Acceptance flight test prep question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acceptance flight test prep question
I will have the opportunity in the near future to pick up new aircraft for my airline and bring them home. Part of the assignment will be flying on the acceptance test flight with the Bombardier test pilot. I've been trying to prepare for it ahead of time so I don't look like a complete idiot.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Besides reviewing everything I can at home about the airplane, systems, and aerodynamics, I have been looking for a more formal short course. I've just about narrowed it down to the two week Technical Pilot course at the National Test Pilot School in Mohave.
Technical Pilot cousre
It's expensive, but it seems more suited to what I need than the Intro to Flight Test course.Intro to flight Test
Does anyone have an opinion on whether either one would help, or do you think both would be a waste of money? Thanks.
Any suggestions would be welcome.Besides reviewing everything I can at home about the airplane, systems, and aerodynamics, I have been looking for a more formal short course. I've just about narrowed it down to the two week Technical Pilot course at the National Test Pilot School in Mohave.
Technical Pilot cousre
It's expensive, but it seems more suited to what I need than the Intro to Flight Test course.Intro to flight Test
Does anyone have an opinion on whether either one would help, or do you think both would be a waste of money? Thanks.
aetius
Don’t spend your money unless you seek a career in test flying, and anyway you could pick up the basics for that from the manufacturer’s test pilots over several acceptance flights.
A reputable manufacturer will not put an aircraft up for acceptance that is not ready and any ‘testing’ that you undertake is most unlikely to detect anything untoward with the design. Therefore just go and enjoy the flights.
Take as much time as the manufacturer will allow and take the opportunity to learn about the aircraft. From your current experience on type you will naturally detect any significant differences or quirks in a new aircraft. The majority of the airline’s acceptance is conducted by engineering and the cabin staff; these are aspects where the manufacture may have less experience than an operator. Always take an engineer with you, preferably one who has flown before else he will snag every new noise. Take a working cabin crew, not management (they forget the practical past too quickly). Evaluate the aircraft as though it were in service; try all systems, switches, knobs, galley, seats, doors, toilet etc at high cabin diff.
Use your time with the manufacturer’s test pilot to enhance your experience. Stall the aircraft in straight and turning flight, and in several configurations. Conduct harsh maneuvering by rolling and pulling to give you a better feel for the aircraft – and compare how it may differ from the simulator (if different its the simulator that is wrong). Similarly fly over-speed IAS and Mach as allowed; experience the Mach buffet or turn buffet points if applicable. Shut down and relight the engines; add to your experience of asymmetric flight and ask for a demonstration of Vmca. Do those things that you would not normally do with passengers, but may have to in an emergency e.g. GPWS pull up, baulked landing go-around, TCAS / wind shear pull up. Fly emergency configurations as allowed, hydraulics failed, control malfunctions.
Brief the cabin crews that the flight is also part of improving their experience; and don’t forget the brown bag for the engineer.
Aircraft fly by the same principles on an acceptance flight as at other times; the only idiots in flight are those who don’t ask questions. Test flying is fun; have fun.
Don’t spend your money unless you seek a career in test flying, and anyway you could pick up the basics for that from the manufacturer’s test pilots over several acceptance flights.
A reputable manufacturer will not put an aircraft up for acceptance that is not ready and any ‘testing’ that you undertake is most unlikely to detect anything untoward with the design. Therefore just go and enjoy the flights.
Take as much time as the manufacturer will allow and take the opportunity to learn about the aircraft. From your current experience on type you will naturally detect any significant differences or quirks in a new aircraft. The majority of the airline’s acceptance is conducted by engineering and the cabin staff; these are aspects where the manufacture may have less experience than an operator. Always take an engineer with you, preferably one who has flown before else he will snag every new noise. Take a working cabin crew, not management (they forget the practical past too quickly). Evaluate the aircraft as though it were in service; try all systems, switches, knobs, galley, seats, doors, toilet etc at high cabin diff.
