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

Airbedane - thanks for the correction (and of-course the 5th is NTPS which is non-military but just as capable of producing good TPs), and I agree with you on all but one point....

IMHO, the suggestion of formal TP or FTE licensing is an excellent one; my disagreement is that TPS graduation should be the sole route to recognise a competent practitioner. For that matter, there are areas, such as civil compliance checklists and flying limitations development that are only touched on by the military schools but are fundamental to civil test flying - so one might make a case for more than TPS graduation alone in order to become a licensed TP - notwithstanding that any rational system should "fasttrack" graduates of recognised TP schools, or I'd suggest Registered Engineers (pick national qualification system of your choice) who got their qualification through FT work.

But, who to do the licensing? It really should be separate to individual aircrew licenses, and ideally recognisable internationally since this is inevitably a business that tends to cross national borders constantly.

G

Genghis,

I'm with you wrt to the qualifications and graduate status. There has to be a better way than the current approach. It simply isn't good enough to say that we've always done it this way.

However, given the tradition and nature of the 4 big schools, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the need for radical change to come from within the schools. Is it in their interest?

Genghis,

You're out of date, I'm afraid. Civil certification specifications and test techniques have been a fundamental element in 5 major exercises at ETPS for a few years, now.

Tester07
I'm very glad to hear it - neither military nor civil methods have a monopoly on best practice. Having said that, the biggest culture shock that I met on escaping a military environment to a civil one wasn't the use of BCAR/JAR .v. Def-Stan - at the end of the day they're basically saying the same thing in a different order. The big difference I found, between military test flying (either as practiced at BDN or as I was taught on the 9 months at ETPS I managed to complete) is that in military testing the bottom line is whether the test team consider the "product" satisfactory or not.

In civil certification much work is done before testing, and often even design starts on determining the approval standard. If an aircraft diverges to the tiniest degree from the standard - even if it's considered acceptable - in a civil test programme this is a huge drama requiring high level meetings, soul-searching, re-drafting of specifications, etc. I'm not saying that this is a better system (where handling qualities are concerned in particular, it's almost certainly not!), but it's a totally different philosophy and way of working.


XS439

I can't for the moment see why it creates a problem for the 4 mil schools and NTPS. It's in everybody's interest to have a competent and healthy FT community surely, and I can't see the worlds airforces - their primary customers - ever seeing another route to gain the quality human and eventually engineering products that they need.

Arguably the further you get from the military environment that can afford full-time FT training the more useful it becomes.


G

N.B. Okay, okay, I was chopped - but I use the teaching I got prior to that, if there's a better aeronautical education than those 9 months, I've not yet seen it - maybe the 2 months I missed!. This doesn't detract from my more serious points about routes to competence and FT licensing.

Genghis,

Everyone needs to be aware that there is a good reason why the emphasis in military flight test is different to civil certification, and this is that the missions for the aircraft are vastly different.

For commercial transport aircraft, and for most light aircraft, the safety and performance requirements can be quantified such that a detailed specification can be written (JAR/FAR). Compliance with the spec requirements will enable the mission of that aircraft to be completed.

For military aircraft, including large transport and maritime patrol aircraft, there are many mission phases such as low flying, air-to-air refuelling and formation flying (all by night and day) where the flying qualities cannot be quantified to the extent that a spec can be written such that compliance will guarantee that the aircraft is fit for purpose. Therefore, the qualitative opinion of the test pilot is essential in proving that the aircraft is fit for purpose, in addition to meeting a detailed performance spec and possibly JAR/FAR 25 as well. In addition, the role of the aircraft may have changed from its original design concept, which generally is not the case for commercial aircraft. Again, the test pilot's opinion is vital to ensuring that the customer gets the system that he requires.

Rgds

L

Agreed - but my opinion is that both systems tend sometimes to be a little too singleminded in their application. It is very frustrating in civil airworthiness to prove to everybody's satisfaction that an aircraft is entirely fit for purpose, but expend considerable time and money because it doesn't quite meet the pre-agreed requirements. I had a real-world case about 2 years ago where three test pilots all agreed that a characteristic was satisfactory, yet it failed to meet a safety factor on operating speeds; whilst the approval basis was renegotiated it delayed approval of an aeroplane by 2 months - which is a very long time for a company needing to sell aeroplanes to stay solvent.

