Becoming a Test Pilot
Guest
Posts: n/a
...an engineer in a flight suit.
Seriously though, I would say that the first requirement of a test pilot is to fly the test with sufficient accuracy to obtain good data and form useful opinion.
To do that safely and effectively, he or she needs to understand how and why that test has been designed; where the edges of safety might be; and how the data will be used. That requires a level of engineering understanding, which (I suspect) is the thrust of Mr Lowry's point. But the TP must still fly the aircraft to the necessary standard in often unusual conditions. This does not normally require an exceptional level of pure handling ability, and the white scarves should most certainly be left at home. But the nature of flight test is that things go wrong, and an ability to react quickly and correctly is also needed.
DAR is right to point out the wide breadth of the flight test world and the range of skill sets needed. But, for me, a test pilot in a flight test team is there as a pilot with engineering understanding. A flight suit with an engineer inside, if you like!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The English langage (well, only as used by some) is confusing, because of being too simplistic, not enough vocabulary : the reported sentence from mr Lowry can make a lot of people believe - and notably the airline pilots without University background - that the guy signing the tech log will become one day a Test Pilot, given the opportunity.
It should be stressed that an engineer is a mechanic, and not a Graduate Engineer (somebody with a couple of Masters or PhD in Engineering from difficult Universities, who could or couldn't not be very good in changing the tyres or unplugging the GPU after starting the engines)
You meet the graduate engineers in aircraft factories, and some from Flight Test department will work on a daily basis with Test Pilots, and some of them will therefore become FTE (Flight Test Engineers) through the appropriate channels. In some countries you even have a distinction between Flight Test Mechanics and Flight Test "engineers" - separate courses at the Test Pilot School, different diplomas, different backgrounds (which doesn't mean they don't work together after !)
Same for Test Pilots and Acceptance (or production) Pilots, either you ave the diploma, or you don't.
Same for Test Pilots, factories (not only in Aerospace) are full of people claiming to be Graduate Engineers, when they are technicians at best.
A couple of technical questions or homework will usually put the record straight...
Now I'm expecting the usual answer "who cares about the diploma, it's the value of the individual who comes first.." Typical political correctness, in times when any youngster downloading stuff with a laptop does claim to be a scientist...
My personal advice to anybody aspiring to a career in the area : go for the highest diploma first, associated with the highest qualifications, that will solve a lot of your job-searching tasks... otherwise, be prepared to be hired through graphology, group exercises, psycho interview, Zodiac signs, freemasonry, or even quotas for previously disadvantaged populations...)
As some people say, diplomas and qualifications are only for people who couldn't do otherwise !
A lot of issues are currently coming from EU bodies (EASA) trying to streamline the diplomas amongst 28 or so countries - and for diplomas related to flight test, only a handful of nations have a significant aircraft industry, and feel (or not !) the need to standardize it. For example Ireland with thousands of commercial pilots and the english langage like US or England, but without a related industry, will not care at least....
It should be stressed that an engineer is a mechanic, and not a Graduate Engineer (somebody with a couple of Masters or PhD in Engineering from difficult Universities, who could or couldn't not be very good in changing the tyres or unplugging the GPU after starting the engines)
You meet the graduate engineers in aircraft factories, and some from Flight Test department will work on a daily basis with Test Pilots, and some of them will therefore become FTE (Flight Test Engineers) through the appropriate channels. In some countries you even have a distinction between Flight Test Mechanics and Flight Test "engineers" - separate courses at the Test Pilot School, different diplomas, different backgrounds (which doesn't mean they don't work together after !)
Same for Test Pilots and Acceptance (or production) Pilots, either you ave the diploma, or you don't.
Same for Test Pilots, factories (not only in Aerospace) are full of people claiming to be Graduate Engineers, when they are technicians at best.
A couple of technical questions or homework will usually put the record straight...
Now I'm expecting the usual answer "who cares about the diploma, it's the value of the individual who comes first.." Typical political correctness, in times when any youngster downloading stuff with a laptop does claim to be a scientist...
My personal advice to anybody aspiring to a career in the area : go for the highest diploma first, associated with the highest qualifications, that will solve a lot of your job-searching tasks... otherwise, be prepared to be hired through graphology, group exercises, psycho interview, Zodiac signs, freemasonry, or even quotas for previously disadvantaged populations...)
As some people say, diplomas and qualifications are only for people who couldn't do otherwise !