Use your time with the manufacturer’s test pilot to enhance your experience. Stall the aircraft in straight and turning flight, and in several configurations. Conduct harsh maneuvering by rolling and pulling to give you a better feel for the aircraft – and compare how it may differ from the simulator (if different its the simulator that is wrong). Similarly fly over-speed IAS and Mach as allowed; experience the Mach buffet or turn buffet points if applicable. Shut down and relight the engines; add to your experience of asymmetric flight and ask for a demonstration of Vmca. Do those things that you would not normally do with passengers, but may have to in an emergency e.g. GPWS pull up, baulked landing go-around, TCAS / wind shear pull up. Fly emergency configurations as allowed, hydraulics failed, control malfunctions.
Brief the cabin crews that the flight is also part of improving their experience; and don’t forget the brown bag for the engineer.
Aircraft fly by the same principles on an acceptance flight as at other times; the only idiots in flight are those who don’t ask questions. Test flying is fun; have fun.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aetius,
You don't say which BA transport type you're going to do the acceptance test on, but may I suggest you contact the Chief of Production Flight Test at either Dorval or Downsview and discuss the procedures and your concerns.
Safetypee is correct that the aircraft will already be fully wrung out as far as systems & performance are concerned (including stall speeds which are also verified to be at the correct AoA). Some of the tests he recommends probably fall into the higher risk categories and thus may not be available under BA's ground rules especially with extra passengers on board (see Flt Scientist's post in the TP Duties thread). Remember all BA types are T-tails with the usual characteristics of that design feature so no stall test should be taken lightly. If there is a particular evolution you wish to carry out, it may be possible to get stick time on the dedicated flight test aircraft at BFTC in Wichita that have additional crew safety systems.
You don't say which BA transport type you're going to do the acceptance test on, but may I suggest you contact the Chief of Production Flight Test at either Dorval or Downsview and discuss the procedures and your concerns.
Safetypee is correct that the aircraft will already be fully wrung out as far as systems & performance are concerned (including stall speeds which are also verified to be at the correct AoA). Some of the tests he recommends probably fall into the higher risk categories and thus may not be available under BA's ground rules especially with extra passengers on board (see Flt Scientist's post in the TP Duties thread). Remember all BA types are T-tails with the usual characteristics of that design feature so no stall test should be taken lightly. If there is a particular evolution you wish to carry out, it may be possible to get stick time on the dedicated flight test aircraft at BFTC in Wichita that have additional crew safety systems.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you both for the suggestions. That sounds like good advice, especially since saving the money would be nice. I talked to the program manager at work and he agreed about letting the BA test pilot show me what I need instead of spending money on a course. I'm also going to contact Dorval ahead of time for any further advice. Thanks again.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Obviously, I have a vested interest in seeing people come to places like ours for training. So take what follows with a grain of salt.
That aside, any training you can get on subjects like this is worthwhile - generic training will help you to understand what you should be looking at, as opposed to just what the company pilots tell you. (not that they are going to try to deceive you, but they may be told not to bring up some subjects).
That probably won't be the case with Bombardier- I was fortunate enough to do an audit on their Toronto post-production operation several years ago, and was incredibly impressed by the thoroughness of their planning and training.
If they will release it to you beforehand, ask for a copy of the post-production acceptance test schedule, and study that so you have an idea of what to look for. If you can get some simulator time to go over that schedule so you know what to look for, even better.
But training will prepare you well for this.
That aside, any training you can get on subjects like this is worthwhile - generic training will help you to understand what you should be looking at, as opposed to just what the company pilots tell you. (not that they are going to try to deceive you, but they may be told not to bring up some subjects).
That probably won't be the case with Bombardier- I was fortunate enough to do an audit on their Toronto post-production operation several years ago, and was incredibly impressed by the thoroughness of their planning and training.
If they will release it to you beforehand, ask for a copy of the post-production acceptance test schedule, and study that so you have an idea of what to look for. If you can get some simulator time to go over that schedule so you know what to look for, even better.
But training will prepare you well for this.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
It seems that we are overly complicating the issue - big time!
Aetius is not being asked to do an initial aircraft evaluation - that has already been done and the type selected. He is being asked to do post-production acceptance flying which, if I may be pedantic, is not test flying but rather a form of check flight that involves very little more than normal operations.
The client airline needs to satisfy itself that the manufacturer has an appropriate quality control mechanism that adequately addresses all of the test flight issues - aerodynamics, systems, propulsion, performance and build standard. If the client's acceptance pilot wishes to observe that test flight, then so be it.
