National Flying Laboratory Centre
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 768
Likes: 52
From: TBC
National Flying Laboratory Centre
For those of you who remember my original post, I thought i'd get back to you on how the course went. In short, it was excellent - thoroughly enjoyable and probably the most valuable experience of my degree so far. It turned out that the course was conducted from Southampton International, so we were spared the presumed slog to Cranfield every day.
The topics that we covered were Drag Characteristics and Static Stability, Dynamic Stability (a lot of fun), and finishing with a look at Navigation Systems.
As suggested, I talked to the chief test pilot and asked how he got into TP-ing, and he turned out to be ex-RAF and ETPS graduate. His view was that the ATPL/experience route was probably less likely to work the the FTE-with-flying-experience route, because of the way an airline pilot is taught to fly. Is that a view that is shared here?
A few people asked me about the new test suite and the new Jetstream 31. Would it be possible for you to ask specific questions, as I am not allowed to reproduce the entire documentation that we have been given. I'd also hate to give a load of information and find that none of it was what you were looking for. Thanks.
Kind regards and happy landings.
Ginge
The topics that we covered were Drag Characteristics and Static Stability, Dynamic Stability (a lot of fun), and finishing with a look at Navigation Systems.
As suggested, I talked to the chief test pilot and asked how he got into TP-ing, and he turned out to be ex-RAF and ETPS graduate. His view was that the ATPL/experience route was probably less likely to work the the FTE-with-flying-experience route, because of the way an airline pilot is taught to fly. Is that a view that is shared here?
A few people asked me about the new test suite and the new Jetstream 31. Would it be possible for you to ask specific questions, as I am not allowed to reproduce the entire documentation that we have been given. I'd also hate to give a load of information and find that none of it was what you were looking for. Thanks.
Kind regards and happy landings.
Ginge
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Knowing slightly the gent you were talking to, I think you've had the pleasure of one of the most experienced Test Pilots in British industry sharing his wisdom with you - although as it happens, I agree with him completely about the progression of a career into Test Flying.
To throw up a few questions that interest me personally...
- How was the course structured (e.g. what did you do in the classroom first?, what was/were the actual exercise(s) flown in the air?, what did you (the students) actually do in the air?)
- What analysis, planning and data recording did you (as the students) have to do as part of the course?
- What do you think you actually learned? (As opposed to took part in)?
Glad to hear that you enjoyed it. We try not to tell the accountants this, since they start degrading our pay and conditions, but FT really is tremendous fun isn't it!
G
To throw up a few questions that interest me personally...
- How was the course structured (e.g. what did you do in the classroom first?, what was/were the actual exercise(s) flown in the air?, what did you (the students) actually do in the air?)
- What analysis, planning and data recording did you (as the students) have to do as part of the course?
- What do you think you actually learned? (As opposed to took part in)?
Glad to hear that you enjoyed it. We try not to tell the accountants this, since they start degrading our pay and conditions, but FT really is tremendous fun isn't it!
G
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 429
Likes: 5
From: West Wiltshire, UK
I'd concur with the FTE comments, but add an important caveat. Flight test measurement, instrumentation, evaluation and interpretation of data is tremendously rewarding and good fun. I am absolutely convinced that being a half-decent TP also requires an inherent feel for flying, not just an understanding of the numbers.
I've had the pleasure of flying with some absolutely first class TP's, all of whom inspired confidence and consequently allowed me to do my measurement, data recording and assessment work to the best of my ability. None were prima donnas and all of this sub-set were modest and easy to direct, even when I asked them to do things I knew to be challenging.
Unfortunately I've also had the misfortune to fly with a few who could politely be described as "unsuited to the role". I can count two that I've flown with as being positively dangerous, to the point of scaring me sh!tless (those who know me will appreciate that this actually takes a reasonably high level of ineptitude..............).
Am I alone in thinking that an honest appraisal of one's own inherent flying aptitude is a pre-requisite for being a good TP?
I recall an ex-colleague of mine (a non-aviator at that time), with whom I used to play table tennis at lunchtime. His hand/eye coordination was astoundingly good; no matter how much I practised his inherent aptitude always meant that he beat me hollow, although he never practiced at all. He became a helicopter pilot and a damned good one at that. I rather suspect that the two are linked and that no amount of training will turn an unsuited individual into an expert.
I learned a long time ago that my own piloting skills were destined to be right at the very modest end of the scale, so I stick to the science and engineering stuff, which is every bit as much fun!
I've had the pleasure of flying with some absolutely first class TP's, all of whom inspired confidence and consequently allowed me to do my measurement, data recording and assessment work to the best of my ability. None were prima donnas and all of this sub-set were modest and easy to direct, even when I asked them to do things I knew to be challenging.
Unfortunately I've also had the misfortune to fly with a few who could politely be described as "unsuited to the role". I can count two that I've flown with as being positively dangerous, to the point of scaring me sh!tless (those who know me will appreciate that this actually takes a reasonably high level of ineptitude..............).
