PPRuNe Forums - Airbus Test Pilot

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Flight Testing (https://www.pprune.org/flight-testing-50/)

- - Airbus Test Pilot (https://www.pprune.org/flight-testing/227428-airbus-test-pilot.html)

Thanks for the feedback, as I suspected becoming a TP from FTE is unlikey, but nevertheless I am still looking forward to the new job. Anyway I still think Engineering with occasional FTO and ferry pilot duties is still going to be much more satisfying than flying as a full time line pilot for a budget airline.

Cheers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist

I'm going to probably cause some raised eyebrows with this, but there's a few statements in the foregoing posts which I somewhat disagree with:
and
Look at the relative costs, in either $ or test flight hours, between HQ/Perf and Systems. Look at the impact on operational use and safety of the two areas. Look at what it's actually possible for a TP to have influence over.
Much though it pains me to say it, given my own discipline, a TP who can provide accurate and useful input into the avionics/systems development and testing is FAR more useful than a HQ expert. Once a plane gets into even development test, there's very little anyone can do about HQ or performance deficiencies - the best you can do is band-aid it. But systems by their very nature are more amenable to incremental changes during development.
If you don't like the way the plane flies the approach, there's almost nothing I can do to fix it for you. If the FMS is less user-friendly than the IRS, the systems guys might be able to do something about it.
I'll agree that HQ testing may be more 'exciting', more 'sexy', more 'how the man in the street sees test pilots' - after all, those are the tests which cause you to strap on a chute. But while getting the bugs out of the avionics may be more mundane, and getting the abnormal and emergency procedures workable an exercise in bureaucracy, I'd say the latter are more important.
Which, in relation to the FTE-into-TP discussion means that a large organisation that can carry the overhead of TP-specialisation can definitely accept a 'less-piloty' TP in exchange for more engineering knowledge in some of their pilots.

An important point there however, which is that any properly managed aircraft design / approval organisation should have TP involvement from the drawing board (and to an extent FTE, but that tends to phase in a bit more slowly). There *should* be no major need to correct HQ or ergonomic issues post first-build (mind you, I've worked on a few projects where there definitely was).

So, whilst they may not do that much P&HQ flying - it is that skillset which should make the TP as valuable as he is.

G

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

Tester335 I nearly agree with you.

Not too bad for a forum newbie then :) :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

ETPS and NTPS both run short courses in P&HQ testing. Although I believe that ETPS' course is classrooom only, a quick look on NTPS' website shows a 2 week course covering 5 types and most major flying qualities issues for a remarkably affordable $7k..

Wasn't aware of these (well...hadn't looked actually:O ). Depending what you were looking for, these would probably be just the ticket. 99% of folks don't need to be examining transonic handling qualities.... My organisation is routing more and more people through NTPS, and it is a matter of some discussion whether or not we can get what we want through a series of short courses vice the million dollar special.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

N.B. Embarrassing as it is to admit that I don't know an aviation acronym: "PEXAs"?

Not so embarassing, as it isn't an english acronym: PEXA = Pilote d'essais expérimental d'avions = experimental test pilot, aeroplane = tp. I went through EPNER in Istres.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist

I'm going to probably cause some raised eyebrows with this,

Look at the relative costs, in either $ or test flight hours, between HQ/Perf and Systems. Look at the impact on operational use and safety of the two areas. Look at what it's actually possible for a TP to have influence over.
Much though it pains me to say it, given my own discipline, a TP who can provide accurate and useful input into the avionics/systems development and testing is FAR more useful than a HQ expert. Once a plane gets into even development test, there's very little anyone can do about HQ or performance deficiencies - the best you can do is band-aid it. But systems by their very nature are more amenable to incremental changes during development.
If you don't like the way the plane flies the approach, there's almost nothing I can do to fix it for you. If the FMS is less user-friendly than the IRS, the systems guys might be able to do something about it.

No raised eyebrows here at all. In fact, 90% of my work is systems testing and for the reasons you describe above it is (and becoming increasingly) more heavily weighted than HQ testing. The difference is, however, that one can still get away with sub-optimal systems design and certify an aircraft. When it comes to HQs, the 'hard deck' of what is acceptable is a bit more visible. I have been working with HQ problems on some of our modified aircraft and they get ugly...and it takes someone with an excellent understanding of HQs and an appropriate amount of relevant experience to sort this out. That tends to be a tp (although not necessarily). I've also noticed a tendency for organisations to spring the £'s/$'s for systems short courses, but not so much for flying qualities. Probably because they hire ex-military QTPs for the HQ portions, and use specifically trained personnel for some of the dedicated systems test. What it comes down to is that out of your cadre of testers you'd better have one or two with the complete portfolio of test experience, and you can then make up the rest with specialists. The French system of class A and class B licenses recognises this quite well...

Airbus/Aerospatiale thought fit to qualify C Lelaie as an ETPS trained TP in 1987. Likely to be other TPs employed since then.

Perhaps someone closer to Toulouse could determine the extent of the return on the investment/s which are likely to be considerable disregarding the reputational enhancement that comes from having experienced TPs involved in aircraft development and certification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milt

Airbus/Aerospatiale thought fit to qualify C Lelaie as an ETPS trained TP in 1987. Likely to be other TPs employed since then.

Absolutely. I have flown with several of them on test flights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milt

Perhaps someone closer to Toulouse could determine the extent of the return on the investment/s which are likely to be considerable disregarding the reputational enhancement that comes from having experienced TPs involved in aircraft development and certification.

There is an overriding factor here - in France and Germany you must have an appropriate license to conduct either class A or B flight test. In France this means recognition by either DGA or DGAC - and examination by an examiner from CEV unless your credential is recognised (i.e. ETPS, USNTPS, or USAFTPS - EPNER is automatic). Airbus, in fact, run in house courses for class B FTE (I'm not sure about TP - don't think so. They do, however, send both FTE and TP students to EPNER) and the students are examined by CEV examiners. Unless you have a test pilot's license you're not flying flight test in France. Germany is similar, I believe, but as they don't have a TPS there may be more latitude in getting a license (specultaion on my part - however I know that on several occasions I have been the only one from my organisation able to fly in one of our aircraft in Germany because it was under an experimental flight permit and there needed to be a tp at the controls - I'm told that there are things which are automatic in France that one must apply for in Germany).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tester355

Which probably explains the trend for more & more Avionics & Systems rigs - even quite small aircraft now have full System Integration Test Rigs (SITRs) - where the interfaces between both the Avionics suite and the other systems (mainly micro-processor based) are checked out well before first flight even on an aircraft without fly-by-wire. In our organization we assign both a Project TP & FTE as well as system test lead engineers to any new product or significant upgrade right from the get-go. The trouble is that, most Avionics suppliers can not produce a credible software update in under three months from receipt of the previous one's problem reports - the first fixes often only reveal other more complex problems. Couple that with budget & schedule pressures and it's easy to see where Tester's "sub-optimal" systems can come from (not that they are on any of our products....).

Sorry if this is getting a little off topic but it's not that often we get to discuss HOW we should test the modern aircraft and the many types of expertise required.