A lot of issues are currently coming from EU bodies (EASA) trying to streamline the diplomas amongst 28 or so countries - and for diplomas related to flight test, only a handful of nations have a significant aircraft industry, and feel (or not !) the need to standardize it. For example Ireland with thousands of commercial pilots and the english langage like US or England, but without a related industry, will not care at least....
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everything Tester 78 said in his post.
However I add the following thought:
I suggest those whose duty it is to criticise but who give way under management pressure are letting down their fellow airmen, no more and no less. In my view such men are not test pilots, they are just pilots who fly flight tests.
However I add the following thought:
I suggest those whose duty it is to criticise but who give way under management pressure are letting down their fellow airmen, no more and no less. In my view such men are not test pilots, they are just pilots who fly flight tests.
A thought or two:-
John.F - Couldn't agree with you more. Very hard to train, and often against significant management pressure - but yes, vitally important.
Tester78 - Agree also, but I'd never wish to denegrate some very good FTEs out there who don't go flying. There are certainly pilots I've worked with whose understanding of engineering is better than a few engineering graduates I've worked with - so it's inevitably a blurred line.
Reinhardt - "an engineer is a mechanic". The English language does the engineering profession no favours and the terms engineer, technician and mechanic are all ambiguous, but you're not helping either. However, (and I "speak" as somebody with a better university education than most) you are wrong in almost any part of the world. Degree certificates are useful, but they're absolutely no substitute for a demonstrated skill in the job.
Much the same might be said of pilots licences - you obviously need the licence to fly the relevant flying machine, and in some environments there's significant benefit in having graduated from a particular (type of) specialist training school. But, ultimately, you need to prove you can do the job well enough for the programme.
G
John.F - Couldn't agree with you more. Very hard to train, and often against significant management pressure - but yes, vitally important.
Tester78 - Agree also, but I'd never wish to denegrate some very good FTEs out there who don't go flying. There are certainly pilots I've worked with whose understanding of engineering is better than a few engineering graduates I've worked with - so it's inevitably a blurred line.
Reinhardt - "an engineer is a mechanic". The English language does the engineering profession no favours and the terms engineer, technician and mechanic are all ambiguous, but you're not helping either. However, (and I "speak" as somebody with a better university education than most) you are wrong in almost any part of the world. Degree certificates are useful, but they're absolutely no substitute for a demonstrated skill in the job.
Much the same might be said of pilots licences - you obviously need the licence to fly the relevant flying machine, and in some environments there's significant benefit in having graduated from a particular (type of) specialist training school. But, ultimately, you need to prove you can do the job well enough for the programme.
G
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ta Genghis, the point I was trying to make (which I might not have made clear) is that I think a test pilot has a duty to see that the data he hands over is properly used. If he doesn't bother about that I see him as just somebody who flies flight tests
Moderator
Reinhardt, try as I may, I struggle to understand the point you may be trying to make...
I agree that "Engineer" is a too widely used term, and thus subject to conveying a lack of clarity. For myself, I like to show the respect earned, by using it to only those who have earned the privilege of being accepted into a professional engineering association. I am not such a person. Otherwise, we also have technicians and mechanics - which I am both, with the skills and signing privileges to prove it.
But, for my experience, and knowledge of many test pilot's backgrounds, a test pilot can come from a wide range of life paths, with none being better than another. Nearly all of the test pilots I know, including myself, were drawn into the role by invitation, rather than application. For me, and many other test pilots I know, it was suitable flying experience on the type, and role, with a strong mechanical/systems/aerodynamics or certification background, which resulted in their being invited into the job of test pilot.
It can also be a matter of the body of skill and knowledge being deep or wide. I know some test pilots who only fly a few types, and freely admit that they would not even touch certain types or tests, where others (like me) are wide but not deep in their role. I "check" test fly many different types, with many different modifications, but if a very substantial test program is needed, I will probably hand the program off to a more qualified or experience test pilot, with a skill set in that specific realm.
This may be a rather "old school" perspective, but it is what I know from my corner of the industry. The result is a great challenge in defining a prescribed path to end up a test pilot, it just seems to happen to those who can fill the role as needed. I think it is very much the employer's to choose what experience and qualifications are needed, not so much the applicant's to anticipate.
Therefore, for anyone aspiring to the job, the best which can be said would be to gain education and experience, along with piloting experience, and then be sure to be employed somewhere that flight testing is being undertaken, so you can express your interest.
