
Your reference to '2 day courses for airlines' must refer to training for pilots preparing to fly technical sorties such as post-maintenance checks. I don't know whether ETPS now offers such training, although the major manufacturers do. Such a course and a subsequent technical pilot role would be an excellent first step towards test flying for someone in an airline (or similar) career path, but would not be adequate preparation for immediate employment as, say, a production tp.
As regards your reference to my 30 years flying, I have no idea what you're on about. But perhaps we could keep the thread to its intended subject, of providing advice to prospective flight test professionals?
Last edited by Tester78; 20th Apr 2015 at 09:53.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"WAS" or "IS " ? - we need to know, reaching this level of the discussion 
but anyway, family businesses are usually the strongest, be it at Airbus or Boscombe - my little two pence
but anyway, family businesses are usually the strongest, be it at Airbus or Boscombe - my little two pence
Educated Hillbilly
On the subject of advising Inquisitive about his intended career route, then the question to ask is could inquisitive follow Izzys career path?
I would say probably not, as he/she (that is inquisitive) has to face the prospect of first funding the training for a frozen "ATPL", I would say the one thing which contributed to Izzy been able to self fund ETPS was the fact she was a fully funded Cadet at BA. Now that in itself is quite an achievement considering the numbers that used to apply for the scheme. As I pointed out a cadet from the new BA FPP scheme has a 84000 loan taken out in their own name; this I would assume would severely limit the ability to fund further training in such a short time scale as Izzy did.
I am making no dispersions on Izzys capability, it is apparent she is capable at what she does (probably a fair better pilot than I ever will be). But realistically someone coming into the system now would be unlikely to follow the same route unless they had serious private financial backing.
The truth is I don't think she can be used as an example or role model a what can be achieved to younger people because the same opportunities no longer exist in the same form anymore.
Irrespective the primary reason she is where she is was the capability to self fund ETPS, not through demonstrating excellence as an Engineer working at an Aerospace company.
I would say probably not, as he/she (that is inquisitive) has to face the prospect of first funding the training for a frozen "ATPL", I would say the one thing which contributed to Izzy been able to self fund ETPS was the fact she was a fully funded Cadet at BA. Now that in itself is quite an achievement considering the numbers that used to apply for the scheme. As I pointed out a cadet from the new BA FPP scheme has a 84000 loan taken out in their own name; this I would assume would severely limit the ability to fund further training in such a short time scale as Izzy did.
I am making no dispersions on Izzys capability, it is apparent she is capable at what she does (probably a fair better pilot than I ever will be). But realistically someone coming into the system now would be unlikely to follow the same route unless they had serious private financial backing.
The truth is I don't think she can be used as an example or role model a what can be achieved to younger people because the same opportunities no longer exist in the same form anymore.
Irrespective the primary reason she is where she is was the capability to self fund ETPS, not through demonstrating excellence as an Engineer working at an Aerospace company.
Last edited by portsharbourflyer; 19th Apr 2015 at 12:55.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another point to consider is that European flight test training (Cat A or B) candidates should be looking at the schools that have EASA FTO approval, and whose courses comply with the EASA Flight Test Rating syllabus. Training elsewhere risks failing to obtain the FTR, which I think will become increasingly important in the future.
Also, the 'big four' military schools are exactly that; their first priority is training their government customers. 'Commercial' customers could be bumped from the course at quite late notice in favour of the core business, which can be a problem if you've made significant arrangements to attend.
The commercial test pilot schools are probably more able to provide modularised training and perhaps spreading of cost, but you'd need to speak to them.
And yes, it's quite possible to progress from design engineer to experimental test pilot, all within a major manufacturer.
Recceguy,
In flight test we obtain data before drawing conclusions. The same in recce, I would have thought? But thanks for your, um, tuppence worth. I've PM'd you.
