Airbus Test Pilot
Educated Hillbilly
Thanks for the feedback, as I suspected becoming a TP from FTE is unlikey, but nevertheless I am still looking forward to the new job. Anyway I still think Engineering with occasional FTO and ferry pilot duties is still going to be much more satisfying than flying as a full time line pilot for a budget airline.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist
I'm going to probably cause some raised eyebrows with this, but there's a few statements in the foregoing posts which I somewhat disagree with:
and
Look at the relative costs, in either $ or test flight hours, between HQ/Perf and Systems. Look at the impact on operational use and safety of the two areas. Look at what it's actually possible for a TP to have influence over.
Much though it pains me to say it, given my own discipline, a TP who can provide accurate and useful input into the avionics/systems development and testing is FAR more useful than a HQ expert. Once a plane gets into even development test, there's very little anyone can do about HQ or performance deficiencies - the best you can do is band-aid it. But systems by their very nature are more amenable to incremental changes during development.
If you don't like the way the plane flies the approach, there's almost nothing I can do to fix it for you. If the FMS is less user-friendly than the IRS, the systems guys might be able to do something about it.
I'll agree that HQ testing may be more 'exciting', more 'sexy', more 'how the man in the street sees test pilots' - after all, those are the tests which cause you to strap on a chute. But while getting the bugs out of the avionics may be more mundane, and getting the abnormal and emergency procedures workable an exercise in bureaucracy, I'd say the latter are more important.
Which, in relation to the FTE-into-TP discussion means that a large organisation that can carry the overhead of TP-specialisation can definitely accept a 'less-piloty' TP in exchange for more engineering knowledge in some of their pilots.
and
Look at the relative costs, in either $ or test flight hours, between HQ/Perf and Systems. Look at the impact on operational use and safety of the two areas. Look at what it's actually possible for a TP to have influence over.
Much though it pains me to say it, given my own discipline, a TP who can provide accurate and useful input into the avionics/systems development and testing is FAR more useful than a HQ expert. Once a plane gets into even development test, there's very little anyone can do about HQ or performance deficiencies - the best you can do is band-aid it. But systems by their very nature are more amenable to incremental changes during development.
If you don't like the way the plane flies the approach, there's almost nothing I can do to fix it for you. If the FMS is less user-friendly than the IRS, the systems guys might be able to do something about it.
I'll agree that HQ testing may be more 'exciting', more 'sexy', more 'how the man in the street sees test pilots' - after all, those are the tests which cause you to strap on a chute. But while getting the bugs out of the avionics may be more mundane, and getting the abnormal and emergency procedures workable an exercise in bureaucracy, I'd say the latter are more important.
Which, in relation to the FTE-into-TP discussion means that a large organisation that can carry the overhead of TP-specialisation can definitely accept a 'less-piloty' TP in exchange for more engineering knowledge in some of their pilots.
So, whilst they may not do that much P&HQ flying - it is that skillset which should make the TP as valuable as he is.
G
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
Tester335 I nearly agree with you.
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
ETPS and NTPS both run short courses in P&HQ testing. Although I believe that ETPS' course is classrooom only, a quick look on NTPS' website shows a 2 week course covering 5 types and most major flying qualities issues for a remarkably affordable $7k..
). Depending what you were looking for, these would probably be just the ticket. 99% of folks don't need to be examining transonic handling qualities.... My organisation is routing more and more people through NTPS, and it is a matter of some discussion whether or not we can get what we want through a series of short courses vice the million dollar special.
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
N.B. Embarrassing as it is to admit that I don't know an aviation acronym: "PEXAs"?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist
I'm going to probably cause some raised eyebrows with this,
Look at the relative costs, in either $ or test flight hours, between HQ/Perf and Systems. Look at the impact on operational use and safety of the two areas. Look at what it's actually possible for a TP to have influence over.
Much though it pains me to say it, given my own discipline, a TP who can provide accurate and useful input into the avionics/systems development and testing is FAR more useful than a HQ expert. Once a plane gets into even development test, there's very little anyone can do about HQ or performance deficiencies - the best you can do is band-aid it. But systems by their very nature are more amenable to incremental changes during development.
If you don't like the way the plane flies the approach, there's almost nothing I can do to fix it for you. If the FMS is less user-friendly than the IRS, the systems guys might be able to do something about it.
Look at the relative costs, in either $ or test flight hours, between HQ/Perf and Systems. Look at the impact on operational use and safety of the two areas. Look at what it's actually possible for a TP to have influence over.
Much though it pains me to say it, given my own discipline, a TP who can provide accurate and useful input into the avionics/systems development and testing is FAR more useful than a HQ expert. Once a plane gets into even development test, there's very little anyone can do about HQ or performance deficiencies - the best you can do is band-aid it. But systems by their very nature are more amenable to incremental changes during development.
If you don't like the way the plane flies the approach, there's almost nothing I can do to fix it for you. If the FMS is less user-friendly than the IRS, the systems guys might be able to do something about it.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus/Aerospatiale thought fit to qualify C Lelaie as an ETPS trained TP in 1987. Likely to be other TPs employed since then.
Perhaps someone closer to Toulouse could determine the extent of the return on the investment/s which are likely to be considerable disregarding the reputational enhancement that comes from having experienced TPs involved in aircraft development and certification.
Perhaps someone closer to Toulouse could determine the extent of the return on the investment/s which are likely to be considerable disregarding the reputational enhancement that comes from having experienced TPs involved in aircraft development and certification.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Milt
Airbus/Aerospatiale thought fit to qualify C Lelaie as an ETPS trained TP in 1987. Likely to be other TPs employed since then.
Originally Posted by Milt
Perhaps someone closer to Toulouse could determine the extent of the return on the investment/s which are likely to be considerable disregarding the reputational enhancement that comes from having experienced TPs involved in aircraft development and certification.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tester355
No raised eyebrows here at all. In fact, 90% of my work is systems testing and for the reasons you describe above it is (and becoming increasingly) more heavily weighted than HQ testing. The difference is, however, that one can still get away with sub-optimal systems design and certify an aircraft..
Sorry if this is getting a little off topic but it's not that often we get to discuss HOW we should test the modern aircraft and the many types of expertise required.