Perhaps more will work toward, and apply for this role than will be called, but we will happily encourage those who demonstrate an interest, as new test pilots have to come from somewhere....
I agree that "Engineer" is a too widely used term, and thus subject to conveying a lack of clarity. For myself, I like to show the respect earned, by using it to only those who have earned the privilege of being accepted into a professional engineering association. I am not such a person. Otherwise, we also have technicians and mechanics - which I am both, with the skills and signing privileges to prove it.
But, for my experience, and knowledge of many test pilot's backgrounds, a test pilot can come from a wide range of life paths, with none being better than another. Nearly all of the test pilots I know, including myself, were drawn into the role by invitation, rather than application. For me, and many other test pilots I know, it was suitable flying experience on the type, and role, with a strong mechanical/systems/aerodynamics or certification background, which resulted in their being invited into the job of test pilot.
It can also be a matter of the body of skill and knowledge being deep or wide. I know some test pilots who only fly a few types, and freely admit that they would not even touch certain types or tests, where others (like me) are wide but not deep in their role. I "check" test fly many different types, with many different modifications, but if a very substantial test program is needed, I will probably hand the program off to a more qualified or experience test pilot, with a skill set in that specific realm.
This may be a rather "old school" perspective, but it is what I know from my corner of the industry. The result is a great challenge in defining a prescribed path to end up a test pilot, it just seems to happen to those who can fill the role as needed. I think it is very much the employer's to choose what experience and qualifications are needed, not so much the applicant's to anticipate.
Therefore, for anyone aspiring to the job, the best which can be said would be to gain education and experience, along with piloting experience, and then be sure to be employed somewhere that flight testing is being undertaken, so you can express your interest.
Perhaps more will work toward, and apply for this role than will be called, but we will happily encourage those who demonstrate an interest, as new test pilots have to come from somewhere....
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAR Pilot
I got it - I think you should look abroad, away from your country, and that would make it easier for you to understand other people point of view.
So basically in my country it's exactly the opposite of what you have been developping in your post :
Prospective test pilots are required to have demonstrated a high level of proficiency in an aviation field, in order to be able to expand the scope of their knowledge and flying experience.
They shouldn't be too young in the business (for obvious reasons) but also not too old (to accept criticsm during TP school, as a starter)
They have to be university graduates, with high level diplomas in mathematics or physical engineering (so very theoretical, not technicians) Call those diplomas Masters, PhD, graduate engineers, or whatever, they have specific names in my country, and that's what matters.
Then candidates will pass a theoretical exam of quite a high level, followed by a flight in a type of aircraft exactly the opposite of the one on which they have experience (fighters pilots after minimum briefing will fly a transport type they will discover in the morning, and transport pilots will be seated in a fast jet cockpit..)
So candidates are not "chosen" ....
What we try to avoid is to have a XXX pilot with apparent good technical knowledge, to teach him to be a test pilot of the same XXX ! (as I know it's what happens in some places)
Therefore it's not surprise in this country that all TP are ex-fighter pilots, with the required academic background (which does exclude 2/3 of the potential candidates from this origin in my country) AF officers have to be graduate engineers, which is not the case in many other countries, thus making here the selection process for TP a little bit more ..."prepared"
Therefore TP of famous Airbus types are ex-fighter pilots, apart from a couple of exceptions from time to time (you are welcome to check)
Candidates without the required background will be channeled through the other paths of flight test (which will not prevent some, being FTE, to portray themselves (or be portrayed ?) as TP in some publications (probably because they fly general aviation on week-ends)
Also excluded for ever are airline pilots, because definitely they lack the minimum academic background - not even talking of airline hours being adequate for future flight test experience ...
So that's the way it is (and in this country our industry is just making fighters, airliners, helicopters, business jets, engines, avionics, missiles, radars..) so there might be some justification in being this way.
As I have been stating previously, each country can do it its own way !
Even there used to be at Bombardier a national from the above-mentioned country, who was boasting himself for being a TP without anything as written above - so opportunities can even exist, moving from one country to another.
Gengis, you are not the only one "with a better university education than most" ..... !
and DAR : "Nearly all of the test pilots I know, including myself, were drawn into the role by invitation, rather than application" I say again, totally the opposite - but it's not me, it's my country process, and given the results for 70 years, they shouldn't be so wrong.