Also, the 'big four' military schools are exactly that; their first priority is training their government customers. 'Commercial' customers could be bumped from the course at quite late notice in favour of the core business, which can be a problem if you've made significant arrangements to attend.
The commercial test pilot schools are probably more able to provide modularised training and perhaps spreading of cost, but you'd need to speak to them.
And yes, it's quite possible to progress from design engineer to experimental test pilot, all within a major manufacturer.
Recceguy,
In flight test we obtain data before drawing conclusions. The same in recce, I would have thought? But thanks for your, um, tuppence worth. I've PM'd you.
Flight test training at the moment is, let's face it, a bit of a mess: although possibly that's actually a good thing. There is a straightforward route - for those small number of people who have gone military --> TPS. But there are a lot of individuals for whom that's not (been?) an option. EASA have tried, badly and without the support of SFTE or SETP, to create a single solution to the problem and it's clearly not working well.
I recently as a freelancer got one-off approval from EASA for a CVE (FTE really) training course for a part 23 manufacturer: appropriate to the task but not involving any TPS, various of us have been approved for particular jobs based upon particular training and experience, and needless to say no two flight test programmes are alike anyhow.
Pretty much all of the "experts" in the community recognise that in reality you pick the best person for the job, based upon their whole experience and education background - and sometimes that best person is certainly an ex-military TPS grad. But even they're not alike - I don't want somebody whose experience is virtually all on combat aircraft to lead a short field transport programme, nor somebody whose experience is virtually all transport for a a fighter programme. I'm a pretty average pilot compared to several people posting on here and nobody in their right mind would give me an A320 to fly - but I have a PhD in flight mechanics, so might well be the best person for a university led flight mechanics research programme on a smaller aeroplane: that's just my profile. The lady we've been discussing sounds like she has a fair bit of airline operational experience - so you can see why she'd be regarded, as she's also had appropriate technical training, as a safe pair of hands in acceptance testing. I recall BDN once using an FTE who had several thousand hours on gliders as the TP for an air cadet glider programme, as his grasp of the aircraft and requirements was clearly far superior to that of the military TPs available.
There are ongoing attempts to create a relatively standardised licencing system - but that, frankly, is daft and hopefully doomed to failure. Aviation is too varied, and thus so are the range of test flying tasks for "one size fits all" to make real sense. The lady in question is just one example of that.
The best any of us can do is have the best possible combination of flying and technical experience and education, make ourselves available when opportunity presents, and keep trying to do the best job we can.
G
I recently as a freelancer got one-off approval from EASA for a CVE (FTE really) training course for a part 23 manufacturer: appropriate to the task but not involving any TPS, various of us have been approved for particular jobs based upon particular training and experience, and needless to say no two flight test programmes are alike anyhow.
Pretty much all of the "experts" in the community recognise that in reality you pick the best person for the job, based upon their whole experience and education background - and sometimes that best person is certainly an ex-military TPS grad. But even they're not alike - I don't want somebody whose experience is virtually all on combat aircraft to lead a short field transport programme, nor somebody whose experience is virtually all transport for a a fighter programme. I'm a pretty average pilot compared to several people posting on here and nobody in their right mind would give me an A320 to fly - but I have a PhD in flight mechanics, so might well be the best person for a university led flight mechanics research programme on a smaller aeroplane: that's just my profile. The lady we've been discussing sounds like she has a fair bit of airline operational experience - so you can see why she'd be regarded, as she's also had appropriate technical training, as a safe pair of hands in acceptance testing. I recall BDN once using an FTE who had several thousand hours on gliders as the TP for an air cadet glider programme, as his grasp of the aircraft and requirements was clearly far superior to that of the military TPs available.
There are ongoing attempts to create a relatively standardised licencing system - but that, frankly, is daft and hopefully doomed to failure. Aviation is too varied, and thus so are the range of test flying tasks for "one size fits all" to make real sense. The lady in question is just one example of that.
