TP, FTE and Astronaut Schools

[Milt]

Accreditation of TP, FTE and Astronaut Schools

Is there any world wide body that manages the accreditation of Test Pilot, Flight Test Engineer and Astronaut Schools or is this left to the regulatory civil and military administrations of various countries?

Significant Flight Test Schools whose graduates seem to be formally accepted universally for their vital functions appear to be from ETPS, USAFTPS, USNTPS, NTPS and perhaps a FrenchTPS with such graduates achieving a status equivalent or superior to that of many University Aero Engineering graduates.

But what of the lesser schools striving to produce capable Experimental TPs?

What TP/Astronaut schools are there in Russia, Europe, India, China and any other countries?

[Shawn Coyle]

Milt:
What a question!
No-one has any approved schools for astronaut training. Not sure there is a set of standards that could be used for getting an astronaut licence (notwithstanding the new FAA licence given to the Scaled Composites pilots).
In addition to the 'military' schools, National Test Pilot School in Mojave is 'approved' for experimental test pilot training.
If a test pilot course is run, it pretty much always includes a flight test engineer course.
As for other countries - many run test pilot courses as they have a need. Brazil appears to have more or less annual courses, as does India. As for approval, the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP) has a way to 'approve' courses based on content, aircraft, etc.
Hope that helps.

[212man]

I see there's a private school in South Africa now, too.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What is accreditation?

Major governments de-facto accredit TP schools by spending enormous amounts of money to send their pilots there. The same to a lesser extent occurs with FTEs.

The major military schools (ETPS, EPNER, USAFTPS, USNTPS) recognise each other's competencies and thus effectively create a cross-accreditation.

SETP accept attendance at certain schools as part of evidence towards membership, but it's only part of the evidence, and in any case not mandatory. Ditto SFTE and FTEs.

In the meantime, the majority of FTEs and a great many excellent test pilots function very competently without having attended a TPS, so it clearly isn't essential for *most* flight test roles (it's probably been a few decades since any TP on a new fighter programme wasn't a TPS graduate, providing an exception to the rule).

And even TPS graduates may not be suitable for any role. To pick an extreme one, an excellent TPS graduate with a background purely on high performance military aircraft wouldn't have much idea about how to tackle the flight testing of a new prototype low-performance puddlehopper built and supported by a one-man-band company, the skill-set and role-relation are (almost) totally different. [Although in either direction I suspect it'd usually be easier to take a good TP and teach them about a new aircraft class, than a good pilot on class and make them into a TP.]


So, it's IMHO an un-answerable question, except in certain narrow circumstances (such as qualification to flight test a new NATO fighter), generally the organisation needing to test something takes the best available pilot to do the job and ensures they have sufficient training from somewhere That may be training on type/class for a good TP, or (slower) in test flying for a good operational pilot.

G

[Tester07]

Government-sponsored programmes always use graduate TPs (not just in fighter programmes, but in all programmes) for experimental work. I would suggest that use of non-graduates is the exception, rather than the other way round. Of course there have been some very eminent test pilots who have not attended a school, and smaller companies do make more use of non-graduate pilots, I suppose because they cannot afford the training.

The suggestion that a graduate test pilot with a high performance background would not know how to test a light aircraft is far from being a correct statement. I think on reflection you would probably like to re-word that one!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Tester07

The suggestion that a graduate test pilot with a high performance background would not know how to test a light aircraft is far from being a correct statement. I think on reflection you would probably like to re-word that one!

As trained, I don't believe that they would.

Without a doubt, they'll have the ability to learn how to do so, and relatively quickly. But so far as I know, such a graduate will not yet be familiar with the issues of owner-maintenance, grass-strip operation, civil certification practice, sub-ICAO regulation, B-conditions requirements, appropriate workload for barely qualified PPLs, typical light civil GA operating practice...

Which isn't a criticism of them, TPS graduates are trained - extremely well - for a particular job; but the ability to competently test-fly a new fast jet doesn't automatically encompass testing any other fixed wing aeroplane.