I got it - I think you should look abroad, away from your country, and that would make it easier for you to understand other people point of view.
So basically in my country it's exactly the opposite of what you have been developping in your post :
Prospective test pilots are required to have demonstrated a high level of proficiency in an aviation field, in order to be able to expand the scope of their knowledge and flying experience.
They shouldn't be too young in the business (for obvious reasons) but also not too old (to accept criticsm during TP school, as a starter)
They have to be university graduates, with high level diplomas in mathematics or physical engineering (so very theoretical, not technicians) Call those diplomas Masters, PhD, graduate engineers, or whatever, they have specific names in my country, and that's what matters.
Then candidates will pass a theoretical exam of quite a high level, followed by a flight in a type of aircraft exactly the opposite of the one on which they have experience (fighters pilots after minimum briefing will fly a transport type they will discover in the morning, and transport pilots will be seated in a fast jet cockpit..)
So candidates are not "chosen" ....
What we try to avoid is to have a XXX pilot with apparent good technical knowledge, to teach him to be a test pilot of the same XXX ! (as I know it's what happens in some places)
Therefore it's not surprise in this country that all TP are ex-fighter pilots, with the required academic background (which does exclude 2/3 of the potential candidates from this origin in my country) AF officers have to be graduate engineers, which is not the case in many other countries, thus making here the selection process for TP a little bit more ..."prepared"
Therefore TP of famous Airbus types are ex-fighter pilots, apart from a couple of exceptions from time to time (you are welcome to check)
Candidates without the required background will be channeled through the other paths of flight test (which will not prevent some, being FTE, to portray themselves (or be portrayed ?) as TP in some publications (probably because they fly general aviation on week-ends)
Also excluded for ever are airline pilots, because definitely they lack the minimum academic background - not even talking of airline hours being adequate for future flight test experience ...
So that's the way it is (and in this country our industry is just making fighters, airliners, helicopters, business jets, engines, avionics, missiles, radars..) so there might be some justification in being this way.
As I have been stating previously, each country can do it its own way !
Even there used to be at Bombardier a national from the above-mentioned country, who was boasting himself for being a TP without anything as written above - so opportunities can even exist, moving from one country to another.
Gengis, you are not the only one "with a better university education than most" ..... !
and DAR : "Nearly all of the test pilots I know, including myself, were drawn into the role by invitation, rather than application" I say again, totally the opposite - but it's not me, it's my country process, and given the results for 70 years, they shouldn't be so wrong.
Reinhardt - your profile says you're in Qatar. The SETP members database lists none in Qatar. Qatar does not have an aircraft manufacturing industry.
I'm sure that it has a few military TPs somewhere, but far too few to be a representative sample.
I've met many Airbus TPs, some but by no means all of them are former fighter pilots. Some of them don't have technical degrees, some don't have degrees at-all, and not so few its irrelevant.
I am quite sure that if I am looking towards a test pilot job a prospective employer is far more interested in my flying and flight test experience than my BEng and PhD. If I was looking to a university research job that involves some test flying (oh gosh, that's what I actually do, but I already knew that I'm not qualified to work as a TP for Airbus in Toulouse) then the reverse would be more true.
So, I'm afraid Reinhardt that I have to concur with Tester78 and Lomcevac - you really don't know what you are talking about.
For what it's worth, as I'm probably better known on Pprune than they are - I've known both T78 and Lomcevac for a couple of decades, flown with both, and they're vastly more experienced pilots than I am - as well as both having been TPS instructors (I just supervise flight test related PhDs and do a bit of flight testing and specialist training from time to time).
G
I'm sure that it has a few military TPs somewhere, but far too few to be a representative sample.
I've met many Airbus TPs, some but by no means all of them are former fighter pilots. Some of them don't have technical degrees, some don't have degrees at-all, and not so few its irrelevant.
I am quite sure that if I am looking towards a test pilot job a prospective employer is far more interested in my flying and flight test experience than my BEng and PhD. If I was looking to a university research job that involves some test flying (oh gosh, that's what I actually do, but I already knew that I'm not qualified to work as a TP for Airbus in Toulouse) then the reverse would be more true.
So, I'm afraid Reinhardt that I have to concur with Tester78 and Lomcevac - you really don't know what you are talking about.