Am I alone in thinking that an honest appraisal of one's own inherent flying aptitude is a pre-requisite for being a good TP?
I recall an ex-colleague of mine (a non-aviator at that time), with whom I used to play table tennis at lunchtime. His hand/eye coordination was astoundingly good; no matter how much I practised his inherent aptitude always meant that he beat me hollow, although he never practiced at all. He became a helicopter pilot and a damned good one at that. I rather suspect that the two are linked and that no amount of training will turn an unsuited individual into an expert.
I learned a long time ago that my own piloting skills were destined to be right at the very modest end of the scale, so I stick to the science and engineering stuff, which is every bit as much fun!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 768
Likes: 52
From: TBC
Apologies for not replying for a while. I have been busy away from home doing flying training (and was awarded my PPL on Wednesday ). But now, back to ground school.
Ok G, the course started off with an introductory briefing, which then ran into the first pre-flight briefing about Drag and Static Stability. The engineer chap from the Cranfield team went over the theory behind each stage of the testing in depth, explaining how force was approximated rather than actually measured, the relevance of the minimum drag speed, etc. Most of the theory was revision, but it was good to see how some concepts became useful to the pilots (e.g. minimum drag speed giving you the best range/endurance depending on jet or piston - pretty basic I know!).
Then we would be shown what we had to record in the aircraft and how we had to process it afterwards. When we were actually in the aircraft the engineer would explain what was going on and tell us when a new situation had been established so that we could write down the numbers on the screen. So our role in the aircraft was not a particularly active one i'm afraid!
The next exercises were Longitudinal Static Stability (measuring elevator angle, tab angle and airspeed) and Longitudinal Manoeuvre Stability (measuring elevator angle, elevator link force and normal acceleration). This was followed by some demonstrations for which no readings were taken . These were the short period pitching oscillation and phugoid mode, a stall, dutch roll mode, roll subsidence mode and the spiral mode. The stall was particularly exciting after my experience of stalling cessnas – very noisy and violent in comparison.
The final flight consisted of testing navigation systems, namely comparing IRS against GPS and demonstrating VOR/DME tracking. I wasn’t quite as keen on this bit because it didn’t seem to be related to the aircraft, apart from the VOR bit, which I have done before. We would have been doing an ILS approach, which I was looking forward to, but a thunderstorm meant we had to land on the wrong runway at Southampton (apparently the ILS only comes off one of the runways?).
So on the whole, very enjoyable and valuable. In terms of what I actually learned, I think it is scattered. There is the odd bit here and there which has been enlightening, or clarified. Mostly, I think it was useful from the pilot perspective, showing how the engineering and the flying interact. The best part was the Chief TP explaining what the results meant to him, as this part was all new knowledge.
Ginge
). But now, back to ground school.Ok G, the course started off with an introductory briefing, which then ran into the first pre-flight briefing about Drag and Static Stability. The engineer chap from the Cranfield team went over the theory behind each stage of the testing in depth, explaining how force was approximated rather than actually measured, the relevance of the minimum drag speed, etc. Most of the theory was revision, but it was good to see how some concepts became useful to the pilots (e.g. minimum drag speed giving you the best range/endurance depending on jet or piston - pretty basic I know!).
Then we would be shown what we had to record in the aircraft and how we had to process it afterwards. When we were actually in the aircraft the engineer would explain what was going on and tell us when a new situation had been established so that we could write down the numbers on the screen. So our role in the aircraft was not a particularly active one i'm afraid!
The next exercises were Longitudinal Static Stability (measuring elevator angle, tab angle and airspeed) and Longitudinal Manoeuvre Stability (measuring elevator angle, elevator link force and normal acceleration). This was followed by some demonstrations for which no readings were taken . These were the short period pitching oscillation and phugoid mode, a stall, dutch roll mode, roll subsidence mode and the spiral mode. The stall was particularly exciting after my experience of stalling cessnas – very noisy and violent in comparison.
The final flight consisted of testing navigation systems, namely comparing IRS against GPS and demonstrating VOR/DME tracking. I wasn’t quite as keen on this bit because it didn’t seem to be related to the aircraft, apart from the VOR bit, which I have done before. We would have been doing an ILS approach, which I was looking forward to, but a thunderstorm meant we had to land on the wrong runway at Southampton (apparently the ILS only comes off one of the runways?).
So on the whole, very enjoyable and valuable. In terms of what I actually learned, I think it is scattered. There is the odd bit here and there which has been enlightening, or clarified. Mostly, I think it was useful from the pilot perspective, showing how the engineering and the flying interact. The best part was the Chief TP explaining what the results meant to him, as this part was all new knowledge.
Ginge
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
From: Europa
Yes , tested ILS on R20 then NDB and PAPI comissioning on 16 May. Calibration Flying in the King Air down the slope to 50 feet at 180KIAS is almost as much fun as the regretably few hours flown with the aforementioned TP on the older NFLC Jetstream 200.