Role relation!

smaller companies do make more use of non-graduate pilots, I suppose because they cannot afford the training.

When 10+ light aeroplanes can cost less than a year at TPS, and the supply of ex-military school graduates is small and expensive, clearly many companies can't afford graduate TPs. But, in many organisations TPs also started life as engineers or company pilots in other roles, and have many years of type and organisation experience (and testing experience). That may make them a better choice than a TPS graduate, or sometimes the only choice available.


I'm not, repeat not, TPS bashing - they remain unsurprisingly the worldwide centres of excellence for TP training; however it is still the case that there are some damned good TPs out there as good as any school product. For example, many of the pilots at Scaled Composites where if I read the bios correctly, only one out of the 4 Spaceship One pilots is a TPS graduate.

G

[Confabulous]

Incidentally, and perhaps I'm sticking my nose in here, but would the NTPS allow me to do a MSc in FT&E without being backed by a company - in other words if I paid for it myself? Natually I'd need an aero eng degree, but I'm wondering if that's a way to go.

Yep, I know how much the MSc costs!

Conf

[Rich Lee]

Tester07 wrote:

Government-sponsored programmes always use graduate TPs (not just in fighter programmes, but in all programmes) for experimental work.

That statement might be correct in some countries with aviation technologies, but not all. In the US, graduate TP's are not required for all government-sponsored programmes.

I would also agree with Genghis the Engineer's comments. Not all military TP graduates have an understanding of civil certification regulations and unique test requirements. Further education in civil disciplines is often, although not always, necessary.

[John Farley]

Time to nit-pick

The suggestion that a tps trained fast jet pilot would not know how to test a microlight or any other aircraft of which he had no experience is incorrect.

He would know how to. Because that is what his training was all about.

What he would not know is the appropriate regulations and requirements to test against but he would appreciate this and so would dig them out.

Given his zero experience and associated zero currency of the category concerned his training would also make him seek advice from those with appropriate experience and currency. Which would in all probability include some relevant flying. Unless he was a prat and of course there are always some of those in any trade.

To summarise such a tp would not need further training but he would need help. Which is not quite the same thing

[LOMCEVAK]

To continue on from JF's well chosen words, test pilot and FTE training is about far more than just the mechanics of flying test points in a given class of aircraft. It embeds a philosophy of how to approach any given task, even if this is in a previously unknown field. Part of this flight test philosophy is an appreciation of the lack of ones experience in a given field and the training required to become proficient in it. Therefore, a graduate test pilot or flight test engineer does have the ability to perform flight testing on any type of air vehicle, although there may be significant pre-trial training required.
Have no fear - if a pilot or flight test engineer at a recognised test pilot school does not develop the skills discussed above, he will not graduate.

[Affirmatron]

Ghengis

Does that mean if I've got a PPL, and some muggins pays me to fly in an aircraft and give him my advice/opinion, then I'd be a Test Pilot? Does it mean that I don't even have to be an Engineer, or have done ANY engineering training to be a FTE?

I think the ACCREDITATION element provides a recognised skills set that allows an individual to prove they have (or don't have) the required skills to pass a course that is seen as the 'industry standard'. Otherwise, ANYBODY could set themselves up as a TP/FTE without formal qualifications. How could that be right? In most professions there is a REQUIREMENT to be ACCREDITED to professional body, to have completed training to a set standard. Without ACCREDITATION, there is no credibility.

[Rich Lee]

John Farely has written:

To summarise such a tp would not need further training but he would need help. Which is not quite the same thing

You are indeed picking the fly poop out of the pepper and while I do not disagree with the general intent of your post, I would argue the specifics only because I would not want those who are not test pilots to read this thread and form the conclusion that all military TPS graduates are omniscient, omnipotent gods capable of every feat possible in aviation.