For what it's worth, as I'm probably better known on Pprune than they are - I've known both T78 and Lomcevac for a couple of decades, flown with both, and they're vastly more experienced pilots than I am - as well as both having been TPS instructors (I just supervise flight test related PhDs and do a bit of flight testing and specialist training from time to time).
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 28th Apr 2015 at 13:34.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that I can add some clarity!
Reinhardt is French (although with some experience of the UK, n'est pas?), and it's true that there have been differences of national approach across the world. It used to be the case in France that all fixed wing military pilots selected for training as experimental test pilots were from a fighter background, but that's no longer the case. Meanwhile, the UK (for example) has trained fixed wing pilots from both fighter and heavy aircraft backgrounds since the earliest days of ETPS. But that's of only passing interest to the OP and others reading this thread with an interest in the civilian route.
There may also be confusion between the terms 'test pilot' and 'experimental test pilot'. I don't mean to reopen the question dealt with above: the definition of a test pilot. I've had my say on that. But let's clear up the regulatory/qualification issue. In France, the CER of the DGA approves individuals to conduct flight testing, both military and civilian. Approvals are granted on the basis of qualifications and experience (but not education), and must be renewed 6-monthly. Approvals can be as 'test pilot' or 'experimental test pilot', and these categories are reflected in the ops manuals of the companies conducting flight test. Test Pilots can captain flights that do not involve envelope expansion, and can fly as P2 on flights that do. Experimental Test Pilots can captain the full range of tests.
To be clear, there are plenty of pilots working their way up the flight test ladder in France as well as other countries. Those starting via the military do indeed need a good educational standard to be selected. But many others are following different routes. So yes, in France there are ex-FTEs that have gained approval from their national authorities as test pilots. In the same way, there are test pilots who have become experimental test pilots. It's called professional development, and requires appropriate training at every stage. There will always be people masquerading as things they are not, in all professions, but that doesn't change the fact that many others work hard to rightfully progress in their chosen careers.
Reinhardt's description of the French test flying environment is a bit out of date and overly simplistic. I share his pride in the aeronautical history of France. But I'm equally proud of that of the UK, and I don't see a significant difference in the efficiency or safety of test flying on each side of the English Channel over the decades. There have been differences of approach, but none clearly superior. Nonetheless, it's certainly true that someone starting a clean-sheet civilian career with the long-term aim of becoming an experimental test pilot, via, say, a design office and FTE development path, would be well-advised to start with a relevant engineering degree to minimise the requirement for luck. Rest assured that astrology and quotas play no part, though. In my experience, flight test is still a meritocracy and I don't see that changing.
Reinhardt is French (although with some experience of the UK, n'est pas?), and it's true that there have been differences of national approach across the world. It used to be the case in France that all fixed wing military pilots selected for training as experimental test pilots were from a fighter background, but that's no longer the case. Meanwhile, the UK (for example) has trained fixed wing pilots from both fighter and heavy aircraft backgrounds since the earliest days of ETPS. But that's of only passing interest to the OP and others reading this thread with an interest in the civilian route.
There may also be confusion between the terms 'test pilot' and 'experimental test pilot'. I don't mean to reopen the question dealt with above: the definition of a test pilot. I've had my say on that. But let's clear up the regulatory/qualification issue. In France, the CER of the DGA approves individuals to conduct flight testing, both military and civilian. Approvals are granted on the basis of qualifications and experience (but not education), and must be renewed 6-monthly. Approvals can be as 'test pilot' or 'experimental test pilot', and these categories are reflected in the ops manuals of the companies conducting flight test. Test Pilots can captain flights that do not involve envelope expansion, and can fly as P2 on flights that do. Experimental Test Pilots can captain the full range of tests.
To be clear, there are plenty of pilots working their way up the flight test ladder in France as well as other countries. Those starting via the military do indeed need a good educational standard to be selected. But many others are following different routes. So yes, in France there are ex-FTEs that have gained approval from their national authorities as test pilots. In the same way, there are test pilots who have become experimental test pilots. It's called professional development, and requires appropriate training at every stage. There will always be people masquerading as things they are not, in all professions, but that doesn't change the fact that many others work hard to rightfully progress in their chosen careers.
