Becoming a Test Pilot

[InquisitivFlyer]

Hello all,

First off I'm unsure whether this should go in the Wannabes forum or here, but I placed it here since it seems the majority of the wannabes forum is oriented towards airline careers. Apologies if it is in the wrong place.

Also, I've had a good look at the FAQ sticky and I've gained some good info from there, though most of it seems circa 2003-2005 so I was wondering how much has changed.

I'm in my very early twenties, and I was wondering if anyone could give me any additional pointers on how to become a civilian test pilot. The military route is unfortunately not an option, since the RAF aircrew door has been understandably shut because I had some very mild, very infrequent wheeziness as a kid - diagnosed as childhood asthma. I'm unsure whether that would also 'close the door' to being a test pilot. I'm still looking to get some military experience whether that's through the RAF reserves or Uni Air Squadron.

It seems to me that the route
Engineering Degree BEng/MEng >> FTE >> Build Hours and gain CPL/ other additional licences >>> Test Pilot
seems to be the way that's recommended here. Would that be true? Are there other courses available nowadays?

I realise it's an incredibly difficult thing to do, and there are no guarantees, the path I've set out above is just a kind of 'ideal scenario' I've put together from reading the older posts on the subject.

I've looked at various test pilot schools and it seems like you need a minimum of 750 hours turbine time for most, and a sponsorship from a company that will put you through the course and employ you.

I've tried to research quite a few careers in aviation and this seems to be the toughest one to gain information on! I'm basically looking for any advice, all advice is appreciated and if people require further info about me/qualifications or want to discuss it further I'd be happy to send you my email via PM. Thanks.

[ICT_SLB]

Inquisitiv,
Firstly I should state that I'm not a pilot but was in civilian Flight Test for close to twenty five years. The route you mapped out is probably the only one I've seen that can lead to a TP position but, as you say, it's a very slim chance to succeed that way. If you've done the research, you should also have realised that for every TP there are many more members of the test team, all of whom must do their job correctly to complete the required testing and achieve the certification of an aircraft. It can be a very satisfying experience to be part of the team even if you're not sitting up front.
Bear in mind that, even if by some miracle, you could follow the military path, you're up against a one in thousand or more chance to get an entry to ETPS, AX, Pax River or Edwards. I've been privileged to work with some of these (some graduates of more than one) and they are both exceptional pilots and analytical engineers.

[Pilot DAR]

Iflier, welcome. As said, you've set the bar really high for yourself. I would never want to say that something can't be done, maybe it can. But the competition for a TP position is big, and there are many very well qualified and experienced pilots from whom to draw.

I have worked and flown with quite a few test pilots. Each one I can think of was chosen, rather than choosing that role. The test flying I have done similarly found me, rather than me applying for it. I was proposed as being the most suitable person based upon my experience. For my experience, there is not a tremendous amount of work out there for many test pilots, and I know a few who have retired, or gone back to commercial, to keep earning. For myself, I would only fly 20 to 40 hours a year of flight test. The rest of my flying is recreational, or personal transportation. You can't make a living, much less return the investment in training, on 40 hours a year of working that job.... My success has come from flying types which are little known to the ex military TP's (like floats and taildraggers).

So you have to have the piloting experience first. For what I have seen, several thousand hours on the class of aircraft for civil test flying. And you'll need a keen awareness of the test methods and certification criteria. Start reading the books on the sticky thread in this forum.

It can be done, but you'll have to put so much into it, you may not be able to see the end point for a while, as you work toward it.... But everything starts somewhere...

As a mentor used to say: "It's amazing what you can do, when you don't know what you can't do!".

[portsharbourflyer]

Inquistive,

Afraid to say in the UK any Flight testing on CS25, or twin CS23 seems to be the reserve of the ex-military (ex ETPS).

I have seen several examples in the US and Canada where Aero Engineering Degree, CPL/IR and FTE position can lead to the position of Test Pilot.


The only Test Pilots from a pure civilian background I know of in the UK are at the LAA/home build level. One of those even had FTE training at ETPS.

The FEEs to self sponsor at NTPS even if you get the flight experience are prohibitive.

Realistically I always found as a pure civvy I had to choose between flying commercially or becoming an FTE. I think I would have preferred FTE over commercial flying.

Your best chance of becoming an FTE is probably getting into QinetiQ.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Pretty much.

I have bits of paper saying that I am a TP, and am in current practice. I took the degree --> FTE --> CPL route sliding slowly but not entirely from back to front seat along the way, and am quite proud of where I've got.

However, I have never flown as TP anything above 1500kg - I might get to 5700kg but have no real expectation of ever assessing part 25 aircraft as a pilot (as an FTE certainly, I have many times, similarly various military aircraft) and it's been far more a skillset feeding my overall work in Aeronautics. I make a very comfortable living doing the various things that I do - but realistically fly 20 hours test piloting in a good year - I might have managed 40 hours test piloting on a couple of exceptional years.. It isn't viable as a main job - even for the majority of ex military people.

Come and join us in FT - it's a fantastic place to work, and you can make it as a TP on part 23 and lighter. But not in Europe, as a full time TP or in part 25 aircraft, without the military TP background. [In theory you could, but the number of people I've met who have done so are absolutely tiny.] On the other hand, within a broader aerospace engineering career, it is incredibly rewarding. It's also, needless to say, pretty tough to get into, so you'll really need to want to be here.

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

Inquistivflyer

Have you done much research into what a test pilot actually does ? I mean "the typical day in the life of" what it is like to be test pilot.

I am not a test pilot myself but I have participated in a formal test flying program. The company I used to work for converted a large T - Prop airliner for the aerial forest fire suppression mission by fitting a large external tank to carry fire retardant plus other mods.

After a fully qualified test pilot crew did the initial flights and cleared the flight envelope I acted as an FO for the rest of the test program. This was required to gather all the data required to redo the AFM performance charts as well as confirm compliance with the performance requirements of the certification regime it was to be operated under.

It was a week of long days and frankly was pretty tedious. We spent hours and hours flying around gathering data one test point a time. After we recorded the numbers at the test point we then changing something ( eg speed/power/altitude etc) and then noted the new data. This was done for hundreds of test points.

I do quite a bit of flight instructing and my experience is non pilots arrive with a preconceived notion of where they want to take their flying career but many find other directions actually end up more appealing to them after they gain experience.

My advice is get an aeronautical engineering degree. Regardless of how life turns out for you an engineering background is a good thing to have. Go learn to fly and see where that takes you. If test flying is in your future it will find you not the other way around.....

[InquisitivFlyer]

Wow, and here I was thinking this looked like a less-active subforum! Thanks to everyone for the replies, realistic advice, encouragement and confirming some of what I had said.

I guess if I head down this route my work really is cut out for me - not necessarily a bad thing. My difficulty now is really making the decision whether I proceed or not.

I'm passionate about aviation, and I'd love a job which focuses on it. Getting a commercial flying job is really appealing to me but I feel flying the big jets I'd miss getting my teeth into the sort of engineering style 'problems' (for lack of a better word) you might tackle as part of a flight testing team, working with some very talented engineers/pilots. Most of you have mentioned working as an FTE of some sort so I'm sure you'll understand.

But then when I think about becoming a FTE, I'd miss a lot of the aspects that come with commercial flying. Agh, it's a tough one when you factor in the financial outlay in both cases.

ICT_SLB, I definitely need to keep the team thing in mind, I'm very much a team player but I can get a bit focussed on wanting to fly.

Pilot DAR, Yeah actually admittedly I hadn't considered that even with a 'TP job' you might not have enough hours to make a living. Genghis touched on this too, thanks.

portsharbourflyer This is the exact decision I feel I need to make too, and it isn't easy! Why do you think you prefer FTE?

Genghis the Engineer, your job sounds excellent but thanks for the realistic advice on the hours you get as TP. I hadn't fully considered it could be that low, something to think about.