However, the client airline's pilot representative is assessing suitability of a particular aeroplane for line service after having been satisfied that the manufacturer's test pilot has confirmed that that wings are of the right shape and bolted on the right way, etc. The real skill required is not the perfect rudder doublet but rather superior knowledge of the contracted standard of finish, systems functionality and operation in abnormal situations and, most importantly, a very good knowledge of the documentation to be provided with each aircraft for both flight operations and continuing airworthiness.
Everyone has a place in the sequence - let us not confuse who does what to whom!!
Stay Alive
It seems that we are overly complicating the issue - big time!
Aetius is not being asked to do an initial aircraft evaluation - that has already been done and the type selected. He is being asked to do post-production acceptance flying which, if I may be pedantic, is not test flying but rather a form of check flight that involves very little more than normal operations.
The client airline needs to satisfy itself that the manufacturer has an appropriate quality control mechanism that adequately addresses all of the test flight issues - aerodynamics, systems, propulsion, performance and build standard. If the client's acceptance pilot wishes to observe that test flight, then so be it.
However, the client airline's pilot representative is assessing suitability of a particular aeroplane for line service after having been satisfied that the manufacturer's test pilot has confirmed that that wings are of the right shape and bolted on the right way, etc. The real skill required is not the perfect rudder doublet but rather superior knowledge of the contracted standard of finish, systems functionality and operation in abnormal situations and, most importantly, a very good knowledge of the documentation to be provided with each aircraft for both flight operations and continuing airworthiness.
Everyone has a place in the sequence - let us not confuse who does what to whom!!
Stay Alive
Moderator
Several thoughts from one who, at various times, has worked in design, manufacture, acceptance, and maintenance ..
(a) the standard of aircraft at delivery can vary significantly amongst manufacturers ... and the situation is further complicated if the manufacturer produces a "green" aircraft which then goes through a completion centre prior to delivery to the end customer.
(b) larger purchasers may put a small team in place to oversee most of the production sequence to catch and correct problems at an early stage.
(c) the acceptance team is in place to detect non-conformances and provide liaison between the purchaser and manufacturer. Whether a non-conformance is cause for rejection and rectification at the time or it is accepted for subsequent post-delivery rectification is a matter for policy, negotiation, and in-service program workload. However, if the aircraft is not base-lined at delivery, then you had better have some powerful leverage to catch the manufacturer's attention when you find the problems in line service.
(d) I have seen one delivery program where the acceptance was done in a half-hearted, cavalier sort of way by line pilots with the result that a small fleet of high end corporate aircraft gave problem after problem in service for a considerable time until the manufacturing and completion defects were eventually all detected and rectified. The loss of commercial goodwill at the operations end was very significant and the wear and tear on the support people was a thorough pain. Fortunately, the purchaser was significantly important to be able to get rectification assistance from the manufacturer when it got too esoteric for the operator's support organisation ...
(e) a sensible acceptance program needs to be painstakingly detailed so that every system's and gadget's operation is evaluated. Sometimes the evaluation team will pick up a basic certification error, although this is not the main aim of the game.
(f) while the straightforward aspects of the acceptance program can be done by line or management personnel (flight/cabin crew, maintenance etc), some of the more painstaking parts of the work are sufficiently remote from line operations that a degree of specialised training and experience makes for a more successful outcome... sometimes it is difficult when you don't know that which you don't know ...
(g) such training can be obtained from several sources - some years ago I did an introductory flight test engineer course with one such provider and was extremely impressed with the program (even if the dollar cost hurt my pocket somewhat). Similarly, a colleague recently did an acceptance test and evaluation course with the same provider and was equally impressed by the quality of the course. It's not appropriate that I name names but, if Aetius were to do a course with the provider he/she has named ... I'm sure that he/she would be more than satisfied with the standard ..
At the end of the day, we don't expect a C172 pilot to be able to jump into a B747 and fly it well .... why should we expect a line/management pilot to be able to undertake formal acceptance work without the appropriate training and experience ?
Aetius ... do the course, mate.
(a) the standard of aircraft at delivery can vary significantly amongst manufacturers ... and the situation is further complicated if the manufacturer produces a "green" aircraft which then goes through a completion centre prior to delivery to the end customer.