Reinhardt's description of the French test flying environment is a bit out of date and overly simplistic. I share his pride in the aeronautical history of France. But I'm equally proud of that of the UK, and I don't see a significant difference in the efficiency or safety of test flying on each side of the English Channel over the decades. There have been differences of approach, but none clearly superior. Nonetheless, it's certainly true that someone starting a clean-sheet civilian career with the long-term aim of becoming an experimental test pilot, via, say, a design office and FTE development path, would be well-advised to start with a relevant engineering degree to minimise the requirement for luck. Rest assured that astrology and quotas play no part, though. In my experience, flight test is still a meritocracy and I don't see that changing.
Last edited by Tester78; 28th Apr 2015 at 18:25.
Moderator
Reinhardt, we see things differently, based on different history, and experience, and that's perfectly fine, as long as each respects the other.
As you said, my experience and observation is opposite to yours, mine, and that of a number of Canadian and US test pilots I know, is exactly the meritocracy which Tester78 so aptly describes.
I was chosen. There's no other way to describe it. Transport Canada Aircraft Certification Engineers called upon me as a citizen, and then later as an Aircraft Certification Delegate of Transport Canada, to fly a number of aircraft for the purpose of confirming continued design compliance, following external modifications or alternate landing gear being installed. I did not request or apply for this role, I was asked, and agreed to fly. Interestingly, for one of those programs, I was the only pilot TC could find within their available choices nationally, who had the required combination of skill experience and qualifications at the time. Happily, TC has since hired a very competent test pilot, who also has the required experience, and he and I have flown together a few times on program.
The TC request for me to fly was based upon my skill and experience flying this type of aircraft and or modification configuration. I was "taught" to be a test pilot for this purpose, by being told what to fly and evaluate, how to gather the data, and what information the report was to contain. So, a pilot with good technical knowledge was taught to be a test pilot.
But there are more types than just jet transports and fast jets. And sub from that, there are unusual operations to be evaluated too. The modification might be how the aircraft is being flown, more than the modification to it. (Parachute exit from GA aircraft, or deploying and recovering a towed object for example)
For myself, I have never flown a jet powered aircraft, and nothing in my career expectations suggest that I ever will. 30 years ago, when I was a very young part time sim tech for an airline, I had access to the DC-8-63 full motion but nearly no visual simulator we had. I taught myself to fly it late at night, after the real pilots had finished training. I read the flight manual, and with zero dual instruction just went "flying". I accumulated 45 hours of accident free flying in it, including a number of self induced emergencies. It was an airplane. What it had in common was that I would take off from a runway of suitable length, and return to that same runway. It was not particularly challenging.
When things get different is when the type of aircraft is other than a jet, and the thing you are doing with it is other than landing on that nice paved runway, or the aircraft is changing configuration in flight. I assure you that it is much more safe to take a competent pilot on type and operation, and ask him to gather flight test data, in accordance with a prepared and accepted flight test card, than it is to send a highly qualified engineer to fly a very different aircraft in a different environment. In the worst case, the non TP "pilot" will miss the test objective, and have to repeat the test to get the required data.
Sending a non qualified pilot, highly qualified "tester" (TP) out in a new plane could have needlessly high risks. I assure you that from my experience, a jet/mid to large transport pilot is going to have a seriously hard time flight testing a floatplane, flying boat, or taildragger on skis. These aircraft must be tested too, and the pilot doing it in accordance with an accepted test plan would seem to be a "test pilot".
So, flight testing is not a one size fits all. Pilots are not, and cannot be one pilot fits all aircraft types. Respecting Genghis' kindly provided definitions of a test pilot, the only thing that makes me think I am one, is that people keep asking me to flight test their aircraft, and the authority keeps approving the flight test plans, and accepting my reports in support of STC approval.
Other than that nuance, I'm just a pilot, with some flight test training, and 20 years experience, flying some really weird light aircraft. Attempting to include to exclude a pilot in the test flying world, may work if you are the person doing the hiring. Otherwise, your opinion is interesting information about your local environment, but has no affect on other jurisdictions. Whatever the DGAC chooses to do is fine with me, it's not my flying environment....
As you said, my experience and observation is opposite to yours, mine, and that of a number of Canadian and US test pilots I know, is exactly the meritocracy which Tester78 so aptly describes.
So candidates are not "chosen" ....
What we try to avoid is to have a XXX pilot with apparent good technical knowledge, to teach him to be a test pilot of the same XXX !
What we try to avoid is to have a XXX pilot with apparent good technical knowledge, to teach him to be a test pilot of the same XXX !