Big Pistons Forever, I have to say I really like this piece of advice
"I do quite a bit of flight instructing and my experience is non pilots arrive with a preconceived notion of where they want to take their flying career but the majority find other directions actually end up more appealing to them after they gain experience."

I know that's really what I need to do, but with the majority of the FO jobs on the commercial circuit seemingly being filled by cadets from places like CTC/oxford I almost feel I need to make a decision before I begin. :hmm:

Also best to keep in mind the realities of a job like you said.


Apologies for the long post, but yeah thanks very much for the replies. It's a tough one.

[Genghis the Engineer]

BPF makes a valid point about what TPing is really like. I'd be interested in DAR's numbers, but at a rough guess I'd say that for every 90 minute test flight, I probably do 2-3 days of preparation, and at-least half a day of reporting and analysis. When I was an FTE it was several times that. Military TPs or people in big FT departments *might* half the prep time because of the larger teams sat behind them.

Also it's important to realise that a CPL and BEng are only part of the education and training needed to do the job - there's a lot more to learn on top of that. There are some good books that'll give you an idea of the material - Stinton and Askew are probably the best, but you can find FAA's AC90-89 online for free, which will give you a good idea.

It's a great job, and can be pretty intensive - but actually flying an aeroplane is quite a small part of the whole.

I actually do around 100 hours per year, but the bulk is training, getting somewhere in an aeroplane, or instructing.

G

[ICT_SLB]

Iflier et al,
Just to give you an idea of the timeline and what's required for a typical flight test mission.
About 6 months before: Certification Plan including test requirements written by DER/DAD and sent to Authority for review & comment.
At least one month before: Test Procedure written by System Engineer (often preceded by Rig testing but that's another story). Reviewed & signed off by DER/DAD, FTE (and TP or Safety Officer if potentially hazardous).
At least two weeks before: Flight Test Plan written by FTE including Hazard Analysis/Risk Mitigation if needed. Signed off as Test Procedure.
Day of Test:
Aircraft Status Briefing by Aircraft Controller/Maintenance Lead followed by Flight (Test Plan) briefing by FTE. This attended by PIC, Co-Pilot, FTE(s), System Engineers, Vendor Representatives plus, if required, ground or telemetry room staff - can last up to two hours.
Actual flight (three - four hours)
Debrief - snags for Maintenance, outline of flight followed by detailed review of each test point (if required) with Q & A from engineers.
Post-Flight (immediate to two weeks after)
Formal Flight Log & Report including relevant Aircraft Configuration written up & filed by FTE (may also require pilot input if handling or flight qualities related).
Analysis of recorded data and assessment of test success or failure by engineer or vendor rep. If failure, engineers will need to ascertain what exactly caused the problem and come up with a fix, which will need to be retested.
Test Report written by system engineer or vendor. This is then reviewed by DER/DAD and full report or summary transmitted to Certification Authority.

This timeline is for a Part 25 aircraft aka "heavy iron" but from it you can see that there's probably a minimum of 20 hours of effort before and after one hour of actual flight - and this doesn't include the maintenance activity & inspections to keep the aircraft operating safely. The Safety Review process will probably add many more hours if potentially hazardous flying involving stalls, envelope expansion or specialist maneuvers like Low Visibility Takeoffs or Autoland are involved. Most manufacturers will also rehearse such flying in a simulator. As i said before, Flight Test is a team sport (and it's a big team).

[portsharbourflyer]

Inquisitive,

In answer to your question, difficult for me to answer without revealing my true identity.

To clarify I came very close to working as a FTE at one point I time, but with a CPL/IR to keep current, I couldn't justify staying in a low paid trainee airworthiness position while waiting for the FTE promotion. I had completed the introductory FTE course (as most holders of an approved Aeronuatical degree will have). My Engineering background in recent years has been heavily involved in analysis for certification rather than direct involvement in flight test.

Having done both engineering and flying, I know I would like to be able to have a job that combines the two, as said from a civvy background FTE is the position which allows you to do both.

Get your degree and get your PPL, if within 5 to 6 years it looks unlikely you are going to get the break into an FTE position you can still use your PPL as the basis for a modular CPL.

You don't need to make the decision now. As a lot of people have said you can choose to work in Aerospace it isn't always easy to choose exactly what you do in Aerospace. I have found it was always a case of what opportunities presented itself when you are looking.

The reasons you have cited are also why I think I would prefer FTE.

[Pilot DAR]

at a rough guess I'd say that for every 90 minute test flight, I probably do 2-3 days of preparation, and at-least half a day of reporting and analysis.

Yup, I'd agree with that. BPF has accurately captured the main theme - tedious. In one case, I was required to make 64 three minute timed climbs in a DA-42, to gather climb performance data. Much more than three days analyzing that! Happily, most of the test flying I do is validating handling, rather than performance, so less post flight analysis.

But the only "glamour" associated with it, is that you walk out to the "new" or "different" plane on the ramp. Otherwise, it's hours of tedium, with moments of "Oh boy, here we go....:eek:

If you are in the right place, at the right time, with nearly enough experience, test flying will call you. Knocking at the TP door will be time consuming, focus on just being where the work is being done, and learning from those doing it now. When they step back, you could be next in line - I was....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Whatever else I've ever found flight testing, even performance testing, I don't think that I have ever found it tedious. But then, I find the challenge of constantly learning about new aircraft and systems, often the best part of my professional life.

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

Maybe "tedious" is the wrong word to describe the test flying I did. "Not glamorous" might be a better descriptor.

It was a very demanding days of flying as very accurate flying is required to get good data. It took a lot of personal discipline to bare down and keep the flying to a high standard when you where in hour 3 and doing essentially the same maneuver for the 40th time.

I guess the bottom line is the TP flying was professionally satisfying but very hard work. Personally I am not sure I would want to do it as a career.

I will add a caveat as I was only exposed to one element of test flying. I am sure if you are doing the full suite of flight test cards you will find others that are more fun, however my suspicion is most of the flight testing won't be ripping around doing cool stuff, it will be a program of slow and methodical maneuvers done over and over again.

[portsharbourflyer]

Pilot DAR, Big Pistons, ICT,

I would like to point out that "over the pond" in US and Canada there seems to be a far more positive reception from companies to those holding dual Engineering and Flying qualifications. Add to that in the US/Canada you actually have a number of civil manufacturers that still make entire Airframes.

Here in the UK on the civil side only Britten Norman still make entire aircraft. There are a handful of GA type projects on going but 98% tend to run out of funds or go bankrupt before anything gets certified.

So as our original poster is UK based the options are a lot more limited than had he / she been born State side.

Big Pistons: Out of interest, was it an Electra that was converted for the fire fighting role?

[Pilot DAR]

I suspect that in Canada, "OEM" test flying is somewhat limited too. With the exception of a little I have done with Diamond, all of my test flying has been to support modification approvals on certified aircraft - mostly booms and pods hanging from aircraft, and some float and ski installations.

As such, I write my own test plans, and by agreement with the authority, test only those elements requiring evaluation. But, still, sometimes that it still tedious! When you must fly dozens of climbs, with extremely precise airspeed control, and write down data constantly, it can seem like "work", when you land to top off the tanks, to go for more...

[ICT_SLB]

Portsharbourflyer,
The demise of the airframe industry is the reason there is a high percentage of British TPs & engineers in Flight Test on this side of the pond (including yours truly). Even over here there's probably three or four Avionics or engine update programs for every "new" airframe (and the majority of those simple - or not so simple - stretches). A common saying was "The British aircraft industry is alive & well and living in Wichita, KS".

[Genghis the Engineer]

I am sadly in no position to deny the paucity of the British airframe industry - but hasn't a large proportion of all airworthiness and flight test work been all about modifications. Certainly in my lifetime.

G

[portsharbourflyer]

Well irrespective of if we are talking about FTE work at the incarnation stage or post production modification or mid life updates, it still stands there are more options in the US.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Of course there are - it's a vastly bigger industry.

G

[portsharbourflyer]

Apologies suppose I am stating the obvious.

