Flight test rear crew
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flight test rear crew
Gents - when a rotary system is in testing, are rear crew employed as they would be in operational use? If so, are these drawn from the front line (at ETPS) or from elsewhere? Are there adquals available for those other than pilots in this environment?
Thanks for any help.
BL
Thanks for any help.
BL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South West
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hia BL
In short, No.
Flight Testing is provisionally only required for the Airframe, Engines and Avionic systems. Persons aboard at that time will be 'essential' crew ONLY! for obvious reasons. This generally consists of a Test Pilot and Flight Test Engineer. Legislation and approval conditions / procedure also dictates this policy. Any Role Equipment is normally operated by the Flight Test Engineer. Any Ballast for Weight & Balance purposes required is provided by Sand Bags etc.
In short, No.
Flight Testing is provisionally only required for the Airframe, Engines and Avionic systems. Persons aboard at that time will be 'essential' crew ONLY! for obvious reasons. This generally consists of a Test Pilot and Flight Test Engineer. Legislation and approval conditions / procedure also dictates this policy. Any Role Equipment is normally operated by the Flight Test Engineer. Any Ballast for Weight & Balance purposes required is provided by Sand Bags etc.
What about if you have "played an active role in the maintenance procedure"?
Are you encouraged/entitled to go up on a CTF??
Are you encouraged/entitled to go up on a CTF??
Last edited by rugmuncher; 13th Dec 2006 at 22:19. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It rather depends on what you're testing, the level of risk, and the value the on-board person may bring to the test - including risk reduction.
For example, some high risk tests will be strictly min crew; some tests are conductable with min crew even if safety doesn't mandate it; some tests need a specialist on-board (who is not an "FTE" but becomes essential crew for the test) and sometimes that specialist may be able to avoid multiple retests, which is a net reduction in risk. (say, 3 people for one test point vs 2 for several; the 3 people once is less total risk)
In fact, the FTE him/herself is justified on the same basis; you COULD do some tests with just TPs. But FTEs help get good data faster, again reducing overall risk.
For example, some high risk tests will be strictly min crew; some tests are conductable with min crew even if safety doesn't mandate it; some tests need a specialist on-board (who is not an "FTE" but becomes essential crew for the test) and sometimes that specialist may be able to avoid multiple retests, which is a net reduction in risk. (say, 3 people for one test point vs 2 for several; the 3 people once is less total risk)
In fact, the FTE him/herself is justified on the same basis; you COULD do some tests with just TPs. But FTEs help get good data faster, again reducing overall risk.
Dog Tired
I was fortunate to fly with a CAA tp (do you prefer TP?) and FTE on a boring airtest. The FTE did all the paperwork and scoring, allowing me to enjoy a learning day (mainly stalling lessons). Wonderful.
It's possible that a misleading impression could be gained from the above - not that any of it is wrong.
During RTS testing in the UK, the Aircraft Test & Evaluation Centre (ATEC) staff includes military personnel with recent experience in roles other than that of tp, such as rear crew.
It is very common indeed for these military types to fly, with the express purpose of assessing the equipment under test from the perspective of their operational background. It's one of the major reasons for the military element of the ATEC partnership existing, and long may it continue.
During RTS testing in the UK, the Aircraft Test & Evaluation Centre (ATEC) staff includes military personnel with recent experience in roles other than that of tp, such as rear crew.
It is very common indeed for these military types to fly, with the express purpose of assessing the equipment under test from the perspective of their operational background. It's one of the major reasons for the military element of the ATEC partnership existing, and long may it continue.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Start with the smoking hole in the groung and work backwards. You should be able to justify any occupant as essential to the test flight. No person should be allowed in the aircraft who is not required for the safe conduct of the test flight.
During my time in the UK military T&E system, the 'crew', other than an additional pilot, were either those civil service scientific officers working on the projects who were used as FT Observers (FT Engineers, more properly, if they had graduated from ETPS or equivalent as FTEs) or other military aircrew (usually Navigators) who had completed the Aerosystems Course.
In my civil tp incarnation, it's again generally been engineers, with some (at least rudimentary) FTO training, who are involved in the projects.
The Flight Test Schedule should stipulate the crewing requirements, bearing in mind the associated risks, and the EASA Permit will be only for those crew essential to the flight.
In my civil tp incarnation, it's again generally been engineers, with some (at least rudimentary) FTO training, who are involved in the projects.