At what point does your definition of help become training? Knowing how to do a thing, being trained to do a thing, does not always equate to being able to do a thing. The verb 'train' is defined by one source I consulted as: "undergo training or instruction in preparation for a particular role, function, or profession". When a person provides help to another in preparation for a particular role or function, is that not training? If a person reads the regulations him or her self is that not training? Sure, a fast jet pilot can fly a microlight and yes his training will allow him to fly that aircraft with the least possible risk but if he only attended military TPS it is unlikely he was schooled in the regulations and accepted civil techniques of microlight certification (if there is such a thing) so he will need 'training'.

Edited from 'fete' to 'feat' because '****' is a clever fellow who seems to know a great deal about four letter F words. Soon this knowledge will allow him to attain a position of wealth so that he might be able to purchase a much coveted personal title.

[Feck]

****: say something constructive, or don't bother !

Genghis
Forum moderator.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Affirmatron

Ghengis

Does that mean if I've got a PPL, and some muggins pays me to fly in an aircraft and give him my advice/opinion, then I'd be a Test Pilot? Does it mean that I don't even have to be an Engineer, or have done ANY engineering training to be a FTE?

I think the ACCREDITATION element provides a recognised skills set that allows an individual to prove they have (or don't have) the required skills to pass a course that is seen as the 'industry standard'. Otherwise, ANYBODY could set themselves up as a TP/FTE without formal qualifications. How could that be right? In most professions there is a REQUIREMENT to be ACCREDITED to professional body, to have completed training to a set standard. Without ACCREDITATION, there is no credibility.

As I said earlier, what is accreditation?

The world is full of people who have conducted test flying without formal training or qualifications. I've met a few who, in my opinion at-least, should be quickly locked up before they do any real damage. On the other hand a great many are extremely competent and well trained (whether formally or informally).

The bottom line will rest then with those employing them and accepting their work. This is how most of the world (and in fact most other professions) operate.

In the UK, where I work most of the time, anybody without any formal qualifications can set themselves up and call themselves an Engineer. In the USA, anybody can design build themselves an ultralight, with no design knowledge, then test fly it, without any flight test knowledge - without any external oversight in either case. It's an imperfect world!

In most countries however, the system is broadly that "the authorities" have to formally accept work from somebody (test flying, engineering, whatever), and you can assume that in most countries that system of approval (to conduct or submit work) is pretty rigorous - although it may not involve formal qualifications.

G

[Affirmatron]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

In the UK, where I work most of the time, anybody without any formal qualifications can set themselves up and call themselves an Engineer. In the USA, anybody can design build themselves an ultralight, with no design knowledge, then test fly it, without any flight test knowledge - without any external oversight in either case. It's an imperfect world!

G

Ghengis

The TP/FTE schools spend a lot of time focussing on safety and risk mitigation, as well as running trials and understanding the procurement process. By completing a recognised course at a recognised school they gain professional standing and credibility, in the same way a doctor or solicitor does. Legal and medical training takes a long time and is expensive, which is why some practices chose to make use of secretaries and nurses to do some of the work, but they would never allow them to do ALL the work.

If an aircraft company choses to use 'unqualified' or 'unaccredited' TPs/FTEs, surely they're just overrated secretaries/nurses making out they're solicitors/doctors!

[Genghis Couldn't]

I’ve worked with a lot of Test Pilots, some were not TPS graduates – however, the vast majority of these TPs would (IMHO) have had little trouble graduating from TPS. Not everyone is given the opportunity to attend a TPS, so there must be other routes to becoming a TP.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that graduates of a mil TPS are ‘Godlike’ – just that the training they get is superb and gives them the skill sets they need to start in the test world. Certainly the chop rate of the TPSs demonstrates that the course eminently passable (albeit hard work requiring a baseline level of intelligence) – rightly, only those who cannot achieve the standard, despite extra help, are discarded.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Affirmatron

Ghengis

The TP/FTE schools spend a lot of time focussing on safety and risk mitigation, as well as running trials and understanding the procurement process. By completing a recognised course at a recognised school they gain professional standing and credibility, in the same way a doctor or solicitor does. Legal and medical training takes a long time and is expensive, which is why some practices chose to make use of secretaries and nurses to do some of the work, but they would never allow them to do ALL the work.