It isn't just the size of the industry it is a point I made earlier, in the US dual qualified pilots / Engineers seems to be encouraged. Where as my experience of holding dual qualifications in the UK has generally been quite negative.

In my previous contract I was speaking to a Engineer who was cleared for test flying a citation, although he was only cleared for system / avionics tests, it was still the case his company had helped him obtain the flying experience and gain the approvals from the FAA to do this. He was from a pure civil trained flight background and flight hours less than 2000.

That would never happen in the UK.

Even Michael Alsbury of the tragic Space Ship Two incident was an Aero Graduate with a Civil Flight training background, and not a trace of military fast jet experience.

So it just highlights the contrast in attitude between the UK and the US.

[fantom]

I think it might be 'tp' not 'TP', pedant that I am.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Depends upon whether it's a postnominal or a convenient shorthand.

G

[portsharbourflyer]

I believe she was profiled in the Flight International career section back pages once.

I believe if I remember correctly (I may stand to be corrected) she had been through the BA cadet scheme when it was a fully funded scheme.

Therefore I would assume one of the reasons she was able to self fund ETPS or NTPS was she didn't have to fund or have debts from the initial training for the "frozen" ATPL.

Realistically tuition fees on an engineering degree, followed by a "frozen" ATPL, gaining the relevant flying experience and then self funding a test pilots course represents a lottery worth of funding.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I am a test pilot, or even Test Pilot, which I commonly abbreviate in written and spoken English to "TP".

There is an entitlement that graduates of ETPS can use "tp" as a postnominal. I am not a graduate of ETPS, therefore I am not Genghis Engineer tp. I am however Genghis Engineer MSETP, as I met the stringent membership requirements of that august body.


Not sure how we got to grammar and postnominals. Anyhow the lady you're discussing says in this article that she studied at ETPS, although doesn't say which course.

Female pilots: Meet the young woman who tests the world's biggest planes for a living - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10458084/Female-pilots-Meet-the-young-woman-who-tests-the-worlds-biggest-planes-for-a-living.html)

G

[recceguy]

Did she graduate from ETPS after the long Course or a short course ?
Seems she is an acceptance pilot at HAM.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Which is not quite the same as an Experimental Test Pilot, of-course : a different role demanding in different ways.


I would guess, but don't know, that with Airbus behind her she was probably on a "special" course put together to meet specific company requirements. ETPS have done that for various aviation companies over the years.

G

[portsharbourflyer]

Genghis,

I believe she went to ETPS before she was involved with Airbus, seems she has done two years at Cobham Aviation Services before working for Airbus.

[mgrosso182]

Not trying to hijack this forum. But I am in the United states, hold a commercial pilots license with 600 hours, A&P mechanic, graduating with a bachelors in mechanical engineering next may, and I have similar aspirations to become a test pilot but here in the US. Most flight test engineer jobs I have seen require flight test experience and I didn't know if there was a way to gain the flight test experience so I may go through the route of FTE and eventually Test Pilot. Would a masters in flight test engineering be the best option? or just various commercial jobs: CFI, banner tow, jump pilot,... etc. Thanks for any help

[portsharbourflyer]

mgrosso,

Check out the courses at NTPS, they offer a past graduate course in FTE, National Test Pilot School - The World's Test Pilot School (http://www.NTPS.edu)


Had a lot of time on standby lately so chance to research on google, turns out she self funded the 13 week flight test diploma course at ETPS. Apparently the first person to self sponsor a course at ETPS.

The Violinist & Pilot | Swiss in Wales (http://swissinwales.org/New/les-de-montets/)

Would be interesting to know what that costs?

[ICT_SLB]

Mgrosso,
May I suggest rereading my post about modern flight test being a team sport? With the qualifications you state, I would suggest applying to any of the airframe companies for an engineering position within their Flight Test department. Once there, you are likely to carry out flight tests as an engineer and, if you do not find that sufficiently rewarding, may be able to advance (?) to a full time FTE position. This is how the bulk of non-military path FTEs get into the business.

[Pilot DAR]

FWIW, My experience, and that of many test pilots I know, has been that they started in a non flying role in the company, and in the mean time, building piloting skills independantly. Often the beginning point was one of maintenance or production on the company's aircraft.

For my experience, a few thousand hours of GA flying in many types, coupled with maintenance check flying, and sale demonstration flying was the starting point. A non flying Transport Canada delegation for aircraft certification (issuing STC's) gave me the value to clients for STC test flight work.

But, for me, there's not enough work to make a living at it alone, much less pay the cost of a comprehensive flight test course. My training has been short courses and peer mentoring only, specific to what I flight test.

[FTE Pruner]

A lot has been said above, but my view, for what it is worth:

The reality is, that you have no hope of getting a job as a test pilot inthe UK in the current climate, unless you are a graduate from a recognised testpilot school, which means you need to be military.

The number of test pilot jobs in industry is fast shrinking, and the numberof mil TP grads will easily meet the demand of the current UK T&E requirements for a longtime, so industry does not need to invest in any future capability, since thegovernment does it on their behalf.

Flight test in Europe now requires specific licensing, which now mandatesappropriate training, so on the job routes in are no longer realistic (even ifindustry did want to invest in training). I believe Isabelle self-sponsored throughETPS, but did the shorter course as a Production Test Pilot, not Experimental.An enormous achievement, but not what you have asked about. Since ONE personhas achieved this in the history of ETPS, it should give you an idea of the likelihoodof you achieving it. Still worth trying if you want it enough, but no guaranteethat Airbus, or anyone else will give you a job at the end of it.

I suggest the best route for you in the UK would be to join QinetiQ as aTrials Officer -> Get selected for ETPS FTE course (and make sure yougraduate) -> Fly and do some hours building as a normal pilot -> Move tothe USA/Canada and work as an FTE and the hope to get moved across to testpiloting when you have built enough hours.

Alternatively, get a job at somewhere like BAE Systems or Marshall Aerospaceand try to get some on the job training that will get you into FTE’ing (thenfollow the same route as above). It will take you much longer, but sinceselection on to ETPS as an FTE is not certain, it may be academic.

The future is unmanned anyway, so there might not be many test pilots left in 10 years anyway! :8

Good luck

[Reinhardt]

So she is not an Experimental Test Pilot (51 weeks) - she is a Production Pilot (13 weeks)

In other works, she cannot fly prototypes or new systems development...

And she paid for it ...

But ETPS has always been greedy for money since that they have been privatised - they even conduct two-days courses for airline pilots inside some major airlines... and guess how they call themselves after !

[portsharbourflyer]

Although both achievements are very credible getting on the BAe cadet scheme and passing the ETPS short course, an equivalent cadet from the FPP route these day with an 84000 loan to their name would probably not be able to pursue the same route so easily or quickly.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I wouldn't wish to denegrate her achievements or dedication.

I'd guess that with the dedication she's shown so far, she'll be doing experimental testing in a few years on the big stuff she flies, and will have therefore become an Experimental Test Pilot. Best of luck to her in getting to that point.

Eric Brown didn't graduate from the ETPS long course either, and probably no other current living TP, wherever they trained, will come close to his standing in the profession. What matters ultimately is the skillset, and demonstration of that - not which school you went to and how long you were there.

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

[QUOTE=Genghis the Engineer;8946414

Eric Brown didn't graduate from the ETPS long course either, and probably no other current living TP, wherever they trained, will come close to his standing in the profession. What matters ultimately is the skillset, and demonstration of that - not which school you went to and how long you were there.

G[/QUOTE]

:ok:

BPF (Not a test pilot, but a pilot who has done some formal flight testing)

[portsharbourflyer]

Very true Genghis but Eric Brown was also a product of his era.

I think you have to ask had an identical individual of equal ability been born between 1975 and 1985 how would their career progressed. Most likely they would have made it as RAF Fast Jet pilot, most likely they would have got selected for ETPS, but the variety and types available to work on would be extremely limited in comparison to the opportunities he had presented.