The Flight Test Schedule should stipulate the crewing requirements, bearing in mind the associated risks, and the EASA Permit will be only for those crew essential to the flight.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Age: 50
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting application of buildup.
At my employer we apply similar scrutiny to the test crew. The number of participants may vary according to the level of risk, but EVERY crewmember on the airplane must have a clear and specific purpose related to the test. In addition, anyone who flies on our flights must have completed our company administered flight clearance class (which covers physiology, egress, safety equipment, roles and test discipline), obtain a company medical clearance (akin to an FAA Class III med) and if involved with environmental systems testing, complete a chamber ride.
At my employer we apply similar scrutiny to the test crew. The number of participants may vary according to the level of risk, but EVERY crewmember on the airplane must have a clear and specific purpose related to the test. In addition, anyone who flies on our flights must have completed our company administered flight clearance class (which covers physiology, egress, safety equipment, roles and test discipline), obtain a company medical clearance (akin to an FAA Class III med) and if involved with environmental systems testing, complete a chamber ride.
This seems to be building up to the important point that there are two substantial, and in many ways separate, functions to test aircrew training FTE / FTO / FTN...)
(1) Protecting them - including equipment and aircrew training, and
(2) Protecting the aircraft and trial - which includes their conduct, knowledge of the requirements, their ability to make a useful contribution to the trial and if required to the operation of the aircraft.
(1) Is reasonably easily dealt with by a few days aeromed type course or by using supernumary qualified pilots, it's (2) that is incredibly difficult to define and likely to differ with every flight test task.
Which surely has got to come down to the judgements and planning of the senior people in the flight test organisation, but doesn't lend itself to absolutes.
G
(1) Protecting them - including equipment and aircrew training, and
(2) Protecting the aircraft and trial - which includes their conduct, knowledge of the requirements, their ability to make a useful contribution to the trial and if required to the operation of the aircraft.
(1) Is reasonably easily dealt with by a few days aeromed type course or by using supernumary qualified pilots, it's (2) that is incredibly difficult to define and likely to differ with every flight test task.
Which surely has got to come down to the judgements and planning of the senior people in the flight test organisation, but doesn't lend itself to absolutes.
G
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting application of buildup.
Which surely has got to come down to the judgements and planning of the senior people in the flight test organisation, but doesn't lend itself to absolutes.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily the senior people. In my organization, we convene a "Safety of Flight" briefing for all but the "low risk" tests. A senior manager plus the Chief FTE & Pilot must also be there but we also invite everyone involved in the actual test requirement which could be even a student engineer.
The FTE conducting the test has a list of risks & mitigations for each of the test points but they can be questioned by anyone at the briefing. More than once, it's been the lowest in seniority that's brought up something that's been overlooked especially where it's a specialist test such as Autopilot or other Avionics system.
The FTE conducting the test has a list of risks & mitigations for each of the test points but they can be questioned by anyone at the briefing. More than once, it's been the lowest in seniority that's brought up something that's been overlooked especially where it's a specialist test such as Autopilot or other Avionics system.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South West
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very interesting comments but what I think we need to differentiate between is 'Test Flying' and 'Mission Equipment Evaluation'.
Early stages of 'Test Flying' (Experimental) for example or New Build can be very risky. I normally work to obtain a C of A first. During this process 'Role / Mission Systems' could not be further from my mind. Principal Flight Airworthiness is tested and confidence in the machine slowly built up. This is fundamentally because your personal safety is threatened at that time. Once a C of A has been obtained then 'Mission Equipment' tests can be considered. Airworthiness tests mainly around flight dynamics are carried out first and airworthiness established for the 'Mission Equipment' modifications. Up until this point TP & FTE only are used. Sometimes (But very rarely) a third crew member may be involved e.g. Airworthiness Authority Surveyor. After this 'Mission Equipment Operational Evaluation' is normally Low Risk and of a none airworthiness nature. In my experience I have generally found that rear seat equipment operators are not required for small civil aircraft. However, Large Military or Fast jet Mission equipment can sometimes be evaluated by specialist equipment operators trained in military operations evaluation. I must highlight though that at this point this is no longer by definition a 'Test Flight'
Early stages of 'Test Flying' (Experimental) for example or New Build can be very risky. I normally work to obtain a C of A first. During this process 'Role / Mission Systems' could not be further from my mind. Principal Flight Airworthiness is tested and confidence in the machine slowly built up. This is fundamentally because your personal safety is threatened at that time. Once a C of A has been obtained then 'Mission Equipment' tests can be considered. Airworthiness tests mainly around flight dynamics are carried out first and airworthiness established for the 'Mission Equipment' modifications. Up until this point TP & FTE only are used. Sometimes (But very rarely) a third crew member may be involved e.g. Airworthiness Authority Surveyor. After this 'Mission Equipment Operational Evaluation' is normally Low Risk and of a none airworthiness nature. In my experience I have generally found that rear seat equipment operators are not required for small civil aircraft. However, Large Military or Fast jet Mission equipment can sometimes be evaluated by specialist equipment operators trained in military operations evaluation. I must highlight though that at this point this is no longer by definition a 'Test Flight'
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say it's a dangerous step to assume that once you have completed the flight envelope expansion portion of a test/cert programme, that the balance of the flying required is somehow not 'proper flight testing'.
