Becoming a Helicopter Test Pilot

[SEL]

I was curious about how many helicopter test pilots graduate from the various schools around the world each year and what the ratio of rotary to fixed-wing pilots are on the courses. Or is it not as straight forward as that?

Thanks

[Milt]

Helicopter Test Pilots' Courses

ETPS commenced Rotary Wing Courses in 1963. By 1990 ETPS was up to its No 28 course. Guess the ratio is about 1 in 10+

John Farley graduated on No 1 Course.

Keith Englesman RAN is still active on rotary and fixed wing with experience on about 300 types. Think he graduated with USN at Pax River.

My first chopper was a Sikorsky S51 in 1952.

[john_tullamarine]

... a fine fellow is Keith Englesperson ... is he a PPRuNer ?

[John Farley]

John Farley graduated on No 1 Course.

I would have been proud to do so but had to make do with graduating from No 22 FW fixed wing course that same year. No1 RW course and No 22FW ran concurrently.

JF

[Shawn Coyle]

USAF TPS doesn't touch helicopters, so that skews the numbers more in favor of FW, as they do quite a few people every year. USNTPS does about 25% RW, ETPS about the same, not sure about EPNER, but they have a large helicopter contingent. NTPS is about 15% RW, sometimes more.
I find it interesting that the USAF puts through (over the past 20 years or so) 50 people (pilots, navigators, flight test engineers) through their course, the US Navy about 30. The highest ranking USAF TPS graduate has been a 4 star, not sure about the US Navy, but it will certainly be flag rank. The US Army, who has more airframes than the USAF and USN put together, sends, on average 9 pilots a year to the US Navy school. Half are CWOs, who, while they are excellent pilots have no pull, and the other half, who are officers, don't have much flying experience. The highest ranking US Army officer who is a TPS graduate that I know of was a BGen, currently a Colonel.
What does that say about the state of affairs in the RW world?
(Sorry for the rant.... bit of a pet peeve)

[Two_Squirrels]

Actually, in recent years, the ratio has been approaching 50% RW at ETPS.

[sycamore]

Milt & JT,
K.B.E. graduated ETPS Dec 1973, No 11 Rotary Cse.

Did a deck trial with him on 1-5 April 1974 on "Olmeda", up and down the Channel. Navy were p%^^&d -off as AAEE couldn`t supply Fisheads to do the Trial, so myself and new shiny tp KE went and did it, successfully, even at night in S-K Mk1 XV699, which I think was "051". Nice ship, shame about having to get changed out of goon-suits for lunch,after legging-it all the way from the flight-deck, down 5 decks, up f`orrd, up another few decks, to find scoff had finished, etc etc , but nice rooms, and a very nice batman, for an early morning shake and tea........

[Shawn Coyle]

I was at the SETP membership committee meeting yesterday afternoon, and asked the SETP staff if there was some way to separate out RW from FW TPs - unfortunately not. US Army would be relatively easy, but USN would be difficult without some detailed knowledge.
And SETP doesn't attract a lot of rotorheads, sadly.

[idle stop]

Shawn:
Slightly off subject, I know, but I think there are a few 'retired' rotorheads of great experience in UK who may join if the SETP Membership C'tee changes the rules that presently admit to membership only tps in an active tp role. I bumped into a couple of said at the ETPS 60th last year.
Speaking about the UK, on the military side RW tps generally serve only one tour, often extended for RAF tps, but this certainly used to be to stricter posting limits for Army and RN. The extended RAF tour certaily made it easier for me to fulfil the SETP membership requirements in the late 80s. Apart from those tps who go on to a tutor job or return to the T&E system in executive capacity, the civilian take-up is limited, so there is a bit of 'fade'. Perhaps this gives the impression that few RW tps are actually qualifying.
Just a thought, but EPNER must produce a goodly number of RW tps, what with EC France just up the road at Marignane, but am I right in thinking that few of them join SETP?
See you perhaps at Hamilton Place in June?

