Flight Testing vs Test Flying

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thinking out loud here, there seems a concensus that firstly some mechanism allowing proven competence to be checked is a good thing, and secondly that FT is such a varied beast that a straightforward license is almost unachievable. (Incidentally I disagree on principle with undue reliance upon the "old boys net" approach, even in the UK - our industry may be small and authority relatively large , but it's not so small that this approach won't miss able and experienced people.)

Picking up on SUA's point my background is primarily P&HQ, my knowledge of electronics is at best limited. So whilst in our own environments we are hopefully both considered half-decent FTEs, there are probably stacks of jobs I'm able to do and he isn't, and vice-versa. But, I'd guess that our understanding of test planning, conducting testing in the air, briefing and debriefing, etc - core FT skills, are similar.

So, is a possible way this might work some form of "license" which does nothing more than demonstrate an ability to work professionally in the flight-test environment, supported by some form of verified logbook showing the classes of aircraft, and types of test in which either training has been received and/or practical experience gained.

In that context, the minimum license might become an absolute but relatively easy to obtain - it might even be a common license to pilots and FTEs. (This may sound daft, but we've probably all seen both experienced TPs with an engineering background slide into the FTE role, and good FTEs who are competent pilots slide into the left hand using their flight test knowledge combined with flying ability and type knowledge; and in any case any pilot will require necessary pilots licensing regardless of his experience as an FTE.)

Then the "professional log" can be looked at by any current or potential employer who can assess whether a particular practitioner should be sufficiently able to function in a particular task or environment and/or what additional training / supervision / experience might be needed.

Which ultimately looks suspiciously like Lomcevac's mentioned CV and references - the difference being a degree of standardisation and that references can be included within the professional log (avoiding, dare I say, anybody's current employer being asked for references for an employee that they didn't know was looking elsewhere - in the same way as the CEng and Engineers logbook can do).

G