Until ALL the cert testing is completed, and the TC issued, you're in an experimental aircraft; it doesn't have the benefit of much air time, so anything could go wrong at any time. Every flight should be regarded as a test flight until AT LEAST the TC is achieved; even after that, if the aircraft remains on post-cert test activities it's still the same 'first off the line' aircraft, probably isn't fully conforming, and still more hazardous than a regular production type.
You also, realistically, can't simply test the flight characteristics first and only do avionics and systems once the flight characteristics are known. There's always scheduling constraints, and you inevitably end up with a mixed sequence. Obviously, there's still a sequence you have to follow, but it's entirely possible that, say, icing trials, or performance tests, will come after a good part of the equipment tests are done.
Until ALL the cert testing is completed, and the TC issued, you're in an experimental aircraft; it doesn't have the benefit of much air time, so anything could go wrong at any time. Every flight should be regarded as a test flight until AT LEAST the TC is achieved; even after that, if the aircraft remains on post-cert test activities it's still the same 'first off the line' aircraft, probably isn't fully conforming, and still more hazardous than a regular production type.
You also, realistically, can't simply test the flight characteristics first and only do avionics and systems once the flight characteristics are known. There's always scheduling constraints, and you inevitably end up with a mixed sequence. Obviously, there's still a sequence you have to follow, but it's entirely possible that, say, icing trials, or performance tests, will come after a good part of the equipment tests are done.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avionicsbloke,
It sounds like we have a fundamental difference between military air vehicle or platform and civil aircraft testing (although where would you fit in FBW in your "aero first & only" program unless you can do a LOT of one-off trial flights?).
On most civil aircraft, the full flight envelope is just not available unless, for example, functions like yaw damper & rudder limiter are set correctly - the only economic method being to fly with an additional specialist crew member to modify the gains in flight. I beleive we all try to limit risk exposure but sometimes economics force different approaches. The Airbus OEI MEH accident demonstrated the fatal consequences of beleiving that there is no risky testing once a certificate is awarded.
It is up to everyone in his or her own test environment to reduce risk as much as possible.
Have a Happy - and Safe - New Year.
It sounds like we have a fundamental difference between military air vehicle or platform and civil aircraft testing (although where would you fit in FBW in your "aero first & only" program unless you can do a LOT of one-off trial flights?).
On most civil aircraft, the full flight envelope is just not available unless, for example, functions like yaw damper & rudder limiter are set correctly - the only economic method being to fly with an additional specialist crew member to modify the gains in flight. I beleive we all try to limit risk exposure but sometimes economics force different approaches. The Airbus OEI MEH accident demonstrated the fatal consequences of beleiving that there is no risky testing once a certificate is awarded.
It is up to everyone in his or her own test environment to reduce risk as much as possible.
Have a Happy - and Safe - New Year.
I'm very much with MFS and ICT here, and I really don't see a substantial civil .v. military split in this. Unless you are dealing with a very old fashioned non-AFCS non-reversible aircraft, there are huge safety implications to the T&E of mission equipment, and generally avionics and airframe are inseperable in the way they are evaluated.
There's always a sliding scale of risk, but on the whole I think I'd class (say) first stalling and first use of autoland as similarly right up there in the high risk area, whilst determination of climb performance, and determination of navigational equipment performance are both reasonably low-risk, with crewing and planning adjusted accordingly. But that's not an airframe .v. avionics split so far as I can see.
