Hi, just a quick question to somebody who knows about this sorta stuff.

To be a test pilot for lets say Airbus - do they usualy require ex-military pilots, or just commercial pilots with a hell of a lot of experience?

Thanks people.

Airbus, like all 'French' and 'German' aerospace companies, require all of their test pilots to be graduates of a recognised test pilot school. France and Germany are fairly unique in that their governments require their test pilots (and FTEs in the case of France) to be licensed. (However, there are certain levels of license, for example a TB1 license allows only the tp to flight test light aircraft. The training requirements are much less for this). Since the vast majority of these are ex-military, then almost by definition, all test pilots at Airbus are, as far as I am aware ex-military. Some of the other commercial companies such as Cessna, Bombardier etc generally use experienced commercial pilots, or even engineers that they then train to become pilots, and then eventually test pilots.

More likely FTEs who have "self improved" though CPL/multi, most companies - particularly in North America have TPs who have come up through that route (although not, as you say, Airbus nor, I suspect, Boeing).

G

I'm no expert on this. All I know is that Peter Chandler came to Airbus from Virgin Atlantic, and prior to this he was a TP in the RAF.

I'm not to sure about Ed Strongman, all I know is I think he flew Herc's in the RAF.

Sorry its not much info.

Airbus has a history of employing ex military qualified tps. The UK contingent included memorable contributions as CTP from Gordon Corps and Nick Warner via the CAA, and Bill Wainwright via BAe.
Ed Strongman I believe worked at RAE.

Thanks guys for the replies, sure has satisfied my curiosity. Just one question, how does one become a certified test pilot? i would presume this would be done through the RAF of USAF etc.. And there is no such 'course', as their is a CPL or PPL.

Thanks :ok:

(P.s. thanks for moving the discussion to a new thread) Scroggs?:ok:

No, t'was I, the humble forum moderator!


There isn't a set route to become a test pilot - you rarely meet two with the same professional, flying and technical backgrounds except in the military test centres themselves which tend to be fairly homogenous; but, it is possible to sign up for what is generally called the "long course". This is equivalent to what the military chaps do. If you look through the various threads linked from the FAQ at the top of the page you'll find quite a lot of discussion about qualifying as a TP, and occasionally about aspects of the long course (particularly at ETPS which seems to have the highest number of alumni on this forum).

The "cheapest" TPS long course would probably be at NTPS; they don't publish the price but I doubt that you'd have change from us$500,000.

There also isn't really (outside France and Germany as has been said) such a thing as a "certified test pilot", it tends to come down to whether you are the right man or woman for the job, accepted by the company and their overseeing authority as such. Clearly however, the ex-military people who have had the "gold standard" training have a definite advantage there. The nearest there is to a common international standard would be membership of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots; again that's very varied as you'll see from the thread about the papers being presented at next month's SETP conference in Dresden, but it probably does the best job reasonably possible at establishing a common standard between astronauts on one side, and people test flying kitplanes on the other.

G

Ahh, thank you G.

I was unaware of your Mod. abilities :}

So, i have the pre-req's for the 50 week course (just imagine), i complete the course:-

Would i have experience of flying lots of different types of A/C?
Where would ones self go after completing this course?

Seems to me that test pilot positions are not just like FO positions, and it would be hard to land one. So, really, it would probably be better to become an experienced pilot (commercial) and just see what cropps up?

Thanks again people.:ok:

There are ways and means - the only common characteristics I've noticed in people succeeding in getting their gold "X" are a deep fascination with every technical aspect of aviation, sheer bloodyminded determination to get there. plus having had a degree of luck in being in the right place at the right time.

That said, notwithstanding the obvious desire most of us have for some degree of confidentiality, it might nonetheless be interesting for those of us who did make it to give a rough outline of how. Anybody like to kick off?

G

It would indeed. :)

Pretty much "the right place at the right time" in my case.

I would add a point that I don't think anyone else made yet, it is that you can't just bowl up to one of the tp schools and say "teach me". All the military ones have a very strict selection procedures. NTPS despite being a commercial outfit will want to do the same, they do not want one of "their" graduates let loose on the world of flight test if they don't think that they have "all" the right attributes. ETPS only selects students to fill the required positions that will be available at the end of the course due to the cost of the course. So a Harrier tp is posted on to a new job, so a new Harrier pilot will be recruited to do the course. There are minimum hours and experience requirements as well as the need to have been rated operationally as above average (at some point at least).

Some of the characteristics and requirements to be a "worthwhile" tp for whoever you are working for are:

Sufficient experience in the role you are testing a particular product for. A fast jet pilot and tp is not immediately going to be able to lead a credible constructive argument about the merits or faults of a new tanker aircraft for example.

The technical depth of knowledge of how things are constructed and their inherent limitations. This will allow you to do battle on a firm footing with the “designer chappie”.

The requisite poling skills to get your aircraft to the required test condition without messing around too much to save time and money during the test program.

However, I think the most important thing for any tp to have and maintain is "credibility". Choosing which battles to fight and having a realistic approach to the likely cost vs benefit of any suggested improvement. But safety related issues must be fought for tenaciously.