The chances are a "modern Eric Brown" would have been sent to the long course at ETPS.

[Tester78]

Izzy does indeed fly prototypes on development work, although not as captain on envelope expansion tests. The ETPS course she completed was the then Diploma Course, which was progressively developed over the years until being dropped as the EASA FTL appeared. The syllabus included performance and flying qualities, including variable stability training, and was therefore wider than the more recent EASA production tp syllabus. Several past graduates of the Diploma Course were immediately used as experimental test pilots and FTEs by their companies after graduation.

I'm not sure what Reinhardt is getting at with his comment about paying for training. All courses at ETPS (and the other schools) are paid for by someone, be they private individuals, companies, or other organisations. If he's implying that Izzy bought her graduation, then the same must apply to all pilots who have paid for training of any sort, be it for a PPL, and ATPL, or a type rating. That doesn't mean that the qualification is guaranteed. ETPS has a proud reputation to maintain and graduating sub-standard students would be a sure way to lose it.

The test flying training world has changed a lot in recent years, and there are (and actually always have been) many different ways to achieve the end goal of a career as an experimental test pilot or FTE. Some (like me) are fortunate enough to have training offered to them for the taking via the military, others have to build up to the qualification via other routes. Either way, a huge investment of personal effort is required.

In fact, even major companies such as Airbus do internal development of pilots and FTEs, as well as hiring pre-qualified people. The former gives long-term in-depth knowledge of the company's products, whilst the latter brings fresh ideas. Both aspects are valuable.

If you want to make a career in flight test, you can. But you may need to be brave in your choices... Be bold!

[Reinhardt]

Tester ...

I found this post from you on pprune, dated 22 Dec 2013 :

" My partner was a TRI/TRE on the 757/767 for a major flag carrier at the age of 23, and she is now a test pilot for Airbus. "

That's a fascinating piece of information, putting into perspective some of your comments from your post of today. I'm at pain trying to assess all the implications of it. Another post, also from Dec 2013 :

“After nearly 30 years of military and civilian flying… “

Waoww…. does everybody think the same as I do ? Sorry, you wrote all that, didn't you ? As for myself, I'm maintaining all my previous posts, which are based on facts, numbers and not ideas.

Expecting more from you in the same vein in the coming days !

[Sootakin]

I am assuming that you are not a flight test professional....you certainly do not sound like one.
You could learn a great deal from the careful and rational response from Tester 78.
Your "and she paid for it" remark sows the seeds of unpleasant implications yet your passive aggressive approach lacks the courage to state clearly and unambiguously what you mean by it.
Let's be clear: ETPS is a joint civil/military endeavour which does indeed have a commercial/business imperative behind it. That does not extend-however much you want it to-in the direction of awarding graduation certificates to anyone who pays the course fee. An ETPS course pass (long or short course) is a hard won qualification for each and every candidate and the school's standards have always been high and remain so.
If you doubt me, sign up for a course. Even you may find the short post maintenance flight test course illuminating......but you won't be able to call yourself a test pilot afterwards. Flight test jobs are for the self-motivated and dedicated.......don't dare criticise those positive qualities in someone you barely know.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Very true Genghis but Eric Brown was also a product of his era.

I think you have to ask had an identical individual of equal ability been born between 1975 and 1985 how would their career progressed. Most likely they would have made it as RAF Fast Jet pilot, most likely they would have got selected for ETPS, but the variety and types available to work on would be extremely limited in comparison to the opportunities he had presented.

The chances are a "modern Eric Brown" would have been sent to the long course at ETPS.

Most likely, but every generation throws up a tiny number of exceptional individuals who may thrive within the system, but occasionally despite it or by different routes. A number of the people flying for Scaled Composites, for example. In Britain right now, Dr. Bill Brooks would be another. Winkle Brown, of his generation, was certainly one such.

G

[Tester78]

Reinhardt,

Izzy is indeed my partner (since 2013), and that's no secret. The only surprising thing is that she sees anything in me!

However, if you can contain your excitement for a moment, read my post again and you'll notice that I confine myself to the facts. There was and is no personal interest in what I've said.

This thread is about routes to becoming a test pilot, and it's important for prospective trainees to understand that test pilot courses at the recognised schools are not attendance courses. They are expensive, and there is a risk of not meeting the required graduation standard. In the case of ETPS, *a number of students have indeed not reached the required standard for short-course graduation over the years, just as is also the case for the long courses. However, those schools will take care to advise potential students on their course entry standard and likelihood of success.

Your reference to '2 day courses for airlines' must refer to training for pilots preparing to fly technical sorties such as post-maintenance checks. I don't know whether ETPS now offers such training, although the major manufacturers do. Such a course and a subsequent technical pilot role would be an excellent first step towards test flying for someone in an airline (or similar) career path, but would not be adequate preparation for immediate employment as, say, a production tp.

As regards your reference to my 30 years flying, I have no idea what you're on about. But perhaps we could keep the thread to its intended subject, of providing advice to prospective flight test professionals?

[recceguy]

"WAS" or "IS " ? - we need to know, reaching this level of the discussion :O

but anyway, family businesses are usually the strongest, be it at Airbus or Boscombe - my little two pence :ok:

[portsharbourflyer]

On the subject of advising Inquisitive about his intended career route, then the question to ask is could inquisitive follow Izzys career path?

I would say probably not, as he/she (that is inquisitive) has to face the prospect of first funding the training for a frozen "ATPL", I would say the one thing which contributed to Izzy been able to self fund ETPS was the fact she was a fully funded Cadet at BA. Now that in itself is quite an achievement considering the numbers that used to apply for the scheme. As I pointed out a cadet from the new BA FPP scheme has a 84000 loan taken out in their own name; this I would assume would severely limit the ability to fund further training in such a short time scale as Izzy did.

I am making no dispersions on Izzys capability, it is apparent she is capable at what she does (probably a fair better pilot than I ever will be). But realistically someone coming into the system now would be unlikely to follow the same route unless they had serious private financial backing.

The truth is I don't think she can be used as an example or role model a what can be achieved to younger people because the same opportunities no longer exist in the same form anymore.

Irrespective the primary reason she is where she is was the capability to self fund ETPS, not through demonstrating excellence as an Engineer working at an Aerospace company.

[Tester78]

Another point to consider is that European flight test training (Cat A or B) candidates should be looking at the schools that have EASA FTO approval, and whose courses comply with the EASA Flight Test Rating syllabus. Training elsewhere risks failing to obtain the FTR, which I think will become increasingly important in the future.

Also, the 'big four' military schools are exactly that; their first priority is training their government customers. 'Commercial' customers could be bumped from the course at quite late notice in favour of the core business, which can be a problem if you've made significant arrangements to attend.

The commercial test pilot schools are probably more able to provide modularised training and perhaps spreading of cost, but you'd need to speak to them.

And yes, it's quite possible to progress from design engineer to experimental test pilot, all within a major manufacturer.

Recceguy,

In flight test we obtain data before drawing conclusions. The same in recce, I would have thought? But thanks for your, um, tuppence worth. I've PM'd you. :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Flight test training at the moment is, let's face it, a bit of a mess: although possibly that's actually a good thing. There is a straightforward route - for those small number of people who have gone military --> TPS. But there are a lot of individuals for whom that's not (been?) an option. EASA have tried, badly and without the support of SFTE or SETP, to create a single solution to the problem and it's clearly not working well.

I recently as a freelancer got one-off approval from EASA for a CVE (FTE really) training course for a part 23 manufacturer: appropriate to the task but not involving any TPS, various of us have been approved for particular jobs based upon particular training and experience, and needless to say no two flight test programmes are alike anyhow.