The best any of us can do is have the best possible combination of flying and technical experience and education, make ourselves available when opportunity presents, and keep trying to do the best job we can.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 19th Apr 2015 at 14:04.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis,
I would agree with the thrust of that post. The key point is that the ability to conduct a given flight test role is a product of both relevant experience AND appropriate training. The balance between these will vary between individuals, and must be judged accordingly. Some of the best FTEs I have worked with never attended a formal course!
InquisitivFlyer,
I think you've had a reasonably well-balanced overview from most of the posts above. You can probably spot the very few that have no relevant experience to offer you. If you have a real deep-rooted interest in how things fly (and making them do so better), then it can be a great career.
To give your morale a bit of a boost, I can tell you that the test pilot group of 'a major manufacturer of airliners based in the south of France' is made up of about 50% production test pilots and 50% experimental test pilots. Six nationalities are represented, and two, in fact, are female.
The majority of the production TPs were trained under the auspices of the company (or by their previous companies) to an accredited standard, having gathered previous flying experience of various kinds. Several started as engineers.
Of the experimental TPs, about 70% trained through the military long course route (both heavy aircraft and fast jet backgrounds), and the rest via progressive upgrades with the company, again to accredited standards. All are approved by the French DGA according to their qualifications and experience.
Two more points:
You need to be prepared to re-locate internationally, perhaps several times. You've heard about the UK and US industries, but companies such as Pilatus have busy flight test departments too. What about helicopters?
Secondly, I don't think we've answered your question re your medical issue. To undergo training at one of the military schools, you would need to satisfy the medical requirements to fly in their aircraft. However, these are likely to be less demanding than for those joining the military for a full flying career. For the other schools and for later civilian work, expect to need a Class 1 medical; if you can achieve that, you should be fine.
In summary, it's a great career (but never just a job) and it's achievable. But 'selection and maintenance of the aim', commitment and enthusiastic hard work will be needed, until the day you retire! To sustain that, you need a true interest in what you're doing. If that is you, then working as a design engineer, test engineer, FTE or test pilot should all appeal, and you may end up doing any, some or all of these roles. If your username is descriptive of you, then all to the good!
Feel free to PM me if you wish.
I would agree with the thrust of that post. The key point is that the ability to conduct a given flight test role is a product of both relevant experience AND appropriate training. The balance between these will vary between individuals, and must be judged accordingly. Some of the best FTEs I have worked with never attended a formal course!
InquisitivFlyer,
I think you've had a reasonably well-balanced overview from most of the posts above. You can probably spot the very few that have no relevant experience to offer you. If you have a real deep-rooted interest in how things fly (and making them do so better), then it can be a great career.
To give your morale a bit of a boost, I can tell you that the test pilot group of 'a major manufacturer of airliners based in the south of France' is made up of about 50% production test pilots and 50% experimental test pilots. Six nationalities are represented, and two, in fact, are female.
The majority of the production TPs were trained under the auspices of the company (or by their previous companies) to an accredited standard, having gathered previous flying experience of various kinds. Several started as engineers.
Of the experimental TPs, about 70% trained through the military long course route (both heavy aircraft and fast jet backgrounds), and the rest via progressive upgrades with the company, again to accredited standards. All are approved by the French DGA according to their qualifications and experience.
Two more points:
You need to be prepared to re-locate internationally, perhaps several times. You've heard about the UK and US industries, but companies such as Pilatus have busy flight test departments too. What about helicopters?
Secondly, I don't think we've answered your question re your medical issue. To undergo training at one of the military schools, you would need to satisfy the medical requirements to fly in their aircraft. However, these are likely to be less demanding than for those joining the military for a full flying career. For the other schools and for later civilian work, expect to need a Class 1 medical; if you can achieve that, you should be fine.
