Flight Testing vs Test Flying
 

Can anyone give me a definitive answer as to whether there is a difference between a "Flight Test" and a "Test Flight". I am writing policy regarding this issue... and I thought I would throw this one open to the floor for any views.

Being a linguistic pedant firstly....

A "Flight Test" is a test (noun) involving flight (adjective). Therefore it might involve more than one flight; it might also be conducted as part of a flight which has other tasks (including other tests, or other activities).

A "Test Flight" is a flight (noun) for the purpose of test (adjective).

I don't know of any official definition. But it seems to me that's the way we would use those terms.

Words are the things that make confusion...

Be careful. A flight test for the purposes of defining or proving the airworthiness of an aircraft is different than a flight test of a pilot for the purposes of obtaining a licence. Both are called flight tests.
The flight test for a new type of aircraft in development is called the same thing as the flight to prove that an aircraft coming out of maintenance performs as it should. Same name.
Regulations or policy that call these things the same name are bound to create confusion.
I've seen an agency that had a 'Certification' branch that did nothing by grant licences to pilots- their claim was that they were certifying pilots... (as opposed to airworthiness certification, which another branch of the same agency did).
May I suggest that the term 'post maintenance check flight' be adopted for those flights, and 'developmental' or 'experimental' or 'certification flight test' be used for those flights. I'm not sure what to call the flight that a pilot would do for licencing purposes - a check flight?

Generally agree with the above, sometimes it's best to use different terminology to reduce confusion (a bit like the great "Engineer" debate). Here's a suggestion only, loosely based upon UK practice and which would at-least be understood in my office and I suspect most equivalents.


Assessing pilot - pilot currently undertaking the assessment of an aircraft under any circumstances.

Check Flight - confirmation in flight that an aircraft is behaving as advertised (typically post-maintenance)

Check Pilot - Pilot qualified to conduct a check flight, currently known in RAF parlance as a UTP.

Examiner - Pilot qualified to assess another pilot.

Examining pilot - pilot currently undertaking the assessment of another pilot under any circumstances.

Flying Test - flight for purposes of assessing a pilot's competence.

Test Flight - a flight in which an aircraft is being assessed for data that doesn't currently exist. This has two versions "experimental test flight" and "certification test flight".

Test Flying - the general practice of assessing aeroplanes.

Test Pilot - Pilot qualified to conduct a test flight. Generally assumed that such a person is also de-facto a check pilot.



Note that I've specifically avoided the term "flight test", it's just too open to misinterpretation and is used in too many contexts.

G

I'm making a few assumptions here, Irish Tempest, but if you're writing policy and you're from Wyton, then I would suggest you liaise closely with: your contractors Chief Test Pilot, Boscombe Down Project Pilot's, AD/Flying and the eventual Cutomer pilots. From experience you'll find that each may have a different definition of, at least, all of Ghengis's list, and perhaps more.

I created a Flight Test Manual for work last year, and entered the minefield!

We're not that far apart geographically, if you'd like to discuss it over lunch, say, give me a call. I've sent you a private mesage with contact details,

A

But nonetheless, the idea of a universally accepted set of definitions isn't a bad one, and since presumably Irish Tempest is revising or relating to JSP318 (which certainly when I used it used to have a few ambiguities in it such as the wonderful statement "FTEs are not aircrew, but are part of the aircraft operating crew" which I never did quite get my head around) he's in the loop of D/Flying(PE), CTP(BDN), etc.

Out of interest I took at look at JAR-1 , which is the JAA definitions document. Not one of the terms above is even alluded to, which can only be described as unhelpful.

Maybe this is a task for SETP/SFTE/RAeS/AIAA between them?

G

An excellent point to have SETP / SFTE etc. put together some words on this.
I'll see what I can do to suggest it.

OFF TOPIC WARNING

Then all we need to do is understand the difference between a test pilot and a pilot who flies flight tests

To add to ---------
 

But RAF units carry out airtests to check aircraft, flown by pilots certified capable of so doing - aircheckers. Also, check flights are conducted in order to certify pilots, not aircraft - check pilots. Furthermore, there are regulatory tests performed on pilots that are additional to check flights - examiners. All of which need testing pilots, but not necessarily test pilots - or am I just being very testing.

At the risk of stepping on a landmine, this is very similar to the debate of who can be called an 'engineer'.
I know that in the US Army, the common (mis)understanding is that a test pilot is someone who does maintenance check flights, not someone who does experimental or developmental flying. So we need some guidance.

Firstly, many thanks guys for all your thoughts and ponderings on this issue. As part of the UK tri-Service engineering convergence team responsible for making all air engineers (RAF/RN/ARMY) sing off the same hymn sheet and operate to the same maintenance procedures and principles to enable jointery, I was tasked with investigation into the area of Flight Test...hmm easy enough i thought... not so horatio...

The problem with this little bit of policy was that it crossed over from the new tri-Service engineering publication the (Joint Air Publication) into the predominatly aicrew oriented converged JSP 550 (old JSP 318). Immediatly I found major differences between the 3 services on the way we conduct flight testing, train Test Pilots, even what we call the people who do it.