If an aircraft company choses to use 'unqualified' or 'unaccredited' TPs/FTEs, surely they're just overrated secretaries/nurses making out they're solicitors/doctors!

It's a fair argument, but ignores that there isn't a standard qualification or accreditation available to a lot of people.

Going back to my previous example, all of those non-graduate TPs working for Scaled composites for example are pretty universally regarded as being amongst the best in the flight test profession - despite a lack of formal "accreditation" as TPs. They certainly aren't overrated people pretending to be something they're not.

For that matter virtually all FT departments have some damned good FTEs who may or may not hold an engineering degree / CEng / PEng, but their real ability comes from starting at the bottom and learning on their way up, within a very competently managed framework.

And, whilst from the outside (or for somebody who has graduated from a TPS and can't understand why their new boss didn't!) this looks odd - the fact is it works.

Maybe there's scope for some form of universal TP/FTE licence collecting up all of the many routes to professional practice. Maybe it exists in Membership of the SETP and SFTE? But to mandate that, would it do anything but restrict the flexibility of organisations that are managing quite competently already?

G

[Rich Lee]

Excellent response Genghis the Engineer - one that accurately represents flight test as I have known it.

Accreditation is an oft discussed subject in and out of flight test. I have heard arguments that since the Empire Test Pilots school is recognized as the oldest test pilot school it should be the one to decide what the standards should be for accreditation and what experience and knowledge would be necessary for accreditation on a worldwide basis. Setting aside political considerations, the other test pilots schools can't always agree on which TPS organization has the highest standards and should be entrusted with setting the standards.

There are some who have discussed a civil test pilots license or certificate in the French fashion.

Responsing to an earlier post by Affirmation; in the US, a Flight test pilot is defined in Title 14 CFR Aeronautics and Space in part 21 Certifications procedures for products and parts:

§ 21.37 Flight test pilot.
Each applicant for a normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category aircraft type certificate must provide a person holding an appropriate pilot certificate to make the flight tests required by this part.

[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14564, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21–59, 52 FR 1835, Jan. 15, 1987]

[Affirmatron]

I fear this thread could just run and run, but to summarise:

I think that accreditation and completion of, and graduation from, a recognised school and course should be mandatory for TPs/FTEs involved in aircraft test and evaluation where there is a safety concern. There should be a minimum criteria for such a course, which focusses deals with risk assessment and mitigation.

Just because the rules say that a nurse can do the job that a highly trained doctor usually does, I wouldn't want a nurse performing open heart surgery on me, regardless of how many times she'd seen a qualified doctor do it, or how long she'd stood in theatre. I'd go for the newly-qualified doctor every time. I wouldn't let a sectetary represent me in a complicated fraud case, regardless of how many times she'd filed some legal paperwork; I'd always take a proper brief.

A TP without TPS accreditation is just a pilot, an FTE just an Engineer (although you don't even need ANY qualifications to call yourself an engineer. I told my nan this, and she's just applied for a job at BAEs as an FTE).

[Raymond Ginardon]

Genghis (The Engineer),

A few observations, if I may. I completely agree with your example regarding the Scaled Composites pilots – a look at their extensive experience and achievements speaks for itself. Their skills, however, are a stark contrast to those of some others who use the title ‘Test Pilot’; these quislings, to use your words, are ‘overrated people pretending to be something they are not’.

Regarding your boss (if I understand you correctly, forgive me if not) – I’d not feel too odd about having a boss who had not graduated provided that he was competent. We have all experienced the teacher at school who we know to be a bumbling fool, he is ridiculed but doggedly clings to his position of authority – not realising he is only there by virtue of time passing and hoop jumping. Your wording suggests (?) that your boss ‘didn’t graduate’ vice ‘didn’t attend’ TPS - I am sure you could clear the air by asking him why he started but didn’t finish?

Rich Lee brings up a good point about ETPS, perhaps, setting the standards for accreditation – what are your views on that?

Kind regards,

Ray :-)