Originally Posted by Affirmatron
As to the rest of your post, I agree, that at the moment TPs/FTEs are accredited by their companies only. The same companies that, by your explanation are small and probably poorly funded. In my opinion these are probably not the best people to also be regulating their own TPs/FTEs.
Sorry, but I really feel that you are arguing that black is white. (Pun intended!, but my previous serious point was about the difference between visible qualification and accreditation for competence - not a statement about any political views I might, or might not, have).
If you want to be a TP or FTE (at-least, one who signs anything) for any UK organisation, you have to submit all of your experience and qualifications to the relevant authority: either CAA or (what used to be called) DFlyingPE, who then decides whether to approve you, and with what conditions. This may be largely invisible at the working level, particularly in military FT - but at any level of seniority in civil aviation it's quite an invasive process. They aren't necessarily looking for a specific qualification, but certainly for overall track record and competence in the role.
In the USA the equivalent civil system is called DER - Designated Engineering Representative, so an authorised TP or FTE has to be approved as a "flight test DER". I've had to deal with various other countries around the world (Australia, Cz, Eire) who all have similar approaches.
Similarly in medicine, anybody changing discipline, country (or in the US, even state) has to be re-accredited by the relevant authority in that geographic / skill area. So, apart from their getting to keep the title "Doctor", I really don't see a major difference. In any case, the world's full of people awarding themselves grand titles (for a hobby, I run a Jiu Jitsu club, and you should see the daft things some self appointed martial arts masters call themselves) - why should our profession be any different ? A title alone doesn't get you work.
Dr.Genghis