For that matter, I'm next week (Wx permitting!), flying a TCd aeroplane to obtain new data for development and validation of a simulator, including specifics of handling and performance during take-off and landing. Next job after that is in another TCd aeroplane, looking at previously undocumented handling qualities issues in relation to the causes of an accident which happened last year.
In both cases, I'm remaining within the TCd envelope, but...
Anybody care to argue that this isn't test flying, or that I shouldn't worry about the safety aspects of crewing and briefing on either of those tasks?
G
There's always a sliding scale of risk, but on the whole I think I'd class (say) first stalling and first use of autoland as similarly right up there in the high risk area, whilst determination of climb performance, and determination of navigational equipment performance are both reasonably low-risk, with crewing and planning adjusted accordingly. But that's not an airframe .v. avionics split so far as I can see.
For that matter, I'm next week (Wx permitting!), flying a TCd aeroplane to obtain new data for development and validation of a simulator, including specifics of handling and performance during take-off and landing. Next job after that is in another TCd aeroplane, looking at previously undocumented handling qualities issues in relation to the causes of an accident which happened last year.
In both cases, I'm remaining within the TCd envelope, but...
Anybody care to argue that this isn't test flying, or that I shouldn't worry about the safety aspects of crewing and briefing on either of those tasks?
G
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the west country
as this post was started about Rotary test flying I thought I better give some input from the West of the UK, where a well known UK manufacturer is based.
As normal you fly the crew necessary to carry out the sortie, BUT this depends on the philosophy of the organisation carrying out the testing. WHL crew consists of a Test pilot (at least 1!) and supporting FTE(s) for all flights regardless of the type (initials, envelope expansion etc). I know that other organisations use telemetry to monitor the flight which negates the requirement to have FTEs on board, it's not a philisophy the WHL subscribe to as the feeling is that the pilots concentrate on the flying and the FTEs on the engineering, indeed although the pilot is captain of the aircraft the test controller is normally the FTE and you get a better appreciation of the test environment if you are actually there.
The FTEs are suitably trained as both testers and system operators, so generally there is no need to use other personnel. There are of course exceptions, primarily where experience counts, such as live hoisting or heavy underslung load operations which require type currency. In that case the crew can be requested from RWOETU or the applicable RAF/RN squadron but for non UK customers this can be done by WHL crew if required.
Avionics testing is primarily rig tested nowadays anyway and the aircraft testing is basically the validate the rig results, in that case the aircrew gain experience on the integration rigs and then confirm that the S/W functions correctly.
Mission system testing is done in the same way so in answer to the original question the rear crew are civilian FTEs , HOWEVER bear in mind that the RTS procedure used in the UK uses external assessors (QQ/RWOETU) who do use operational guys to determine the operational limits and procedures, as was said earlier it depends on the philisophy of the test organisation
Happy 2007 and lets all fly safe
As normal you fly the crew necessary to carry out the sortie, BUT this depends on the philosophy of the organisation carrying out the testing. WHL crew consists of a Test pilot (at least 1!) and supporting FTE(s) for all flights regardless of the type (initials, envelope expansion etc). I know that other organisations use telemetry to monitor the flight which negates the requirement to have FTEs on board, it's not a philisophy the WHL subscribe to as the feeling is that the pilots concentrate on the flying and the FTEs on the engineering, indeed although the pilot is captain of the aircraft the test controller is normally the FTE and you get a better appreciation of the test environment if you are actually there.
The FTEs are suitably trained as both testers and system operators, so generally there is no need to use other personnel. There are of course exceptions, primarily where experience counts, such as live hoisting or heavy underslung load operations which require type currency. In that case the crew can be requested from RWOETU or the applicable RAF/RN squadron but for non UK customers this can be done by WHL crew if required.
Avionics testing is primarily rig tested nowadays anyway and the aircraft testing is basically the validate the rig results, in that case the aircrew gain experience on the integration rigs and then confirm that the S/W functions correctly.
Mission system testing is done in the same way so in answer to the original question the rear crew are civilian FTEs , HOWEVER bear in mind that the RTS procedure used in the UK uses external assessors (QQ/RWOETU) who do use operational guys to determine the operational limits and procedures, as was said earlier it depends on the philisophy of the test organisation
Happy 2007 and lets all fly safe