[SEL]

Is there a group for RW TPs? Or is there an organisation that has a large RW contingent?

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you separate RW from FW, what do you do next? Separate FJ from Heavy from Light? Civil trained from military? For that matter what do you do with the handful of talented individuals who were trained in one and have migrated to another, or exist in small niches of only two or three specialist Test Pilots?

That said, a non-FT related association that I belong to, the IMechE has a simple approach to this - annually we all are asked to fill out an "activities" questionnaire with our membership form. That creates membership of "groups" within the society - entirely by individual choice - and determines which of the IMechE's many sets of meeting notices, technical newsletters, etc. land on the mat. That presumably wouldn't be at-all difficult for SETP to do?

On the other hand, we were told at the LA symposium last year that SETP needs to reduce the proportion of SCUM in it's membership. That is Southern Californian US Military ! If the society succeeds in that (by, I hasten to add, bringing more of the others in, not throwing anybody out), then most of the concerns others have mentioned above seem to be met in some way.

There is incidentally a helicopters group within the RAeS for those looking for a serious home for helicopter boffinry, but it's membership is all aerospace professionals, not just TPs.

G

[Gregg]

USNTPS puts through 16-24 RW test pilots each year, with the actual number based on the needs of the programs. They are a mix of USN, USMC, USA, and a few foreign students.
Most of the USN/USMC pilots only spend 2-3 years in flight test and move on. The USA pilots tend to do longer tours in flight test.
When it comes to SETP membership, USN pilots generally join as associate members during their tours in flight test and then drop out as they go on to other jobs.
The most active USN/USMC RW TPs in SETP are those assigned as instructors at USNTPS. They are funded and encouraged to participate.

In the civilian world, using my company as an example, we have around 11 test pilots, most have been members of SETP, but only 3 or 4 are still active.

I think the RW TPs are out there, but they tend to not continue active membership in SETP- maybe they aren't getting much out fo the organization?

AHS also provides a forum for RW flight test types- both pilot and engineer.

[Shawn Coyle]

I'll suggest the 'groups' listing at the next meeting, as it will help us to define who the members are and what they do.
The rule on 'actively engaged' is up for a vote soon, and it appears headed for a change.

[bockywocky]

In my opinion RW TP are not so different from FW TP ! Of course the aircraft are different from each other because of the way they fly, but the job of the TP is not.

And also France is starting to mix their TPs. I now even know a French TP working at Istres (home of EPNER) who was trained at ETPS (hello Eric).

For me, the reason why there are less RW SETP members could be that there are simply more FW aircraft than RW...

[Genghis the Engineer]

I knew an Italian AF FW (AMX) pilot who had been given a RW course, then sent over to the UK to do the ETPS-RW-TP course. After graduation, he went home to work as a TP on both.

UK-CAA's new FW-light aircraft TP is an ex RW-TP with a FW-ATPL. So far, he's doing an excellent job of it despite nor having been formally trained in FW test flying.

One of the UK's main sport flying associations (BMAA) has a CTP who used to be CTP of BA(Helicopters).

So, crossover doesn't seem all that unusual. Mind you, I can't offhand think of anybody who has gone from FW-TP to RW-TP? Is that simply that by proportion, there are already more than enough RW TP's in the world for the finite amount of helicopter test flying that needs doing perhaps?

G

[SEL]

My aim is to become a rotary-wing test pilot and I would greatly appreciate advice on my specific situation.

This is my background:

I am 32 years old, live in the UK and hold a first degree in Aerospace engineering from the University of Liverpool. I am currently completing the thesis for my Masters (Southampton University), concerning the vortex ring condition for rotorcraft. I was also a graduate research assistant at Liverpool University (with Prof. Gareth Padfield) for 18 months, working on helicopter flight simulation modeling using flight test data. I have gained my JAA CPL(H) and have a total of 250 hours.

With the background that I have, what advice could you offer as to the best route to follow?