Pretty much all of the "experts" in the community recognise that in reality you pick the best person for the job, based upon their whole experience and education background - and sometimes that best person is certainly an ex-military TPS grad. But even they're not alike - I don't want somebody whose experience is virtually all on combat aircraft to lead a short field transport programme, nor somebody whose experience is virtually all transport for a a fighter programme. I'm a pretty average pilot compared to several people posting on here and nobody in their right mind would give me an A320 to fly - but I have a PhD in flight mechanics, so might well be the best person for a university led flight mechanics research programme on a smaller aeroplane: that's just my profile. The lady we've been discussing sounds like she has a fair bit of airline operational experience - so you can see why she'd be regarded, as she's also had appropriate technical training, as a safe pair of hands in acceptance testing. I recall BDN once using an FTE who had several thousand hours on gliders as the TP for an air cadet glider programme, as his grasp of the aircraft and requirements was clearly far superior to that of the military TPs available.


There are ongoing attempts to create a relatively standardised licencing system - but that, frankly, is daft and hopefully doomed to failure. Aviation is too varied, and thus so are the range of test flying tasks for "one size fits all" to make real sense. The lady in question is just one example of that.

The best any of us can do is have the best possible combination of flying and technical experience and education, make ourselves available when opportunity presents, and keep trying to do the best job we can.

G

[Tester78]

Genghis,

I would agree with the thrust of that post. The key point is that the ability to conduct a given flight test role is a product of both relevant experience AND appropriate training. The balance between these will vary between individuals, and must be judged accordingly. Some of the best FTEs I have worked with never attended a formal course!

InquisitivFlyer,

I think you've had a reasonably well-balanced overview from most of the posts above. You can probably spot the very few that have no relevant experience to offer you. If you have a real deep-rooted interest in how things fly (and making them do so better), then it can be a great career.

To give your morale a bit of a boost, I can tell you that the test pilot group of 'a major manufacturer of airliners based in the south of France' is made up of about 50% production test pilots and 50% experimental test pilots. Six nationalities are represented, and two, in fact, are female.

The majority of the production TPs were trained under the auspices of the company (or by their previous companies) to an accredited standard, having gathered previous flying experience of various kinds. Several started as engineers.

Of the experimental TPs, about 70% trained through the military long course route (both heavy aircraft and fast jet backgrounds), and the rest via progressive upgrades with the company, again to accredited standards. All are approved by the French DGA according to their qualifications and experience.

Two more points:

You need to be prepared to re-locate internationally, perhaps several times. You've heard about the UK and US industries, but companies such as Pilatus have busy flight test departments too. What about helicopters?

Secondly, I don't think we've answered your question re your medical issue. To undergo training at one of the military schools, you would need to satisfy the medical requirements to fly in their aircraft. However, these are likely to be less demanding than for those joining the military for a full flying career. For the other schools and for later civilian work, expect to need a Class 1 medical; if you can achieve that, you should be fine.

In summary, it's a great career (but never just a job) and it's achievable. But 'selection and maintenance of the aim', commitment and enthusiastic hard work will be needed, until the day you retire! To sustain that, you need a true interest in what you're doing. If that is you, then working as a design engineer, test engineer, FTE or test pilot should all appeal, and you may end up doing any, some or all of these roles. If your username is descriptive of you, then all to the good!

Feel free to PM me if you wish.

[Pilot DAR]

in reality you pick the best person for the job, based upon their whole experience and education background

This is a pretty important factor. There is simply no way that a pilot can hold the skills to fly everything well. It is a stretch to think that a pilot can even safely fly everything - the scope of aircraft and operations is just too broad.

It'll be better to focus on at least a range of aircraft types, and operations, if not a class of aircraft. That's not to say that you won't be able to grow those skills laterally.

[portsharbourflyer]

Tester78,

Of the test pilots at Airbus that are from a pure civilian background how many are UK nationals?


Also remember anyone intending on undertaking an Aeronautical Engineering degree needs to be aware what they are most likely going to end up doing, not what they may end of doing if the cards stack heavily in their favour. So on that note failing to make it initially into a flight test position may mean having to undertake a less interesting project integration position or pure office based analysis role.

I was able to fund training for a frozen ATPL because I didn't have to pay tuition fees at university so graduated near enough debt free; at 9k a year in the UK for a four year MEng plus living expenses the debt an engineering graduate now acquires will hinder the acquisition of a frozen ATPL post graduation.

Secondly acquiring relevant flight experience as a self funded pilot can also be very difficult task in itself let alone looking to progress to flight test.

While many on here have a lot of experience in flight testing, I am not sure they really appreciate the obstacles a UK based civilian Aerospace graduate in 2015 will face.

[Tester78]

Portsharbourflyer,

There are 2 Brit test pilots with all-through civilian backgrounds.

Your other points above are all well-made, and I certainly don't underestimate the difficulty of making a success of this career from a purely civilian background and/or from an Eng degree start. That was my point in my last para above, when I suggested that InquisitivFlyer would need to be prepared to spend time or even complete his/her career as a design engineer, FTE. There is certainly an element of luck required. Those of us that got a flying start from the military do indeed have much to be thankful for, although that's a very hard path too! There is no easy route.

Someone mentioned QinetiQ, and I think they also still employ Flight Test Observers (FTOs), a position that has historically been a springboard to FTE status. The FTOs have typically been engineers and trials officers, whose work involves occasional requirements to fly. Airborne trials photographers are also in the FTO cadre.

[portsharbourflyer]

Tester78, I am intrigued to hear that.

Yes it was one of my earlier posts that stated Inquisitives best chance of becoming an FTE would be through Qinitiq.

I would also say getting in to the correct specialisation to start with will help, flight dynamics, airworthiness are the first position a graduate really needs to be in to get the best chance of getting into flight test. It is possible to change specialisations but that isn't that easy once established.

[Genghis the Engineer]

and I think they also still employ Flight Test Observers (FTOs), a position that has historically been a springboard to FTE status. The FTOs have typically been engineers and trials officers, whose work involves occasional requirements to fly. Airborne trials photographers are also in the FTO cadre.

I would say that unless things have changed a lot that the aircrew role at QQ is pretty much separate and complementary to the job role.

Trials Officers at Boscombe Down are what most of the world would call FTEs. Unsurprisingly, the majority of them are professionally qualified engineers, although there are a few exceptions - I can recall a few current or retired RAF Navigators when I was there, and one physicist.

Photographers, well they're photographers.


The FTO role is inevitably compatible with both of the above jobs. But, for example if you're on a single seat fighter programme, then you may well be an FTE, but you're unlikely to have reason to fly as an FTO.

The same would be true many other places - BAeS at Warton for example employs a lot of FTEs, but very few of them fly on trials.

If you want to be an FTE doing a lot of flying as part of your job, transport or training aeroplanes are probably the best place to be, followed by helicopters, and least of all fighters.

UAVs are interesting - they also need FTEs, typically with an excellent understanding of the eventual role of the UAV (for example I work mainly in earth sciences research flying, where we do a lot of UAV work, but most of our operators and testers come from an earth sciences professional background - possibly via airborne science in manned aircraft). Some of those may get involved in pilot-in-the-loop work, but fairly inevitably there's no flight deck to progress into. That said, I've met a few earth scientists who progressed from the lab to the flight deck as well - research pilots are not the same as test pilots, but the skill sets have a lot in common.

G

[Tester78]

Reinhardt,

You do not know who I am, because you are not part of the flight test world. A significant number of those on this forum for flight test professionals WILL know me, not least because my username is also my previous flight test PERSONAL CALLSIGN! :ugh:

The fact that you accuse ME of hiding behind an identity is an utter joke. Who are YOU???

I will answer your post, but only to defend the reputation of both Izzy and ETPS.

No, I was not on the graduation board! I wasn't even a member of the ETPS staff at that time, although I have been. I was in a management post with QinetiQ, and had no role in the graduation of students.

How do you suggest I have been 'selling her professionally'? Read my posts again. I simply pointed out, in response to your implied accusation, that you cannot buy an ETPS graduation qualification and that test pilot courses are not attendance courses. That is directly relevant to those reading this thread for its subject; how to become a test pilot from a civilian background. I described the training course she did, because that, again, is relevant. In this thread, and others, you have peddled factually incorrect information about test flying that could mislead the OP and others in their career decisions if they made the mistake of thinking that you knew what you were talking about.

