Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Royal Navy Maintenance Test Pilots... Do we need them in this day and age?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Royal Navy Maintenance Test Pilots... Do we need them in this day and age?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 26th Jun 2009, 23:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil Royal Navy Maintenance Test Pilots... Do we need them in this day and age?

Originally formed to ensure consistency of cable rigging lengths for the Stringbags in days of yore. RAF and AAC don't have them. Why should the RN?

Petrol poured...

IT
Irish Tempest is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2009, 23:31
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fraid to say that the Army does have MTP's! Any more accurate fishing to be had.............
HEDP is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2009, 23:50
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aha, but these do not operate in the same way as RN MTP's which are Engineer Officers. AAC MTPs are specialist pilots with Eng experience vs RN Engineer Officers who then get trained to fly. Big difference albeit same TLA.

Rod out again!
Irish Tempest is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 01:34
  #4 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,874
Received 60 Likes on 18 Posts
Army used to have REME MTPs, which were like RN Engineering Officers but much brighter and more handsome, but is this still the case now, especially with Apache?
Two's in is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 09:03
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 463
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
RAF has an MTP at Fleetlands and had, until recently a UTP at Benson.

A more appropriate question is why are they front-line pilots and not contractors, given the shortage of current and qualified aircrew???????????
chinook240 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 09:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wherever will have me
Posts: 748
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chinook you're missing the point. The RN have aircraft engineers who then go onto achieve QSP status in order that they can act as a MTP. The question is why bother going to the additional expense when you have QSPs who can just be given a bit of trg such that they can act as MTP.
whowhenwhy is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 09:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aha, but these do not operate in the same way as RN MTP's which are Engineer Officers
No they are not. There are 2 MTP's at Yeovilton and neither are Engineers. Lets face it....we could probably do away with MTPs...but who in their right mind wants to spend the day conducting Vibro's and Max Con PTF's ?....in view of that, lets keep the MTPs and they can do all the $hitty flying
spheroid is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 16:04
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cornwall
Age: 40
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm sure that many people could argue away the necessity to have AEOs trained as Pilots for the specfic functions that MTPs fulfill - aircraft QA and standardisation across fleets, Flight Testing SMEs, and on occasion a bit of airborne fault diagnosis. Of course experienced pilots without engineering background could do this, and as spheroid mentioned, they actually are at the moment due to a lack of AE-sourced MTPs who are at the right point in their careers. I'm not going to rise to the bait and beat my drum about engineering degrees blah blah blah - but maybe someone who has that kind of mindset and who has more of an insight into engineering/procurement/support issues IS more suited to the role? Another big benefit that isn't often mentioned is the combined aircrew/engineer experience that gets put back into the FAA in the jobs that MTPs move on to after their MTP tour(s). I'm sure plenty of pilots have wished the AEO could see things their way? Also many of the SO1 and upwards AE jobs in procurement, policy and support to ops benefit from having someone with a foot in both the aircrew and AE camps. Anyway, stop arguing my career from beneath my feet!
mtp_rich is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 17:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 834
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
Well, why not have them? They cost no more, or no less than any other pilot, and they have the same career entry point as a GL WAFU. The fact they go on to do AE related jobs instead of PWO related jobs is the only real difference between the two TBH. Or did you not study hard enough at school and couldn't cut it intellectually as an Engineer?
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 18:43
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,759
Received 221 Likes on 69 Posts
Whether they be RN, RAF or AAC, whether they be MTPs or UTPs, let us hope that for the sake of avoiding future avoidable accidents their experiences are listened to with more respect and attention than was accorded the Odiham TP by the Mull BoI, which settled on not calling on him to give evidence at all. A pity, as he could have confirmed that the type was unairworthy, a finding that the RAF has yet to arrive at, as opposed to finding the pilots Grossly Negligent with almost as much unseemly haste as it showed in rushing the type into service in the first place, over the protests of other TP's. I think they lived at Boscombe Down!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2009, 18:59
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When I left Benson the UTP only flew the Puma. The more senior Merlin pilots were the Air Test Captains. I don't believe anything changed, but stand to be corrected! This does allow flexibility of available crews for airtesting both at base, downroute and on ops.
101BOY is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 13:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UTP/UTC at Benson....

