Several thoughts from one who, at various times, has worked in design, manufacture, acceptance, and maintenance ..
(a) the standard of aircraft at delivery can vary significantly amongst manufacturers ... and the situation is further complicated if the manufacturer produces a "green" aircraft which then goes through a completion centre prior to delivery to the end customer.
(b) larger purchasers may put a small team in place to oversee most of the production sequence to catch and correct problems at an early stage.
(c) the acceptance team is in place to detect non-conformances and provide liaison between the purchaser and manufacturer. Whether a non-conformance is cause for rejection and rectification at the time or it is accepted for subsequent post-delivery rectification is a matter for policy, negotiation, and in-service program workload. However, if the aircraft is not base-lined at delivery, then you had better have some powerful leverage to catch the manufacturer's attention when you find the problems in line service.
(d) I have seen one delivery program where the acceptance was done in a half-hearted, cavalier sort of way by line pilots with the result that a small fleet of high end corporate aircraft gave problem after problem in service for a considerable time until the manufacturing and completion defects were eventually all detected and rectified. The loss of commercial goodwill at the operations end was very significant and the wear and tear on the support people was a thorough pain. Fortunately, the purchaser was significantly important to be able to get rectification assistance from the manufacturer when it got too esoteric for the operator's support organisation ...
(e) a sensible acceptance program needs to be painstakingly detailed so that every system's and gadget's operation is evaluated. Sometimes the evaluation team will pick up a basic certification error, although this is not the main aim of the game.
(f) while the straightforward aspects of the acceptance program can be done by line or management personnel (flight/cabin crew, maintenance etc), some of the more painstaking parts of the work are sufficiently remote from line operations that a degree of specialised training and experience makes for a more successful outcome... sometimes it is difficult when you don't know that which you don't know ...
(g) such training can be obtained from several sources - some years ago I did an introductory flight test engineer course with one such provider and was extremely impressed with the program (even if the dollar cost hurt my pocket somewhat). Similarly, a colleague recently did an acceptance test and evaluation course with the same provider and was equally impressed by the quality of the course. It's not appropriate that I name names but, if Aetius were to do a course with the provider he/she has named ... I'm sure that he/she would be more than satisfied with the standard ..
At the end of the day, we don't expect a C172 pilot to be able to jump into a B747 and fly it well .... why should we expect a line/management pilot to be able to undertake formal acceptance work without the appropriate training and experience ?
Aetius ... do the course, mate.
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 31st January 2004 at 10:18.