Before you suggest it: No, I did not help Izzy get a job at Airbus. If you wish to, check with the Chief Test Pilot. PM me and I'll put you in touch.

All this is grossly unfair to a lady who has managed to achieve what you probably envy. She has never sought publicity; she had to be persuaded (even instructed) to give the interviews quoted, and now declines them. She just wants to be allowed to get on with her chosen career. Her case was raised in this thread (not by me) as an example of what can be achieved. She is not the only female test pilot, or the only one from a civilian background, and she is simply one of a great team of highly competent and qualified people.

Reinhardt, take a long hard look at yourself. And stop blundering around in a forum for which you appear to have no credentials and nothing relevant or factual to contribute.

[Tester78]

Oh, and I still have no idea what your last point means.

Never mind.

[LOMCEVAK]

Ladies and Gents,

Thus far I have restrained from making any comments on this thread but I have followed it closely. Now I feel obliged to join in.

I will vouch for the validity of all of the information that Tester78 has posted regarding his role within QinetiQ and ETPS, Izzy's training at ETPS and her role at Airbus. I will also confirm the fact that ETPS has very high graduation standards and not all students who start the courses there complete them successfully, whoever they are and wherever they are from. But I will also add that this is because not everyone has the ability to pass the courses although they do all try very hard and it is difficult for the ETPS staff when nice, professional people who work very hard simply are not suited to the flight test discipline.

Reinhardt,

Perhaps you owe it to followers of this thread to establish your credentials for joining in the debate here, obviously without compromising your anonymity.

Rgds

L

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm quite glad right now that I no longer have responsibility for keeping certain people to good behaviour on here, but I will say that I know and trust both Lomcevac and T78 well enough to take anything they say here as truthful.

I also know well the aerospace academic who was ETPS' external examiner for some years - he supervised my PhD and recently examined one of my own PhD students. He would have been utterly intolerant of the sort of malpractice Reinhardt is alleging. The same I'm sure would have been true of any credible replacement.

G

[Pilot DAR]

We're on the ragged edge here posters, could we reign in the rhetoric please....

[Pilot DAR]

To the OP, those who aspire...

The term "test pilot" has a core understanding, though has a broader interpretation too. There is no one kind of test pilot, nor one kind of aircraft to be tested. Thus there can be no one kind of test pilot - it takes many.

I don't know of a definition for test pilot. I am certainly subject to highly qualified opinion here, but I will suggest that "test pilot" could mean that you act as a flight crew member, as directed by a competent entity, to evaluate, confirm, or demonstrate compliance toward certifiction or acceptance of a type or a modification.

Test pilots will have in common a serious and inquisitive interest in how and why aircraft fly, and how they can contribute to defining that, and making it better, or at least documenting its compliance.

Test flying is not about looking for excitement - it's more about enduring some excitement, so the pilots who fly that type will not be exposed to surprises.

A test pilot has missed the mark, if an operational crew comes back, and draws their attention to a meaninful flight characteristic, which they had not detected within the scope of their testing. I have been in this situation twice. Niether were "serious" - but they did remind me to be more vigilent.

There is a pride in flight testing an aircraft, and adding value. Resist the notion of being seen by an adoring audience climbing into the cockpit with your white scarf, that can lead to sudden ego adjustment, when something does not go as planned.

I enjoy test flying modified aircraft (I don't test new types, just certified aircraft with modifications), but in truth, taking a freind, or family member on an adventure in my plane is just as much fun!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just quoting from the SETP paperwork (not contradicting anything DAR has said, just expanding)...


A. EXPERIMENTAL flight testing is defined as flight testing which investigates the characteristics of an aerospace vehicle or its components under conditions not previously tested. Examples include first flights, envelope expansion, and initial performance or flying qualities testing of new or significantly modified vehicles.

B.DEVELOPMENTAL flight testing is defined as flight testing which conducts the initial investigation of the effects of any engineering
or design change to an aerospace vehicle or its components. Examples include structural changes, control law development, and certain systems tests. For systems tests to qualify as developmental, the tests must be of systems under development that are used by the pilot to assist in the control of the vehicle

And to quote Rusty Lowry, recently of USAFTPS and a good and knowledgeable chap...

The modern test pilot is an engineer in a flight suit.

G

[LOMCEVAK]

To keep the record straight, Rusty Lowry was the Technical Director of USN TPS until he retired a year or so ago.

[Pilot DAR]

Quote:
The modern test pilot is an engineer in a flight suit.


I must be non modern then, as I have neither of those. ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks for that correction Lomcevac - my (rather embarrassing) typing error.

G

[Tester78]

...an engineer in a flight suit.


...is an FTE?!

Seriously though, I would say that the first requirement of a test pilot is to fly the test with sufficient accuracy to obtain good data and form useful opinion.

To do that safely and effectively, he or she needs to understand how and why that test has been designed; where the edges of safety might be; and how the data will be used. That requires a level of engineering understanding, which (I suspect) is the thrust of Mr Lowry's point. But the TP must still fly the aircraft to the necessary standard in often unusual conditions. This does not normally require an exceptional level of pure handling ability, and the white scarves should most certainly be left at home. But the nature of flight test is that things go wrong, and an ability to react quickly and correctly is also needed.

DAR is right to point out the wide breadth of the flight test world and the range of skill sets needed. But, for me, a test pilot in a flight test team is there as a pilot with engineering understanding. A flight suit with an engineer inside, if you like!

[Reinhardt]

The English langage (well, only as used by some) is confusing, because of being too simplistic, not enough vocabulary : the reported sentence from mr Lowry can make a lot of people believe - and notably the airline pilots without University background - that the guy signing the tech log will become one day a Test Pilot, given the opportunity.

It should be stressed that an engineer is a mechanic, and not a Graduate Engineer (somebody with a couple of Masters or PhD in Engineering from difficult Universities, who could or couldn't not be very good in changing the tyres or unplugging the GPU after starting the engines)

You meet the graduate engineers in aircraft factories, and some from Flight Test department will work on a daily basis with Test Pilots, and some of them will therefore become FTE (Flight Test Engineers) through the appropriate channels. In some countries you even have a distinction between Flight Test Mechanics and Flight Test "engineers" - separate courses at the Test Pilot School, different diplomas, different backgrounds (which doesn't mean they don't work together after !)
Same for Test Pilots and Acceptance (or production) Pilots, either you ave the diploma, or you don't.
Same for Test Pilots, factories (not only in Aerospace) are full of people claiming to be Graduate Engineers, when they are technicians at best.

A couple of technical questions or homework will usually put the record straight...

Now I'm expecting the usual answer "who cares about the diploma, it's the value of the individual who comes first.." Typical political correctness, in times when any youngster downloading stuff with a laptop does claim to be a scientist...

My personal advice to anybody aspiring to a career in the area : go for the highest diploma first, associated with the highest qualifications, that will solve a lot of your job-searching tasks... otherwise, be prepared to be hired through graphology, group exercises, psycho interview, Zodiac signs, freemasonry, or even quotas for previously disadvantaged populations...)
As some people say, diplomas and qualifications are only for people who couldn't do otherwise !

A lot of issues are currently coming from EU bodies (EASA) trying to streamline the diplomas amongst 28 or so countries - and for diplomas related to flight test, only a handful of nations have a significant aircraft industry, and feel (or not !) the need to standardize it. For example Ireland with thousands of commercial pilots and the english langage like US or England, but without a related industry, will not care at least....

[John Farley]

I agree with everything Tester 78 said in his post.

However I add the following thought:

I suggest those whose duty it is to criticise but who give way under management pressure are letting down their fellow airmen, no more and no less. In my view such men are not test pilots, they are just pilots who fly flight tests.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A thought or two:-

John.F - Couldn't agree with you more. Very hard to train, and often against significant management pressure - but yes, vitally important.