Equally, in my previous life I sometimes felt that a full and thorough assessment was carried out of - say - dynamic lat-dir, and then it was decided whether or not it was acceptable for the role. Starting with a specification and targetting compliance with that, notwithstanding that the handling envelope must still be fully explored and the bottom line should remain test-team opinion, might sometimes lead to a more efficient and targetted test programme. Performance testing more so of-course.

Nonetheless, the two systems are what they are, and I think that it's important to understand the quite profound differences in philosophy if moving between civil and military flight-test, in either direction.

G

From the new guy on the forum: One idea is to look at the FAA requirements for hiring a new Test Pilot. If a license was established for test pilots, qualifications such as the ones the FAA uses for its own pilots might provide the compromise. Training can either be done in a formal school or on the job with a commercial company. (Below is copied from FAA advertisement)

Flight Experience Requirements: All applicants must meet the following requirements:

Have successfully completed a military test pilot school (United States, France, Britain, or Russia) or a ONE YEAR civilian test pilot school (National Test Pilot School (NTPS), etc.)
OR
Have 1 year or 100 hours of flight test experience as an engineering test pilot conducting performance and flying qualities tests or analyzing aircraft performance data.

NOTE: Acceptable engineering flight test experience must have been for the purpose of establishing the basic airworthiness of prototype aircraft or component parts in the experimental/developmental stage. This experience includes flight testing of an aircraft or component from the time of first developmental flight testing through final FAA certification or military acceptance testing. This experience must include basic stability, controllability, and performance testing to determine compliance with civil, military, or foreign standards. Flight tests will normally have been conducted in experimental category uncertified civilian aircraft or in military aircraft which have not had final acceptance for service use.

THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES DO NOT MEET ENGINEERING FLIGHT TEST EXPERIENCE
REQUIREMENTS:
- Production quality control testing of certificated aircraft;
- Flight testing of overhauled aircraft or equipment for which the basic airworthiness has already been established;
- Flight testing of airspace navigation ground systems;
- Flight instruction;
- Air carrier operations/general aviation operations; or
- Flights of service test aircraft to provide airborne test time for equipment evaluation.

I find it interesting that a group of people (test pilots and flight test engineers) that live in a world driven by quantitative and qualitative measurement have not yet decided on an objective means of determining what is suitable training and experience to be involved in the flight testing of aircraft.
Do we need training plus an examination?
A thesis that has to be defended in front of a board of examiners?
Something else?

In defence of a recognised professional qualification, could I suggest you regard the term "test pilot" as applying to one who has qualified with a recognised test pilot school. There is an accepted abbreviation - tp - although it is often expanded to Qualified Test Pilot in order to avoid misunderstanding.
:cool:

So what would you call the many people, working worldwide, performing competent test flying, usually qualified to do so by their respective governments or authorities, but who haven't graduated from a TP School?

FAA, CAA and even SETP/SFTE all have mechanisms by which these people can be formally called "Test Pilot" or "FTE", it seems a bit churlish to ignore that.

Maybe we could use "graduate test pilot" and "non-graduate test pilot" if it's really necessary to use different terminology?

G


non-graduate flight test engineer.
non-graduate test pilot.

There was a time before test pilot schools when pilots became ‘test pilots’ and engineers became ‘test engineers’ by experience. Some gained test knowledge by trial and error, some by apprenticeship and others by mentorship. The test pilot schools have formalized, standardized and accelerated this process of acquiring flight test knowledge but a test pilot school is not the only way to acquire flight test knowledge.

A certificate or diploma from a recognized or accepted test pilot school is a solid foundation on which to build a career in flight test but it does not, in and of itself, a test pilot make. A test pilot school is a structured and controlled environment-a safe place to acquire knowledge and skill under watchful and experienced eyes. The real world of flight test is a different environment and most test pilot school graduates require additional training and knowledge to complete their metamorphosis.