Steve

[Gregg]

I would recommend that you get a job as a flight test engineer for a major helicopter company. Then build your hours as a pilot. Several years down the road, once you have built a reputation within the company as a top-notch FTE and you have also built some more flight hours, the company may be willing to transition you to a pilot job.

[Heliport]

Threads merged.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

What is the least favouite stage of flight for test pilots and why?

[Matthew Parsons]

Landing & Shutdown, because right after that the paper work begins.

[Graviman]

I have always been curious as to at which point the test pilot gets involved with the project. How do you guys go about convincing yourselves (say) that the latest FBW creation of mad groups of engineers will convincingly do what it's told, with no uncommanded moments...

Mart

[Matthew Parsons]

Theoretically, there isn't time to prove that will never happen. There are too many possible input combinations to guarantee that all have been tested.

To ensure that it probably won't fail, quality control throughout development is necessary, then flight test will try to cover all flight conditions within a specified envelope and a specified role.

To be fair, it really only has to be as or more reliable than a mechanical system.

[NickLappos]

All test programs for manufacturers involve a careful build-up of the knowledge. First comes analysis and design (which establishes the way the part/system/aircraft ought to behave) then comes subsystem tests (which attempt to see how the part/subsystem behaves with limited connectivity to the rest of the aircraft) then comes whole system tests (where the whole sub-system is benched and tested - like an iron-bird or tie-down test).

These ground tests and the designers data build up a "smart book" that describes what the aircraft should do in flight. The instrumentation is designed and installed to both check the fitness of the aircraft, and also to track how well each part/subsystem follows the designer's original understanding. Flight test is like exploring a mine field, where you get extra points by not just keeping from blowing up, but also by finding and defusing the mines through prediction. Nobody tests by "diving till the wings almost fall off" any more. In effect, flight test is a validation process, so the trends of the structural and performance data are matched against the actual measurements to assure that the aircraft behaves, but also that the designer knew what he was doing to begin with. Excellent agreement is desired, he loses points if the aircraft is very much better than he thought!

For the record, most accidents occur by surprise, when you least expect it, and during simple flight tests. The really hairy structural demos are usually exciting but uneventful. The damn radio check flight on a Thursday afternoon, or the ferry to a new test facility are the way you lose it, and the failure is by definition a complete surprise to the team.

Also, the typical TPS course is not a complete preparation for a person to perform initial flight tests of aircraft, because the schools do not understand nor teach the critical issues that face the initial flight test team. The TPS curricula are designed to allow military TP's to do acceptance and spec compliance evals, which are important, but not at all what a development test pilot faces in the shakedown and development flight test portion of a program. Few military test organizations do actual initial envelope expansion of new aircraft.

TPS does teach the way to think about a test, and the way to safely conduct yourself, so it is an excellent primer. IMHO, an engineer who is an experienced helo pilot and who has spent time in a manufacturer's design shop, or in a manufacturer's flight test organization is the right candidate for a manufacturer's TP.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As a plank Engineer who became a light-plank Test Pilot (at-least part time, sadly I'm still only paid for being an Engineer) I agree completely with Nick save one thing.

What is far from apparent to anybody outside of the test flying community is the monstrous amounts of paperwork - whether it's plannings, written briefings, test cards, flight test reports, analysis, summary and compliance reports - it's almost endless and a far greater demand upon a flight testers time than flying ever is.

So, paperwork is the worst bit of Test Pilot's job.

Dr.G

[idle stop]

Crossover:
The entry for 'Special Qualifications' in my old RAF Logbook says (aircraft types) 'Various' (qualification) 'tp'. I did the RW course, but the qualification doesn't actually differentiate. (Although the ETPS graduation Scroll does!)
What matters is Role Relation. As an experienced light aeroplane pilot and instructor, I feel adequately equipped to comment expertly on such types, despite having earned my daily bread mostly on helos.
I know of several 'rotes' who have 'crossed' over. One, for example, is CTP of Marsahll Aerospace and now flies very large aeroplanes, having transitioned through smaller twin FW.