Tester78 - Agree also, but I'd never wish to denegrate some very good FTEs out there who don't go flying. There are certainly pilots I've worked with whose understanding of engineering is better than a few engineering graduates I've worked with - so it's inevitably a blurred line.


Reinhardt - "an engineer is a mechanic". The English language does the engineering profession no favours and the terms engineer, technician and mechanic are all ambiguous, but you're not helping either. However, (and I "speak" as somebody with a better university education than most) you are wrong in almost any part of the world. Degree certificates are useful, but they're absolutely no substitute for a demonstrated skill in the job.

Much the same might be said of pilots licences - you obviously need the licence to fly the relevant flying machine, and in some environments there's significant benefit in having graduated from a particular (type of) specialist training school. But, ultimately, you need to prove you can do the job well enough for the programme.

G

[John Farley]

Ta Genghis, the point I was trying to make (which I might not have made clear) is that I think a test pilot has a duty to see that the data he hands over is properly used. If he doesn't bother about that I see him as just somebody who flies flight tests

[Genghis the Engineer]

I recall the author going into more detail on the point, extremely well and with real world examples, in this very readable book. (http://www.aviewfromthehover.com/)



G

[Pilot DAR]

Reinhardt, try as I may, I struggle to understand the point you may be trying to make...

I agree that "Engineer" is a too widely used term, and thus subject to conveying a lack of clarity. For myself, I like to show the respect earned, by using it to only those who have earned the privilege of being accepted into a professional engineering association. I am not such a person. Otherwise, we also have technicians and mechanics - which I am both, with the skills and signing privileges to prove it.

But, for my experience, and knowledge of many test pilot's backgrounds, a test pilot can come from a wide range of life paths, with none being better than another. Nearly all of the test pilots I know, including myself, were drawn into the role by invitation, rather than application. For me, and many other test pilots I know, it was suitable flying experience on the type, and role, with a strong mechanical/systems/aerodynamics or certification background, which resulted in their being invited into the job of test pilot.

It can also be a matter of the body of skill and knowledge being deep or wide. I know some test pilots who only fly a few types, and freely admit that they would not even touch certain types or tests, where others (like me) are wide but not deep in their role. I "check" test fly many different types, with many different modifications, but if a very substantial test program is needed, I will probably hand the program off to a more qualified or experience test pilot, with a skill set in that specific realm.

This may be a rather "old school" perspective, but it is what I know from my corner of the industry. The result is a great challenge in defining a prescribed path to end up a test pilot, it just seems to happen to those who can fill the role as needed. I think it is very much the employer's to choose what experience and qualifications are needed, not so much the applicant's to anticipate.

Therefore, for anyone aspiring to the job, the best which can be said would be to gain education and experience, along with piloting experience, and then be sure to be employed somewhere that flight testing is being undertaken, so you can express your interest.

Perhaps more will work toward, and apply for this role than will be called, but we will happily encourage those who demonstrate an interest, as new test pilots have to come from somewhere....

[Reinhardt]

DAR Pilot


I got it - I think you should look abroad, away from your country, and that would make it easier for you to understand other people point of view.


So basically in my country it's exactly the opposite of what you have been developping in your post :
Prospective test pilots are required to have demonstrated a high level of proficiency in an aviation field, in order to be able to expand the scope of their knowledge and flying experience.
They shouldn't be too young in the business (for obvious reasons) but also not too old (to accept criticsm during TP school, as a starter)
They have to be university graduates, with high level diplomas in mathematics or physical engineering (so very theoretical, not technicians) Call those diplomas Masters, PhD, graduate engineers, or whatever, they have specific names in my country, and that's what matters.
Then candidates will pass a theoretical exam of quite a high level, followed by a flight in a type of aircraft exactly the opposite of the one on which they have experience (fighters pilots after minimum briefing will fly a transport type they will discover in the morning, and transport pilots will be seated in a fast jet cockpit..)
So candidates are not "chosen" ....
What we try to avoid is to have a XXX pilot with apparent good technical knowledge, to teach him to be a test pilot of the same XXX ! (as I know it's what happens in some places)
Therefore it's not surprise in this country that all TP are ex-fighter pilots, with the required academic background (which does exclude 2/3 of the potential candidates from this origin in my country) AF officers have to be graduate engineers, which is not the case in many other countries, thus making here the selection process for TP a little bit more ..."prepared"
Therefore TP of famous Airbus types are ex-fighter pilots, apart from a couple of exceptions from time to time (you are welcome to check)
Candidates without the required background will be channeled through the other paths of flight test (which will not prevent some, being FTE, to portray themselves (or be portrayed ?) as TP in some publications (probably because they fly general aviation on week-ends)
Also excluded for ever are airline pilots, because definitely they lack the minimum academic background - not even talking of airline hours being adequate for future flight test experience ...
So that's the way it is (and in this country our industry is just making fighters, airliners, helicopters, business jets, engines, avionics, missiles, radars..) so there might be some justification in being this way.
As I have been stating previously, each country can do it its own way !
Even there used to be at Bombardier a national from the above-mentioned country, who was boasting himself for being a TP without anything as written above - so opportunities can even exist, moving from one country to another.
Gengis, you are not the only one "with a better university education than most" ..... !
and DAR : "Nearly all of the test pilots I know, including myself, were drawn into the role by invitation, rather than application" I say again, totally the opposite - but it's not me, it's my country process, and given the results for 70 years, they shouldn't be so wrong.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Reinhardt - your profile says you're in Qatar. The SETP members database lists none in Qatar. Qatar does not have an aircraft manufacturing industry.

I'm sure that it has a few military TPs somewhere, but far too few to be a representative sample.

I've met many Airbus TPs, some but by no means all of them are former fighter pilots. Some of them don't have technical degrees, some don't have degrees at-all, and not so few its irrelevant.

I am quite sure that if I am looking towards a test pilot job a prospective employer is far more interested in my flying and flight test experience than my BEng and PhD. If I was looking to a university research job that involves some test flying (oh gosh, that's what I actually do, but I already knew that I'm not qualified to work as a TP for Airbus in Toulouse) then the reverse would be more true.


So, I'm afraid Reinhardt that I have to concur with Tester78 and Lomcevac - you really don't know what you are talking about.

For what it's worth, as I'm probably better known on Pprune than they are - I've known both T78 and Lomcevac for a couple of decades, flown with both, and they're vastly more experienced pilots than I am - as well as both having been TPS instructors (I just supervise flight test related PhDs and do a bit of flight testing and specialist training from time to time).

G

[Tester78]

I think that I can add some clarity!

Reinhardt is French (although with some experience of the UK, n'est pas?), and it's true that there have been differences of national approach across the world. It used to be the case in France that all fixed wing military pilots selected for training as experimental test pilots were from a fighter background, but that's no longer the case. Meanwhile, the UK (for example) has trained fixed wing pilots from both fighter and heavy aircraft backgrounds since the earliest days of ETPS. But that's of only passing interest to the OP and others reading this thread with an interest in the civilian route.

There may also be confusion between the terms 'test pilot' and 'experimental test pilot'. I don't mean to reopen the question dealt with above: the definition of a test pilot. I've had my say on that. But let's clear up the regulatory/qualification issue. In France, the CER of the DGA approves individuals to conduct flight testing, both military and civilian. Approvals are granted on the basis of qualifications and experience (but not education), and must be renewed 6-monthly. Approvals can be as 'test pilot' or 'experimental test pilot', and these categories are reflected in the ops manuals of the companies conducting flight test. Test Pilots can captain flights that do not involve envelope expansion, and can fly as P2 on flights that do. Experimental Test Pilots can captain the full range of tests.

To be clear, there are plenty of pilots working their way up the flight test ladder in France as well as other countries. Those starting via the military do indeed need a good educational standard to be selected. But many others are following different routes. So yes, in France there are ex-FTEs that have gained approval from their national authorities as test pilots. In the same way, there are test pilots who have become experimental test pilots. It's called professional development, and requires appropriate training at every stage. There will always be people masquerading as things they are not, in all professions, but that doesn't change the fact that many others work hard to rightfully progress in their chosen careers.