The TC request for me to fly was based upon my skill and experience flying this type of aircraft and or modification configuration. I was "taught" to be a test pilot for this purpose, by being told what to fly and evaluate, how to gather the data, and what information the report was to contain. So, a pilot with good technical knowledge was taught to be a test pilot.
followed by a flight in a type of aircraft exactly the opposite of the one on which they have experience (fighters pilots after minimum briefing will fly a transport type they will discover in the morning, and transport pilots will be seated in a fast jet cockpit..)
For myself, I have never flown a jet powered aircraft, and nothing in my career expectations suggest that I ever will. 30 years ago, when I was a very young part time sim tech for an airline, I had access to the DC-8-63 full motion but nearly no visual simulator we had. I taught myself to fly it late at night, after the real pilots had finished training. I read the flight manual, and with zero dual instruction just went "flying". I accumulated 45 hours of accident free flying in it, including a number of self induced emergencies. It was an airplane. What it had in common was that I would take off from a runway of suitable length, and return to that same runway. It was not particularly challenging.
When things get different is when the type of aircraft is other than a jet, and the thing you are doing with it is other than landing on that nice paved runway, or the aircraft is changing configuration in flight. I assure you that it is much more safe to take a competent pilot on type and operation, and ask him to gather flight test data, in accordance with a prepared and accepted flight test card, than it is to send a highly qualified engineer to fly a very different aircraft in a different environment. In the worst case, the non TP "pilot" will miss the test objective, and have to repeat the test to get the required data.
Sending a non qualified pilot, highly qualified "tester" (TP) out in a new plane could have needlessly high risks. I assure you that from my experience, a jet/mid to large transport pilot is going to have a seriously hard time flight testing a floatplane, flying boat, or taildragger on skis. These aircraft must be tested too, and the pilot doing it in accordance with an accepted test plan would seem to be a "test pilot".
So, flight testing is not a one size fits all. Pilots are not, and cannot be one pilot fits all aircraft types. Respecting Genghis' kindly provided definitions of a test pilot, the only thing that makes me think I am one, is that people keep asking me to flight test their aircraft, and the authority keeps approving the flight test plans, and accepting my reports in support of STC approval.
Other than that nuance, I'm just a pilot, with some flight test training, and 20 years experience, flying some really weird light aircraft. Attempting to include to exclude a pilot in the test flying world, may work if you are the person doing the hiring. Otherwise, your opinion is interesting information about your local environment, but has no affect on other jurisdictions. Whatever the DGAC chooses to do is fine with me, it's not my flying environment....
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAR and T78, I had much pleasure reading your posts, and I must say that I do acknowledge your assertions as being full of sense.
Even if I do recommand a strict system of diplomas and qualifications, that doesn't mean that I do advocate an apartheid sytem where people would be doomed for ever in their positions ! Steps ans stairs have to exist, to encourage people to climb them - and we all know some talented professionnals who did.
It's just that some order is needed, and competitive exams based on established abilities and knowledge do seem for me (and a lot of others) the fairest way to get to the positions.
I remember a CTP about to depart for an experimental flight with a big airliner, disembarking in a most expeditious way some people without a clearly defined role or position... and that doesn't mean mistakes have never been made in that field.
DAR, we have in this country a TP course for light aircraft, which is by no means an easy program. Those aircraft have to be treated with respect - I think in my whole career so far, the most difficult a/c I happened to land (or try to) had been one of them, an absolute terror...
TP from this country get the right to fly everything, which is the beauty of the job, trust us.... But it's usually a short-timed assignment (in fact it's probably better, as some would consider themselves as God after some years) and then once with Airbus, it will only be Airbus products !
To finish with DAR, not, not in any case will it be a DGAC affair (they are too busy with licences, duty times, private flight schools agreements, colors of lifejackets) to have a Flight Test Department ( the sort of which Transport Canada does seem to have, as per your post)
Maybe all of us will have learnt a little bit from those exchanges, and that prospective TP will have found a little bit of it useful....
In any case TPs often have to suffer from the jealousy of other colleagues, so maybe we can limit our disagreements between ourselves !
And... guys, sorry it was a great day in Qatar today (no civilian stuff) - read the aerospace news - so back to the drinks....
Even if I do recommand a strict system of diplomas and qualifications, that doesn't mean that I do advocate an apartheid sytem where people would be doomed for ever in their positions ! Steps ans stairs have to exist, to encourage people to climb them - and we all know some talented professionnals who did.