(b) larger purchasers may put a small team in place to oversee most of the production sequence to catch and correct problems at an early stage.
(c) the acceptance team is in place to detect non-conformances and provide liaison between the purchaser and manufacturer. Whether a non-conformance is cause for rejection and rectification at the time or it is accepted for subsequent post-delivery rectification is a matter for policy, negotiation, and in-service program workload. However, if the aircraft is not base-lined at delivery, then you had better have some powerful leverage to catch the manufacturer's attention when you find the problems in line service.
(d) I have seen one delivery program where the acceptance was done in a half-hearted, cavalier sort of way by line pilots with the result that a small fleet of high end corporate aircraft gave problem after problem in service for a considerable time until the manufacturing and completion defects were eventually all detected and rectified. The loss of commercial goodwill at the operations end was very significant and the wear and tear on the support people was a thorough pain. Fortunately, the purchaser was significantly important to be able to get rectification assistance from the manufacturer when it got too esoteric for the operator's support organisation ...
(e) a sensible acceptance program needs to be painstakingly detailed so that every system's and gadget's operation is evaluated. Sometimes the evaluation team will pick up a basic certification error, although this is not the main aim of the game.
(f) while the straightforward aspects of the acceptance program can be done by line or management personnel (flight/cabin crew, maintenance etc), some of the more painstaking parts of the work are sufficiently remote from line operations that a degree of specialised training and experience makes for a more successful outcome... sometimes it is difficult when you don't know that which you don't know ...
(g) such training can be obtained from several sources - some years ago I did an introductory flight test engineer course with one such provider and was extremely impressed with the program (even if the dollar cost hurt my pocket somewhat). Similarly, a colleague recently did an acceptance test and evaluation course with the same provider and was equally impressed by the quality of the course. It's not appropriate that I name names but, if Aetius were to do a course with the provider he/she has named ... I'm sure that he/she would be more than satisfied with the standard ..
At the end of the day, we don't expect a C172 pilot to be able to jump into a B747 and fly it well .... why should we expect a line/management pilot to be able to undertake formal acceptance work without the appropriate training and experience ?
Aetius ... do the course, mate.
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 31st Jan 2004 at 10:18.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been involved with acceptance programs before and after suitable training, I can only agree with john_tullamarine. Be aware that while the manufacturer may well have good intentions, when non-conformities or problems occur, the financial side of business can make those intentions vanish very quickly.
There are smart airlines out there already that require acceptance test crew to undergo training. The cost can be insignificant compared to the potential legal and schedule implications and the asscoiated financial costs of a problem found too late.
I have four pieces of advice for you:
1. Get adequate training.
2. Test eveything that can be tested, no matter how minor it appears. It does not have to be you to individually test every item as long as someone representing the customer tests or witnesses every test. It is easier to fix a discrepancy prior to acceptance than tell your bosses the aircraft is grounded after acceptance.
3. Know how all the systems are supposed to work. Not just a line pilot's knowledge, but how the system should work to pass certification. There are some items they will tell you that have been ground tested and don't need to be flight tested. Sometimes this is the case, sometimes what they are telling you is utter nonesense. 99% of the time it is because the person telling you ground testing is adequate doesn't know any better.
4. If your employee won't pay for your training, un-volunteer yourself from the acceptance team. It is not woth it.
There are smart airlines out there already that require acceptance test crew to undergo training. The cost can be insignificant compared to the potential legal and schedule implications and the asscoiated financial costs of a problem found too late.
I have four pieces of advice for you:
1. Get adequate training.
2. Test eveything that can be tested, no matter how minor it appears. It does not have to be you to individually test every item as long as someone representing the customer tests or witnesses every test. It is easier to fix a discrepancy prior to acceptance than tell your bosses the aircraft is grounded after acceptance.
3. Know how all the systems are supposed to work. Not just a line pilot's knowledge, but how the system should work to pass certification. There are some items they will tell you that have been ground tested and don't need to be flight tested. Sometimes this is the case, sometimes what they are telling you is utter nonesense. 99% of the time it is because the person telling you ground testing is adequate doesn't know any better.
4. If your employee won't pay for your training, un-volunteer yourself from the acceptance team. It is not woth it.