In summary, it's a great career (but never just a job) and it's achievable. But 'selection and maintenance of the aim', commitment and enthusiastic hard work will be needed, until the day you retire! To sustain that, you need a true interest in what you're doing. If that is you, then working as a design engineer, test engineer, FTE or test pilot should all appeal, and you may end up doing any, some or all of these roles. If your username is descriptive of you, then all to the good!
Feel free to PM me if you wish.
Moderator
in reality you pick the best person for the job, based upon their whole experience and education background
It'll be better to focus on at least a range of aircraft types, and operations, if not a class of aircraft. That's not to say that you won't be able to grow those skills laterally.
Educated Hillbilly
Tester78,
Of the test pilots at Airbus that are from a pure civilian background how many are UK nationals?
Also remember anyone intending on undertaking an Aeronautical Engineering degree needs to be aware what they are most likely going to end up doing, not what they may end of doing if the cards stack heavily in their favour. So on that note failing to make it initially into a flight test position may mean having to undertake a less interesting project integration position or pure office based analysis role.
I was able to fund training for a frozen ATPL because I didn't have to pay tuition fees at university so graduated near enough debt free; at 9k a year in the UK for a four year MEng plus living expenses the debt an engineering graduate now acquires will hinder the acquisition of a frozen ATPL post graduation.
Secondly acquiring relevant flight experience as a self funded pilot can also be very difficult task in itself let alone looking to progress to flight test.
While many on here have a lot of experience in flight testing, I am not sure they really appreciate the obstacles a UK based civilian Aerospace graduate in 2015 will face.
Of the test pilots at Airbus that are from a pure civilian background how many are UK nationals?
Also remember anyone intending on undertaking an Aeronautical Engineering degree needs to be aware what they are most likely going to end up doing, not what they may end of doing if the cards stack heavily in their favour. So on that note failing to make it initially into a flight test position may mean having to undertake a less interesting project integration position or pure office based analysis role.
I was able to fund training for a frozen ATPL because I didn't have to pay tuition fees at university so graduated near enough debt free; at 9k a year in the UK for a four year MEng plus living expenses the debt an engineering graduate now acquires will hinder the acquisition of a frozen ATPL post graduation.
Secondly acquiring relevant flight experience as a self funded pilot can also be very difficult task in itself let alone looking to progress to flight test.
While many on here have a lot of experience in flight testing, I am not sure they really appreciate the obstacles a UK based civilian Aerospace graduate in 2015 will face.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Portsharbourflyer,
There are 2 Brit test pilots with all-through civilian backgrounds.
Your other points above are all well-made, and I certainly don't underestimate the difficulty of making a success of this career from a purely civilian background and/or from an Eng degree start. That was my point in my last para above, when I suggested that InquisitivFlyer would need to be prepared to spend time or even complete his/her career as a design engineer, FTE. There is certainly an element of luck required. Those of us that got a flying start from the military do indeed have much to be thankful for, although that's a very hard path too! There is no easy route.
Someone mentioned QinetiQ, and I think they also still employ Flight Test Observers (FTOs), a position that has historically been a springboard to FTE status. The FTOs have typically been engineers and trials officers, whose work involves occasional requirements to fly. Airborne trials photographers are also in the FTO cadre.
There are 2 Brit test pilots with all-through civilian backgrounds.
Your other points above are all well-made, and I certainly don't underestimate the difficulty of making a success of this career from a purely civilian background and/or from an Eng degree start. That was my point in my last para above, when I suggested that InquisitivFlyer would need to be prepared to spend time or even complete his/her career as a design engineer, FTE. There is certainly an element of luck required. Those of us that got a flying start from the military do indeed have much to be thankful for, although that's a very hard path too! There is no easy route.
Someone mentioned QinetiQ, and I think they also still employ Flight Test Observers (FTOs), a position that has historically been a springboard to FTE status. The FTOs have typically been engineers and trials officers, whose work involves occasional requirements to fly. Airborne trials photographers are also in the FTO cadre.
Educated Hillbilly
Tester78, I am intrigued to hear that.