It's just that some order is needed, and competitive exams based on established abilities and knowledge do seem for me (and a lot of others) the fairest way to get to the positions.
I remember a CTP about to depart for an experimental flight with a big airliner, disembarking in a most expeditious way some people without a clearly defined role or position... and that doesn't mean mistakes have never been made in that field.
DAR, we have in this country a TP course for light aircraft, which is by no means an easy program. Those aircraft have to be treated with respect - I think in my whole career so far, the most difficult a/c I happened to land (or try to) had been one of them, an absolute terror...
TP from this country get the right to fly everything, which is the beauty of the job, trust us.... But it's usually a short-timed assignment (in fact it's probably better, as some would consider themselves as God after some years) and then once with Airbus, it will only be Airbus products !
To finish with DAR, not, not in any case will it be a DGAC affair (they are too busy with licences, duty times, private flight schools agreements, colors of lifejackets) to have a Flight Test Department ( the sort of which Transport Canada does seem to have, as per your post)
Maybe all of us will have learnt a little bit from those exchanges, and that prospective TP will have found a little bit of it useful....
In any case TPs often have to suffer from the jealousy of other colleagues, so maybe we can limit our disagreements between ourselves !
And... guys, sorry it was a great day in Qatar today (no civilian stuff) - read the aerospace news - so back to the drinks....
Last edited by Reinhardt; 30th Apr 2015 at 15:11.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
disembarking in a most expeditious way some people without a clearly defined role or position.
Anyhow in my book education and qualifications (for ANY job) merely allow your name to finish up on the short list of applicants.
Moderator
Thanks Reinhardt
And that is probably central to the differing perspective various posters here could have. Of course, one should follow one's desired pilot path as much as possible.
I know that very modern airliners are an order of magnitude more systems complex, and I'm sure a total mind capture, for those pilots who enjoy that type of aircraft. I completely respect that, but it's not for me. The apogee of my flight test career will not be in a jet, or a systems complex aircraft, it will probably be in another floatplane, or rag and tube taildragger, and I'm fine with that.
In our evolving aviation industry, there will be a need for test pilots who can evaluate new small aircraft designs as well as large ones. The great challenge is that there is no where near the financial inertia in flight testing modest light aircraft as there is in airliners, helicopters, and military aircraft.
It is less likely that the light aircraft industry will find a large aircraft, fast jet, formally trained "test pilot" who has thousands of hours of experience flying very light aircraft, to undertake flight testing of a mod, or a new aircraft design. For the pilots who do have the flying experience on these types, and varied undercarriage configurations, it is very unlikely that they have come from a career path where formal flight test training was an element.
A generation ago, the light aircraft test pilot could be drawn from a military pilot group with lots of small aircraft experience on light types, but I think not so much these days.
Flight testing is a larger "industry" than just big, complex aircraft, and therefore "test pilot" is a much more varied role than one type of pilot could be expected to accomplish....
TP from this country get the right to fly everything, which is the beauty of the job, trust us.... But it's usually a short-timed assignment (in fact it's probably better, as some would consider themselves as God after some years) and then once with Airbus, it will only be Airbus products !
I know that very modern airliners are an order of magnitude more systems complex, and I'm sure a total mind capture, for those pilots who enjoy that type of aircraft. I completely respect that, but it's not for me. The apogee of my flight test career will not be in a jet, or a systems complex aircraft, it will probably be in another floatplane, or rag and tube taildragger, and I'm fine with that.
In our evolving aviation industry, there will be a need for test pilots who can evaluate new small aircraft designs as well as large ones. The great challenge is that there is no where near the financial inertia in flight testing modest light aircraft as there is in airliners, helicopters, and military aircraft.
It is less likely that the light aircraft industry will find a large aircraft, fast jet, formally trained "test pilot" who has thousands of hours of experience flying very light aircraft, to undertake flight testing of a mod, or a new aircraft design. For the pilots who do have the flying experience on these types, and varied undercarriage configurations, it is very unlikely that they have come from a career path where formal flight test training was an element.
A generation ago, the light aircraft test pilot could be drawn from a military pilot group with lots of small aircraft experience on light types, but I think not so much these days.
Flight testing is a larger "industry" than just big, complex aircraft, and therefore "test pilot" is a much more varied role than one type of pilot could be expected to accomplish....