Reinhardt's description of the French test flying environment is a bit out of date and overly simplistic. I share his pride in the aeronautical history of France. But I'm equally proud of that of the UK, and I don't see a significant difference in the efficiency or safety of test flying on each side of the English Channel over the decades. There have been differences of approach, but none clearly superior. Nonetheless, it's certainly true that someone starting a clean-sheet civilian career with the long-term aim of becoming an experimental test pilot, via, say, a design office and FTE development path, would be well-advised to start with a relevant engineering degree to minimise the requirement for luck. Rest assured that astrology and quotas play no part, though. In my experience, flight test is still a meritocracy and I don't see that changing.

[Pilot DAR]

Reinhardt, we see things differently, based on different history, and experience, and that's perfectly fine, as long as each respects the other.

As you said, my experience and observation is opposite to yours, mine, and that of a number of Canadian and US test pilots I know, is exactly the meritocracy which Tester78 so aptly describes.

So candidates are not "chosen" ....
What we try to avoid is to have a XXX pilot with apparent good technical knowledge, to teach him to be a test pilot of the same XXX !

I was chosen. There's no other way to describe it. Transport Canada Aircraft Certification Engineers called upon me as a citizen, and then later as an Aircraft Certification Delegate of Transport Canada, to fly a number of aircraft for the purpose of confirming continued design compliance, following external modifications or alternate landing gear being installed. I did not request or apply for this role, I was asked, and agreed to fly. Interestingly, for one of those programs, I was the only pilot TC could find within their available choices nationally, who had the required combination of skill experience and qualifications at the time. Happily, TC has since hired a very competent test pilot, who also has the required experience, and he and I have flown together a few times on program.

The TC request for me to fly was based upon my skill and experience flying this type of aircraft and or modification configuration. I was "taught" to be a test pilot for this purpose, by being told what to fly and evaluate, how to gather the data, and what information the report was to contain. So, a pilot with good technical knowledge was taught to be a test pilot.

followed by a flight in a type of aircraft exactly the opposite of the one on which they have experience (fighters pilots after minimum briefing will fly a transport type they will discover in the morning, and transport pilots will be seated in a fast jet cockpit..)

But there are more types than just jet transports and fast jets. And sub from that, there are unusual operations to be evaluated too. The modification might be how the aircraft is being flown, more than the modification to it. (Parachute exit from GA aircraft, or deploying and recovering a towed object for example)

For myself, I have never flown a jet powered aircraft, and nothing in my career expectations suggest that I ever will. 30 years ago, when I was a very young part time sim tech for an airline, I had access to the DC-8-63 full motion but nearly no visual simulator we had. I taught myself to fly it late at night, after the real pilots had finished training. I read the flight manual, and with zero dual instruction just went "flying". I accumulated 45 hours of accident free flying in it, including a number of self induced emergencies. It was an airplane. What it had in common was that I would take off from a runway of suitable length, and return to that same runway. It was not particularly challenging.

When things get different is when the type of aircraft is other than a jet, and the thing you are doing with it is other than landing on that nice paved runway, or the aircraft is changing configuration in flight. I assure you that it is much more safe to take a competent pilot on type and operation, and ask him to gather flight test data, in accordance with a prepared and accepted flight test card, than it is to send a highly qualified engineer to fly a very different aircraft in a different environment. In the worst case, the non TP "pilot" will miss the test objective, and have to repeat the test to get the required data.

Sending a non qualified pilot, highly qualified "tester" (TP) out in a new plane could have needlessly high risks. I assure you that from my experience, a jet/mid to large transport pilot is going to have a seriously hard time flight testing a floatplane, flying boat, or taildragger on skis. These aircraft must be tested too, and the pilot doing it in accordance with an accepted test plan would seem to be a "test pilot".

So, flight testing is not a one size fits all. Pilots are not, and cannot be one pilot fits all aircraft types. Respecting Genghis' kindly provided definitions of a test pilot, the only thing that makes me think I am one, is that people keep asking me to flight test their aircraft, and the authority keeps approving the flight test plans, and accepting my reports in support of STC approval.

Other than that nuance, I'm just a pilot, with some flight test training, and 20 years experience, flying some really weird light aircraft. Attempting to include to exclude a pilot in the test flying world, may work if you are the person doing the hiring. Otherwise, your opinion is interesting information about your local environment, but has no affect on other jurisdictions. Whatever the DGAC chooses to do is fine with me, it's not my flying environment....

[Reinhardt]

DAR and T78, I had much pleasure reading your posts, and I must say that I do acknowledge your assertions as being full of sense.
Even if I do recommand a strict system of diplomas and qualifications, that doesn't mean that I do advocate an apartheid sytem where people would be doomed for ever in their positions ! Steps ans stairs have to exist, to encourage people to climb them - and we all know some talented professionnals who did.

It's just that some order is needed, and competitive exams based on established abilities and knowledge do seem for me (and a lot of others) the fairest way to get to the positions.

I remember a CTP about to depart for an experimental flight with a big airliner, disembarking in a most expeditious way some people without a clearly defined role or position... and that doesn't mean mistakes have never been made in that field.

DAR, we have in this country a TP course for light aircraft, which is by no means an easy program. Those aircraft have to be treated with respect - I think in my whole career so far, the most difficult a/c I happened to land (or try to) had been one of them, an absolute terror...

TP from this country get the right to fly everything, which is the beauty of the job, trust us.... But it's usually a short-timed assignment (in fact it's probably better, as some would consider themselves as God after some years) and then once with Airbus, it will only be Airbus products !
To finish with DAR, not, not in any case will it be a DGAC affair (they are too busy with licences, duty times, private flight schools agreements, colors of lifejackets) to have a Flight Test Department ( the sort of which Transport Canada does seem to have, as per your post)
Maybe all of us will have learnt a little bit from those exchanges, and that prospective TP will have found a little bit of it useful....
In any case TPs often have to suffer from the jealousy of other colleagues, so maybe we can limit our disagreements between ourselves !

And... guys, sorry it was a great day in Qatar today (no civilian stuff) - read the aerospace news - so back to the drinks....

[John Farley]

disembarking in a most expeditious way some people without a clearly defined role or position.

Naturally. A test flight is not the time to take non crew members - whatever their qualifications.

Anyhow in my book education and qualifications (for ANY job) merely allow your name to finish up on the short list of applicants.

[Pilot DAR]

Thanks Reinhardt

TP from this country get the right to fly everything, which is the beauty of the job, trust us.... But it's usually a short-timed assignment (in fact it's probably better, as some would consider themselves as God after some years) and then once with Airbus, it will only be Airbus products !

And that is probably central to the differing perspective various posters here could have. Of course, one should follow one's desired pilot path as much as possible.

I know that very modern airliners are an order of magnitude more systems complex, and I'm sure a total mind capture, for those pilots who enjoy that type of aircraft. I completely respect that, but it's not for me. The apogee of my flight test career will not be in a jet, or a systems complex aircraft, it will probably be in another floatplane, or rag and tube taildragger, and I'm fine with that.

In our evolving aviation industry, there will be a need for test pilots who can evaluate new small aircraft designs as well as large ones. The great challenge is that there is no where near the financial inertia in flight testing modest light aircraft as there is in airliners, helicopters, and military aircraft.

It is less likely that the light aircraft industry will find a large aircraft, fast jet, formally trained "test pilot" who has thousands of hours of experience flying very light aircraft, to undertake flight testing of a mod, or a new aircraft design. For the pilots who do have the flying experience on these types, and varied undercarriage configurations, it is very unlikely that they have come from a career path where formal flight test training was an element.

A generation ago, the light aircraft test pilot could be drawn from a military pilot group with lots of small aircraft experience on light types, but I think not so much these days.

Flight testing is a larger "industry" than just big, complex aircraft, and therefore "test pilot" is a much more varied role than one type of pilot could be expected to accomplish....