A single training and experience standard to be involved in the flight testing of aircraft seems like a good idea but different services have different requirements; different countries have different standards. Manufacturers strive to discover new and improved methods in every aspect of design and flight test. In-breeding in any species can have negative aspects and flight test is no different.

We do not need more examinations. There is no examination that can definitively predict who is qualified to be a test pilot. Nor should there be a single standard to be considered a test pilot. More than a few manufacturers’ test pilots believe that military test pilots should not be considered test pilots because they are not involved in the full design and test process. There are experienced test pilots who are of the opinion that unless you have been assigned the project pilot or project engineer for at least one successful first flight of an original design aircraft you are not a real test pilot or test engineer. Few test pilot school graduates would qualify as ‘test pilot’ or ‘test engineer’ if these unique criteria were applied.

Before the flight test community advocates tests and special certificates we should first consider carefully what we hope to achieve. Will an exclusive test pilot club whose only entry requirement is a certificate from an approved school lead to improved standards, methods and procedures for the safe and accurate quantitative and qualitative measurements necessary in flight test?

Rich:
Very good points.
My suggestion was more based on people who did not have the qualifications or experience passing themselves off as test pilots or flight test engineers - how do we make sure that the users of flight test people know that they are getting at least some sort of qualification?
Some sort of exam or board should be able to do this - at least one would think it was possible. Doctors have some sort of process (although they may not be a good role model...)
But we have regular demonstrations of people who say they are qualified and patently are not. What can we do about it?

Engineer qualifications, such as the British CEng or the American Professional Engineers' Licence have a de-facto sliding scale. Being simplistic, to get your licence you have to hit a point on a sliding scale.

At one end of the scale is a great deal of experience and only limited formal training, whilst at the other end is a great deal of formal training allowing rather less (but still significant) professional experience. And in both cases, you need recommendations from several already-qualified practitioners.

There is much debate to have concerning the detail of such a system, but if one were looking to create a universal TP/FTE licence, this is probably the sort of model that you want to go for.

G

At the risk of stating the obvious, any licensing system is only an extremely crude way of comparing people and their abilities.

In the UK test flying world we have (so far) operated on a approved basis where organisations, civil or military, applied for approval to the relevant authority, D Flying or the CAA, for J Bloggs to be allowed to do X..

Because the UK test flying scene is fairly small most potential practitioners are known to somebody in the relevant authority so their approval (or rejection) was pretty soundly based on personal experience of the J Bloggs concerned and the job he was going to do.

I suspect Europe will sooner or later require us to go the test flying licence route for all sorts of reasons. But none of those are connected with making sure the best guy gets to do the job

Surely the licence as an indication of a pilots ability is very limited even in the airline business. If you run an airline are you going to employ any pilot who happens to have the necessary licence? Not if you want to use your aeroplanes week in week out I would submit.

I read a letter the other day from a new PPL who said that now he had a licence he did not see why any club from whom he wanted to rent an aeroplane should expect him to fly with an instructor first before he took his long lists of mates up for a fly - after all Mr Avis did not do that before he drove out of the parking lot.

Such is the magnitude of the problem.

John,

Very well said. Any license could only be an indicator of a minimum standard that had been achieved. It would still need a CV and references to prove suitability for a given job. In Germany, for example, there are test pilot licenses which can be gained in several ways and have 2 categories (TB1 and TB2) which, I understand, relate to aircraft weight categories. Graduation from a military test pilot school automatically entitles an individual to the award of the license for all weight categories. However, none of the German test pilots who I know are under any illusion that upon award of the license that they are instantly qualified for all flight test jobs.

Rgds

L

Firstly, I agree that some form of licensing, such as is used in Europe, would be a good thing. However I have reservations about any new system. I'm sure we've all seen some new system implemented (large or small scale) that either isn't worth the paper it's written on, or makes you jump through so many hoops it turns into a bureaucratic nightmare.