Yes it was one of my earlier posts that stated Inquisitives best chance of becoming an FTE would be through Qinitiq.
I would also say getting in to the correct specialisation to start with will help, flight dynamics, airworthiness are the first position a graduate really needs to be in to get the best chance of getting into flight test. It is possible to change specialisations but that isn't that easy once established.
Yes it was one of my earlier posts that stated Inquisitives best chance of becoming an FTE would be through Qinitiq.
I would also say getting in to the correct specialisation to start with will help, flight dynamics, airworthiness are the first position a graduate really needs to be in to get the best chance of getting into flight test. It is possible to change specialisations but that isn't that easy once established.
Last edited by portsharbourflyer; 20th Apr 2015 at 13:07.
and I think they also still employ Flight Test Observers (FTOs), a position that has historically been a springboard to FTE status. The FTOs have typically been engineers and trials officers, whose work involves occasional requirements to fly. Airborne trials photographers are also in the FTO cadre.
Trials Officers at Boscombe Down are what most of the world would call FTEs. Unsurprisingly, the majority of them are professionally qualified engineers, although there are a few exceptions - I can recall a few current or retired RAF Navigators when I was there, and one physicist.
Photographers, well they're photographers.
The FTO role is inevitably compatible with both of the above jobs. But, for example if you're on a single seat fighter programme, then you may well be an FTE, but you're unlikely to have reason to fly as an FTO.
The same would be true many other places - BAeS at Warton for example employs a lot of FTEs, but very few of them fly on trials.
If you want to be an FTE doing a lot of flying as part of your job, transport or training aeroplanes are probably the best place to be, followed by helicopters, and least of all fighters.
UAVs are interesting - they also need FTEs, typically with an excellent understanding of the eventual role of the UAV (for example I work mainly in earth sciences research flying, where we do a lot of UAV work, but most of our operators and testers come from an earth sciences professional background - possibly via airborne science in manned aircraft). Some of those may get involved in pilot-in-the-loop work, but fairly inevitably there's no flight deck to progress into. That said, I've met a few earth scientists who progressed from the lab to the flight deck as well - research pilots are not the same as test pilots, but the skill sets have a lot in common.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reinhardt,
You do not know who I am, because you are not part of the flight test world. A significant number of those on this forum for flight test professionals WILL know me, not least because my username is also my previous flight test PERSONAL CALLSIGN!
The fact that you accuse ME of hiding behind an identity is an utter joke. Who are YOU???
I will answer your post, but only to defend the reputation of both Izzy and ETPS.
No, I was not on the graduation board! I wasn't even a member of the ETPS staff at that time, although I have been. I was in a management post with QinetiQ, and had no role in the graduation of students.
How do you suggest I have been 'selling her professionally'? Read my posts again. I simply pointed out, in response to your implied accusation, that you cannot buy an ETPS graduation qualification and that test pilot courses are not attendance courses. That is directly relevant to those reading this thread for its subject; how to become a test pilot from a civilian background. I described the training course she did, because that, again, is relevant. In this thread, and others, you have peddled factually incorrect information about test flying that could mislead the OP and others in their career decisions if they made the mistake of thinking that you knew what you were talking about.
Before you suggest it: No, I did not help Izzy get a job at Airbus. If you wish to, check with the Chief Test Pilot. PM me and I'll put you in touch.
All this is grossly unfair to a lady who has managed to achieve what you probably envy. She has never sought publicity; she had to be persuaded (even instructed) to give the interviews quoted, and now declines them. She just wants to be allowed to get on with her chosen career. Her case was raised in this thread (not by me) as an example of what can be achieved. She is not the only female test pilot, or the only one from a civilian background, and she is simply one of a great team of highly competent and qualified people.
Reinhardt, take a long hard look at yourself. And stop blundering around in a forum for which you appear to have no credentials and nothing relevant or factual to contribute.