T

From the sticky thread it seems that FTEs progressing to the position of test pilot is exclusive to the the US and Canada. Are there any European based FTEs that have progressed to the position of Test Pilot?

The reason I ask is that in a few weeks I will be starting a new engineering position where I should on occasion be flying as a FTE/FTO. I already hold a frozen ATPL, subsequently my long term goal would be to become a production test pilot, is this possible on the grounds of FTO experience and gaining the flight hours ; or is it the case in Europe that attendance at an approved flight test course is essential? Obvioulsy the cost of doing the NPTS course is out of the question, therefore the "experience" route is the only option available to me. Is this ambition realistic for a european based, civilian(modular) trained pilot?

In case anyone gets the wrong impression, the vast majority of TPs in the US & Canada are from the usual Forces' schools at least at our end of the ramp. It's a local joke that they can hold a Cold Lake (AX) reunion complete with ex-CO without sending out any invitations. FTEs who've converted, in my experience, hold advanced Flight Sciences or Aerospace degrees and have been FTEs (and in the right seat on a lot of smaller test aircraft) for several years.

I'm not sure I'd call it progression for an FTE to become a TP. To me progression implies advancement. That would be more of a lateral move. They're two distinct members of a team.

I'd certainly agree that the two professions are distinct and parts of the same team. A good recipe for a bad flight test team is the lack of mutual respect for those two skillsets and I don't think it often works well when one person tries to do both jobs at once, however well qualified they might be. But it remains true that in most (not all!) organisations TPs are paid rather more than FTEs, which creates a form of progression.

Offering my own experience: I was an FTE in an organisation dealing with fast and heavy aeroplanes. I chose to move, as an engineer, into the light aircraft industry where I found myself (entirely happily) mutating into a Test Pilot, through appropriate licences, lots of FTE experience, plus lots of rear/right hand seat time, plus the usual couple of degrees in aerospace engineering - albeit never full-time. I'm not alone in that migration, but certainly rare, particularly in the UK. But, whilst I still fly part-time as a TP, and would have no trouble working as an FTE on pretty much anything (well, fixed wing anyhow), I freely admit that nobody in their right mind would ask me to act as a TP on anything bigger than a part 23 single - I simply don't have the relevant piloting experience at that end of flying. I confess however, I'd like to get to that point eventually - simply for personal satisfaction that there's another difficult thing I've become able to do.

Which comes back to my earlier point about "best man for the job". We're all "best man" for certain flight test jobs, but not others. A few of us are lucky enough to straddle the two professions in that but even then will have clear limitations.

G

ICT, believe you have misinterpreted my quote there, I was fully aware that most US tps were ex-military, what I meant is in my research up to now I have only heard of civilian FTEs in US/Canada making the transfer to TP.
But thank you for the reply.

I haven't encountered any examples of European based FTEs making the same transfer (referring to multi JAR 23 and above) and partly due to the fact in Europe we don't have the diverse range of manufacturers. Genghis however does suggest otherwise.

As an aero grad, fATPL,FI(R), five years in the aero industry and about to transfer to a job with a heavy emphasis on flight test engineering, then I hope that I can progress from FTE to TP, well I guess only time will tell, even if the TP part doesn't happen I'm sure the FTO work is going to be a great experience.

I've seen it happen in Canada, however only in the light aircraft world. It begins to get difficult as you get into bigger aircraft because the certification authorities become progressively pickier. In any test program what really matters is that the data collected is acceptable to the certifying authority, and that you have the appropriate finding authority in place. In certain areas (performance and flying qualities) this is difficult to do without someone at the controls who is specifically trained in flight test techniques. systems evaluation is a different kettle of fish...and we could go on for hours there:eek:

This is difficult without specific training, mainly because of the requirement for tps (or PEXAs in my case) to conduct handling qualities evaluations. Performance testing is increasingly done via simulation or instrumentation. Systems testing is a nebulous area and is often better done using human factors experts and experienced aircrew than with tps (although you need them initially...). Handling qualities, and the associated JARs and FARs, is where tps earn their salary, and for that you need specific training. This is a tough nut to crack, 'cause while I'm aware of many short courses that deal with certification and systems, I don't know of any that deal with handling qualities - probably because you need to fly exercises in 10 or 15 different aircraft and then beat your head against the wall trying to figure out what you've seen (the joys of the variable stability lear jet...:ugh: ).

All that being said...if you're flying as an FTE it's still test flying! Best of luck getting some seat time>

Matt!! didn't know you hung out here. Shouldn't you be working?? :)

Tester335 I nearly agree with you. 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. And there are certainly no shortage of people in the light aircraft industry who have an enormous breadth of types, both in general flying and in flight test - the more experienced light aircraft TP probably has 100+ types in his/her logbook (I'm a part timer and managed 19 types last year, 5 of them for HQ testing).

The problem is, I suspect, in finding somebody who has managed to build up enough (breadth of) big aeroplane experience, AND enough genuine flying qualities testing experience - which as you rightly say is really the TPs bread and butter. That combination (and particularly both at once) is probably very hard to get unless you had a major government paying the bills.

G

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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).

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.