I have flown with a couple of non TPS graduate test pilots, and found them to be indistinguishable from the TPS graduates. Different pilots had different strengths, this didn't seem to be related to TPS/non-TPS training. It sometimes seemed to have more to do with which service they learnt to fly with (all TPs I've worked with learnt their craft in a Military environment).

As I posted on Genghis' questions thread, I would support some form of sliding scale.

How would licensing of FTEs be done? Where I used to work, 9 out of 10 TPs had done TPS, but out of the 20 FTEs I am not aware of any that had a formal TPS based training. We all went on some 1 week courses (IGDS in the UK, for instance), which were very useful, but how many of these, and what sort, would qualify one as an FTE?

As for sitting exams, again I would have to ask, what subjects? I am employed to do flight testing, I plan and conduct flight trials, exam the data, write reports and make recommendations, does this make an FTE? I have been doing this sort of thing for about 4.5 years, does that make me an FTE? Getting back to the exam subjects, most people would probably come up with aeronautical sounding subjects. This would leave me completely stuffed. I have an electronics degree, I started out as an avionics integration and test engineer, and it's my avionics background that got me the job in the flight test department. In that department there were people who had aeronautical backgrounds, but were luddites when came to any thing with electricity in it (much as I was with aerodynamics and handling), would this prevent them being FTEs in the current technological era? I may have picked up a lot of knowledge about aeronautical subjects, and can ask intelligent (well, usually) questions, but I don't think I know enough to pass an exam.

Should FTEs be licensed for certain areas of test only?

Licensing of TPs may be difficult, but I would also argue that licensing of FTEs would not be easy either.

John - Your earlier comment about test pilots getting things fixed etc rings seems familiar, a lot of the time I feel more in agreement with the customer than the company, but can't openly display it too much without the danger being unemployed.

I think this is the longest post I’ve ever written.

Straight Up Again.

Your points about the problems of licensing are all very well taken, but given your views, so well expressed and explained - why your first sentence? That is not a smartarse comment, I genuinely wonder what you have in mind to say it would be a good thing?

J

Thinking out loud here, there seems a concensus that firstly some mechanism allowing proven competence to be checked is a good thing, and secondly that FT is such a varied beast that a straightforward license is almost unachievable. (Incidentally I disagree on principle with undue reliance upon the "old boys net" approach, even in the UK - our industry may be small and authority relatively large , but it's not so small that this approach won't miss able and experienced people.)

Picking up on SUA's point my background is primarily P&HQ, my knowledge of electronics is at best limited. So whilst in our own environments we are hopefully both considered half-decent FTEs, there are probably stacks of jobs I'm able to do and he isn't, and vice-versa. But, I'd guess that our understanding of test planning, conducting testing in the air, briefing and debriefing, etc - core FT skills, are similar.

So, is a possible way this might work some form of "license" which does nothing more than demonstrate an ability to work professionally in the flight-test environment, supported by some form of verified logbook showing the classes of aircraft, and types of test in which either training has been received and/or practical experience gained.

In that context, the minimum license might become an absolute but relatively easy to obtain - it might even be a common license to pilots and FTEs. (This may sound daft, but we've probably all seen both experienced TPs with an engineering background slide into the FTE role, and good FTEs who are competent pilots slide into the left hand using their flight test knowledge combined with flying ability and type knowledge; and in any case any pilot will require necessary pilots licensing regardless of his experience as an FTE.)

Then the "professional log" can be looked at by any current or potential employer who can assess whether a particular practitioner should be sufficiently able to function in a particular task or environment and/or what additional training / supervision / experience might be needed.

Which ultimately looks suspiciously like Lomcevac's mentioned CV and references - the difference being a degree of standardisation and that references can be included within the professional log (avoiding, dare I say, anybody's current employer being asked for references for an employee that they didn't know was looking elsewhere - in the same way as the CEng and Engineers logbook can do).

G

I would venture the following:

TPs and FTE are translators, a test pilot is someone who thinks pilot but can speak and understand engineer, an FTE is someone who thinks engineer but can speak and understand pilot.

GA

GA

Is that not the truth