You do not know who I am, because you are not part of the flight test world. A significant number of those on this forum for flight test professionals WILL know me, not least because my username is also my previous flight test PERSONAL CALLSIGN!
The fact that you accuse ME of hiding behind an identity is an utter joke. Who are YOU???
I will answer your post, but only to defend the reputation of both Izzy and ETPS.
No, I was not on the graduation board! I wasn't even a member of the ETPS staff at that time, although I have been. I was in a management post with QinetiQ, and had no role in the graduation of students.
How do you suggest I have been 'selling her professionally'? Read my posts again. I simply pointed out, in response to your implied accusation, that you cannot buy an ETPS graduation qualification and that test pilot courses are not attendance courses. That is directly relevant to those reading this thread for its subject; how to become a test pilot from a civilian background. I described the training course she did, because that, again, is relevant. In this thread, and others, you have peddled factually incorrect information about test flying that could mislead the OP and others in their career decisions if they made the mistake of thinking that you knew what you were talking about.
Before you suggest it: No, I did not help Izzy get a job at Airbus. If you wish to, check with the Chief Test Pilot. PM me and I'll put you in touch.
All this is grossly unfair to a lady who has managed to achieve what you probably envy. She has never sought publicity; she had to be persuaded (even instructed) to give the interviews quoted, and now declines them. She just wants to be allowed to get on with her chosen career. Her case was raised in this thread (not by me) as an example of what can be achieved. She is not the only female test pilot, or the only one from a civilian background, and she is simply one of a great team of highly competent and qualified people.
Reinhardt, take a long hard look at yourself. And stop blundering around in a forum for which you appear to have no credentials and nothing relevant or factual to contribute.
Last edited by Tester78; 21st Apr 2015 at 20:40.
Ladies and Gents,
Thus far I have restrained from making any comments on this thread but I have followed it closely. Now I feel obliged to join in.
I will vouch for the validity of all of the information that Tester78 has posted regarding his role within QinetiQ and ETPS, Izzy's training at ETPS and her role at Airbus. I will also confirm the fact that ETPS has very high graduation standards and not all students who start the courses there complete them successfully, whoever they are and wherever they are from. But I will also add that this is because not everyone has the ability to pass the courses although they do all try very hard and it is difficult for the ETPS staff when nice, professional people who work very hard simply are not suited to the flight test discipline.
Reinhardt,
Perhaps you owe it to followers of this thread to establish your credentials for joining in the debate here, obviously without compromising your anonymity.
Rgds
L
Thus far I have restrained from making any comments on this thread but I have followed it closely. Now I feel obliged to join in.
I will vouch for the validity of all of the information that Tester78 has posted regarding his role within QinetiQ and ETPS, Izzy's training at ETPS and her role at Airbus. I will also confirm the fact that ETPS has very high graduation standards and not all students who start the courses there complete them successfully, whoever they are and wherever they are from. But I will also add that this is because not everyone has the ability to pass the courses although they do all try very hard and it is difficult for the ETPS staff when nice, professional people who work very hard simply are not suited to the flight test discipline.
Reinhardt,
Perhaps you owe it to followers of this thread to establish your credentials for joining in the debate here, obviously without compromising your anonymity.
Rgds
L
I'm quite glad right now that I no longer have responsibility for keeping certain people to good behaviour on here, but I will say that I know and trust both Lomcevac and T78 well enough to take anything they say here as truthful.
I also know well the aerospace academic who was ETPS' external examiner for some years - he supervised my PhD and recently examined one of my own PhD students. He would have been utterly intolerant of the sort of malpractice Reinhardt is alleging. The same I'm sure would have been true of any credible replacement.
G
I also know well the aerospace academic who was ETPS' external examiner for some years - he supervised my PhD and recently examined one of my own PhD students. He would have been utterly intolerant of the sort of malpractice Reinhardt is alleging. The same I'm sure would have been true of any credible replacement.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 21st Apr 2015 at 20:50.