We had a very nice and happy time; no night flying, no weekends, no detachments just two-crew airtests whenever required plus delivery flights to NI when required. Then 'fookin' AaaaJaaay' came along and made a complete c@ck of it by being selfish, opinionated and a thorough PITA! So the UTP/UTC posts were dis-established!! Thanks AJ you b~stard!!
I would suggest that air test crews need to know what they are about; it is naive to think that any gash hand can do them safely, thoroughly and to a standard. Experience is what is required. A dedicated FTRS crew was ideally suited and it suited them but when it was expunged from the establishment and the UTP/UTC had to return to the day to day 'nausea' on the Sqn the whole issue lost its' appeal.......... and I left.

Last edited by Dundiggin'; 28th Jun 2009 at 13:53.
Dundiggin' is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 11:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: ANDOVER
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EX MTP

the navy has this system for maintaining performance standards of aircraft. and it has worked very well for years. whether a non AEO MTP is as effective as an AEO MTP depends entirely on the individual and his standards
EX MTP is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 12:34
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Used to work with an MTP in MoD(PE), after he finished flying. Bloody good at his job (engineering programme manager) and, as has been said, brought a much needed perspective. He was then posted to FONAC/FONA to a job he was probably well suited for, determining what the FAA would look like after the forthcoming cutbacks. Unfortunately, by then (about 1995) the decisions had already been made to slash the Support Helicopter and AEW fleets and ditch SHAR and he didn't have much left to work with.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 16:08
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Location: Location!
Posts: 2,299
Received 35 Likes on 27 Posts
Met several RN MTPs over the years. Always amuses me to hear them describe themselves to a non Navy audience more often or not as a pilot rather than an engineer. Several continue to describe themselves as such years after they have returned to ground tours in engineering posts. - CK

I wonder if CK ever met met Commander Alan Tarver GM over the years, and whether he would describe him as a pilot rather than an engineer, having read the first entry at The George Medal | General Chat | Discussions | Community | The Caravan Club

Jack
Union Jack is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 18:23
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Nearest I ever got to "maintenance" or any test flying was doing "trim checks" on the Canberra. Involved flying to ISTR 450kts at relatively low level. If aircraft was trimmable at that speed all was OK. If not you had to leave the trim where it was and fly back holding the out of trim force which was considerable and land like that. Ground crew filed a bit off the strip at the back of the trim tab and you went and did it again - good way for the JP to get hours, more likely minutes, but a change from bumbling around at 250kts
Wander00 is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 19:17
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A lot of really obvious trolling on this thread for some reason but here's some background on RN maintenance test flying from a general aircrew perspective for interest:

Post maintenance / fault diagnosis ground and airborne checks are listed in a book, let's call it a 5M. Groundcrew can do some of these checks, engines or rotors runnning. Aircrew learn how to do this (in some forces on OCU) and therefore most if not all RN aircrew (in relevant area) can complete the entire 5M which would equate to a full test of the aircraft and it's systems. I.e. a properly constituted crew can carry out the full test. This is important when there is only 1 crew available where you are operating e.g off a ship. Normally you only test the bits that need testing therefore called a partial test flight (PTF).

Every year each aircraft needs a full check of the 5M to be carried out. The relevant MTP is the only person qualified to sign off a full Maintenance Test Flight. This is only one of their duties but one of the most visible.
switch_on_lofty is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 22:47
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 350/3 Compton
Age: 76
Posts: 788
Received 373 Likes on 93 Posts
Qualified as an RN pilot in 1967, was never an engineer but served as a SHAR MTP for some 10 years and was UTP at VL for several. Not sure what the argument is.

PS. Last SHAR trip was a PRL air test that ended with frozen pitch control (or lack of!). Booger! Gott sei dank für the nozzle lever. Still found myself straining to pull the nose up even though the stick wouldn't move; Hey-Ho! No-one died! Swing the lamp.
Mogwi is online now  
Old 28th Aug 2016, 23:53
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,194
Received 388 Likes on 240 Posts
The palm is awarded to EX MTP for this week's Thread Necromancy Award.

Well played, sir.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 20:05
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did time as an MTP although not an AEO. This was in the sixties in Malta on a training squadron and it was because the RN were short of Engineering qualified ones. Was most interesting.
4Greens is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.