Getting all three Services to agree has been a nightmare, unfortunatly I can't use this forum to say what defintions etc we have agreed upon as the chapter is subject to approval by all the Front Line Commands. (Will let you know the outcome and send you all a copy of what we have come up with if your interested).

My next area of interest is Flight Test Schedules (commonly referred to in the UK as the 5M), 2 services allow junior pilots to carry out activities in accordance with the 5M (as long as the authoriser is happy) however, in one UK service only pilots with an inordinate amount of flying time may become "Unit Test Pilots" after a "laying on of hands" by the Station Commander.

There is a "work around" carried out called airborne checks. To converge this issue is also very hefty as it impinges on how the FTS are written (either in blunt intructions or a more wordy walkthough type method), how knowledgeable authorisers are about the 5M, Rotary or FW testing issues, basic training regimes for all 3 Services...and a pleathora of other issues.

Its good to see that the muddy waters on this issue extend all the way across to the States Shaun!

Once again many thanks to your inputs and please feel free to build on this topic.

Rgds,

Irish

I have just sent you a private message about this subject. If you have trouble finding it please say so here.

John

Irish Tempest - IMHO you need to be very careful with your terminology here. A 'Test Pilot' is one who has completed a course at a 'Test Pilot School' [like ETPS]. These guys test the aircraft and systems to explore the edge of the flight envelope, before deciding how far the 'average' pilot can go before the situation moves beyond his capabilities [and thus the limits imposed in the aircrew manual/release to service]. I once flew a ME ac that was deliverd by the manufacturer's TP. Next day I flew the post-major Sqn acceptance check, but the TP had to fly a specific part of the flight to finish off his own manufacturer's test because it was to be flown outside the limits imposed on Service pilots.

'Airtest Pilot' is the guy on the Sqn who is experienced and given the job of checking that aircraft and systems behave in the prescribed manner after repair/maintenance. He need not be a Test Pilot or even a QFI to carry out the task.

...Unless John F can come up with a more accurate explanation?

My laymans interpretation (may or may not further the debate)...

Test Pilot = Pilot involved in the development of an aircraft.

Pilot doing a flight test = Anything 'test' wise that is post development. i.e. does it work as it normally does? (in previous example: there is no 'normal')

I was referring to some personal views of mine that a test pilot is anybody who carries out any sort of test on an aircraft and then having found out what needs to be fixed goes around kicking in whatever doors are necessary until those who wanted the flight done agree to make the necessary changes to improve that individual aeroplane or the type in general.

If the said pilot on presenting his data and opinions gets reminded of who pays his salary and then creeps quietly back to his office until asked to fly again, then for me he is a pilot who flies flight tests, not a test pilot.

(I did warn you it had nothing to do with the topic)

I like your style John, although it shows in slightly poor light one or two individuals of my previous acquaintance - often ETPS graduates - who would turn up, fly tests, take over a month to write a report, then be almost permanently unavailable to the FTE who wants to discuss the results.

FJJP - whilst the various schools provide superb training, don't go thinking that you have to be a TPS graduate to be called a TP, or to be a good TP. Just not true.


I do think that, apart from John's point which is mostly moral, it all rather shows that somebody neutral - such as SETP, formally laying down some terminology for us all to use, would be a jolly good thing. We are clearly not all using the same dictionary!

G

Genghis,

I am afraid that this reply is on the same theme as one that I have put on another thread, again relating to your cynical and snide comments about ETPS. Firstly, any ETPS graduate is just one member of the flying community who has an above average (however that may be defined!) level of ability and has relevant experience, and who has worked exceptionally hard as part of a team for a year. They are all individuals, and therefore the working relationships within a test team of which they are a member, and their contribution to that team, will vary. I have flown tests upon which I have not reported for a month and then have not been readily available for discussion with the FTE - because of having higher priority tasks and often being on trials away from base!!! I have always attributed any variations in the professional standards of the FTEs with whom I have worked to individual personality and experience. Whether that experience was gained through many years in the industry or graduation from a "recognised" test pilot school or other training establishment was, to me, completely irrelevant.

You appear to have a prejudice against ETPS graduates. Perhaps you would care to explain why.

As long as we all know our limitations; and with luck we'll fly again tomorrow. Tea & medals for all!

I have no bias against ETPS graduates - what I have is a bias against a view, held in some quarters, that to be considered worthy of the "TP" title you need to have been a graduate of one of the 3 military schools. That is my objection - not to the school itself where I got a very good education thanks, in fact if you're who I think you are, you were one of my tutors there - and my thanks, I still use what you taught me almost every day.

There are even organisations with a known tendency to only employ TPs who are graduates of a particular TPS - I don't feel this is healthy; there are several routes to competence and the door should remain open to the alternatives.

G

Well said John and Lomcevak.

We have a fundamental problem here in the UK of accepting unqualified people in qualified positions - and it's not only in aviation. For once the French have the right idea, all those who work in test flying must be licensed to so do. Why fear such a process here? What's wrong in insisting that those working on experimental or certification testing be graduates of an accepted school? There are four of them Ghengis, not three - EPNER, ETPS, USNTPS and USAFTPS.

After all, we don't let 'unqualified' doctos or nurses work on us in our health service, we proscecute them. So why do we let 'unqualified' pilots test our aeroplanes?

Perhaps we need to start a new thread, John.

Airbedane