Moderator
To the OP, those who aspire...
The term "test pilot" has a core understanding, though has a broader interpretation too. There is no one kind of test pilot, nor one kind of aircraft to be tested. Thus there can be no one kind of test pilot - it takes many.
I don't know of a definition for test pilot. I am certainly subject to highly qualified opinion here, but I will suggest that "test pilot" could mean that you act as a flight crew member, as directed by a competent entity, to evaluate, confirm, or demonstrate compliance toward certifiction or acceptance of a type or a modification.
Test pilots will have in common a serious and inquisitive interest in how and why aircraft fly, and how they can contribute to defining that, and making it better, or at least documenting its compliance.
Test flying is not about looking for excitement - it's more about enduring some excitement, so the pilots who fly that type will not be exposed to surprises.
A test pilot has missed the mark, if an operational crew comes back, and draws their attention to a meaninful flight characteristic, which they had not detected within the scope of their testing. I have been in this situation twice. Niether were "serious" - but they did remind me to be more vigilent.
There is a pride in flight testing an aircraft, and adding value. Resist the notion of being seen by an adoring audience climbing into the cockpit with your white scarf, that can lead to sudden ego adjustment, when something does not go as planned.
I enjoy test flying modified aircraft (I don't test new types, just certified aircraft with modifications), but in truth, taking a freind, or family member on an adventure in my plane is just as much fun!
The term "test pilot" has a core understanding, though has a broader interpretation too. There is no one kind of test pilot, nor one kind of aircraft to be tested. Thus there can be no one kind of test pilot - it takes many.
I don't know of a definition for test pilot. I am certainly subject to highly qualified opinion here, but I will suggest that "test pilot" could mean that you act as a flight crew member, as directed by a competent entity, to evaluate, confirm, or demonstrate compliance toward certifiction or acceptance of a type or a modification.
Test pilots will have in common a serious and inquisitive interest in how and why aircraft fly, and how they can contribute to defining that, and making it better, or at least documenting its compliance.
Test flying is not about looking for excitement - it's more about enduring some excitement, so the pilots who fly that type will not be exposed to surprises.
A test pilot has missed the mark, if an operational crew comes back, and draws their attention to a meaninful flight characteristic, which they had not detected within the scope of their testing. I have been in this situation twice. Niether were "serious" - but they did remind me to be more vigilent.
There is a pride in flight testing an aircraft, and adding value. Resist the notion of being seen by an adoring audience climbing into the cockpit with your white scarf, that can lead to sudden ego adjustment, when something does not go as planned.
I enjoy test flying modified aircraft (I don't test new types, just certified aircraft with modifications), but in truth, taking a freind, or family member on an adventure in my plane is just as much fun!
Just quoting from the SETP paperwork (not contradicting anything DAR has said, just expanding)...
And to quote Rusty Lowry, recently of USAFTPS and a good and knowledgeable chap...
G
A. EXPERIMENTAL flight testing is defined as flight testing which investigates the characteristics of an aerospace vehicle or its components under conditions not previously tested. Examples include first flights, envelope expansion, and initial performance or flying qualities testing of new or significantly modified vehicles.
B.DEVELOPMENTAL flight testing is defined as flight testing which conducts the initial investigation of the effects of any engineering
or design change to an aerospace vehicle or its components. Examples include structural changes, control law development, and certain systems tests. For systems tests to qualify as developmental, the tests must be of systems under development that are used by the pilot to assist in the control of the vehicle
B.DEVELOPMENTAL flight testing is defined as flight testing which conducts the initial investigation of the effects of any engineering
or design change to an aerospace vehicle or its components. Examples include structural changes, control law development, and certain systems tests. For systems tests to qualify as developmental, the tests must be of systems under development that are used by the pilot to assist in the control of the vehicle
The modern test pilot is an engineer in a flight suit.