recceguy - although your view is a well-thought out perspective based on knowledge and experience, I have to disagree with your ultimate position. My own background includes extensive flight testing. I was once a Test Navigator in the RAF (WSO in the USAF!) involved in test flying fast jets. Although not a Test Pilot, I underwent substantial training prior to carrying out the role (over a year). That was many years ago and since then I retrained as a pilot and am now an A320-series TRI with thousands of hours on type. During my test flying experience, however, I flew with numerous test pilots who were graduates of variously the Empire Test Pilots' School, at RAF Boscombe Down in the UK, the United States Air Force Test Pilot School located at Edwards Air Force Base, the United States Naval Test Pilot School at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland and EPNER (the French test pilot school), in Istres, France. These folks were without doubt top people trained in experimental test flying of new and previously unflown aircraft. The harsh reality, however, is that virtually none of them ever did any experimental test flying once they left their training establishments. This was because unless they were lucky enough to be there at the start of say the Eurofighter or Raptor programmes, for example, their day-to-day existence was testing software and new weapons.
Furthermore, my observations of both my own performance and of the people I flew with was that there was simply no substitute for time on type. A guy who had flown the aircraft operationally was always better than one who had not. We should not be surprised at that - after all who wants to be the first person ever to be operated on by a skillful but inexperienced brain surgeon?! Coming back then to the points being made about TRI/TREs, these people are almost invariably extremely familiar with their particular aircraft and are very skilled in its operation due to a combination of skill, knowledge and experience. Who then do you want to carry out test flying duties (ie post -maintenance testing) on large passenger aircraft? May I suggest you do want TRI/TREs, but ones who have been trained specifically to carry out the particular test schedules required. Given the choice between a 'Test Pilot', fine chap as he may be, or a very experienced TRI/TRE - there is only one winner for me. You take the TRI/TRE every time. Test flying is intrinsically more risky than normal line flying - that just goes with the territory. It simply is not good enough to say you just ignore past test-flying disasters and still back the TPs without reservation. TPs through unfamiliarity on type have on countless occasions in test flying history made significant and in some cases fatal errors. You have to dig deep and find out why accidents happen. Particularly on an Airbus, experience on type plus regular simulator training is critical to being at the top of your game. That precludes anyone not current on type. It would not be true to say that TRI/TREs are the best, but employing them in these duties is one way of reducing risk. Thereafter appropriate further training of these individuals is also critical - a test flying qualification is not.