TP, FTE and Astronaut Schools
 

Accreditation of TP, FTE and Astronaut Schools

Is there any world wide body that manages the accreditation of Test Pilot, Flight Test Engineer and Astronaut Schools or is this left to the regulatory civil and military administrations of various countries?

Significant Flight Test Schools whose graduates seem to be formally accepted universally for their vital functions appear to be from ETPS, USAFTPS, USNTPS, NTPS and perhaps a FrenchTPS with such graduates achieving a status equivalent or superior to that of many University Aero Engineering graduates.

But what of the lesser schools striving to produce capable Experimental TPs?

What TP/Astronaut schools are there in Russia, Europe, India, China and any other countries?

Milt:
What a question!
No-one has any approved schools for astronaut training. Not sure there is a set of standards that could be used for getting an astronaut licence (notwithstanding the new FAA licence given to the Scaled Composites pilots).
In addition to the 'military' schools, National Test Pilot School in Mojave is 'approved' for experimental test pilot training.
If a test pilot course is run, it pretty much always includes a flight test engineer course.
As for other countries - many run test pilot courses as they have a need. Brazil appears to have more or less annual courses, as does India. As for approval, the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP) has a way to 'approve' courses based on content, aircraft, etc.
Hope that helps.

I see there's a private school in South Africa now, too.

What is accreditation?

Major governments de-facto accredit TP schools by spending enormous amounts of money to send their pilots there. The same to a lesser extent occurs with FTEs.

The major military schools (ETPS, EPNER, USAFTPS, USNTPS) recognise each other's competencies and thus effectively create a cross-accreditation.

SETP accept attendance at certain schools as part of evidence towards membership, but it's only part of the evidence, and in any case not mandatory. Ditto SFTE and FTEs.

In the meantime, the majority of FTEs and a great many excellent test pilots function very competently without having attended a TPS, so it clearly isn't essential for *most* flight test roles (it's probably been a few decades since any TP on a new fighter programme wasn't a TPS graduate, providing an exception to the rule).

And even TPS graduates may not be suitable for any role. To pick an extreme one, an excellent TPS graduate with a background purely on high performance military aircraft wouldn't have much idea about how to tackle the flight testing of a new prototype low-performance puddlehopper built and supported by a one-man-band company, the skill-set and role-relation are (almost) totally different. [Although in either direction I suspect it'd usually be easier to take a good TP and teach them about a new aircraft class, than a good pilot on class and make them into a TP.]


So, it's IMHO an un-answerable question, except in certain narrow circumstances (such as qualification to flight test a new NATO fighter), generally the organisation needing to test something takes the best available pilot to do the job and ensures they have sufficient training from somewhere That may be training on type/class for a good TP, or (slower) in test flying for a good operational pilot.

G

Government-sponsored programmes always use graduate TPs (not just in fighter programmes, but in all programmes) for experimental work. I would suggest that use of non-graduates is the exception, rather than the other way round. Of course there have been some very eminent test pilots who have not attended a school, and smaller companies do make more use of non-graduate pilots, I suppose because they cannot afford the training.

The suggestion that a graduate test pilot with a high performance background would not know how to test a light aircraft is far from being a correct statement. I think on reflection you would probably like to re-word that one!

As trained, I don't believe that they would.

Without a doubt, they'll have the ability to learn how to do so, and relatively quickly. But so far as I know, such a graduate will not yet be familiar with the issues of owner-maintenance, grass-strip operation, civil certification practice, sub-ICAO regulation, B-conditions requirements, appropriate workload for barely qualified PPLs, typical light civil GA operating practice...

Which isn't a criticism of them, TPS graduates are trained - extremely well - for a particular job; but the ability to competently test-fly a new fast jet doesn't automatically encompass testing any other fixed wing aeroplane.

Role relation!


When 10+ light aeroplanes can cost less than a year at TPS, and the supply of ex-military school graduates is small and expensive, clearly many companies can't afford graduate TPs. But, in many organisations TPs also started life as engineers or company pilots in other roles, and have many years of type and organisation experience (and testing experience). That may make them a better choice than a TPS graduate, or sometimes the only choice available.


I'm not, repeat not, TPS bashing - they remain unsurprisingly the worldwide centres of excellence for TP training; however it is still the case that there are some damned good TPs out there as good as any school product. For example, many of the pilots at Scaled Composites where if I read the bios correctly, only one out of the 4 Spaceship One pilots is a TPS graduate.

G

Incidentally, and perhaps I'm sticking my nose in here, but would the NTPS allow me to do a MSc in FT&E without being backed by a company - in other words if I paid for it myself? Natually I'd need an aero eng degree, but I'm wondering if that's a way to go.

Yep, I know how much the MSc costs! :uhoh:

Conf

Tester07 wrote: That statement might be correct in some countries with aviation technologies, but not all. In the US, graduate TP's are not required for all government-sponsored programmes.

I would also agree with Genghis the Engineer's comments. Not all military TP graduates have an understanding of civil certification regulations and unique test requirements. Further education in civil disciplines is often, although not always, necessary.

Time to nit-pick

The suggestion that a tps trained fast jet pilot would not know how to test a microlight or any other aircraft of which he had no experience is incorrect.

He would know how to. Because that is what his training was all about.

What he would not know is the appropriate regulations and requirements to test against but he would appreciate this and so would dig them out.

Given his zero experience and associated zero currency of the category concerned his training would also make him seek advice from those with appropriate experience and currency. Which would in all probability include some relevant flying. Unless he was a prat and of course there are always some of those in any trade.

To summarise such a tp would not need further training but he would need help. Which is not quite the same thing

To continue on from JF's well chosen words, test pilot and FTE training is about far more than just the mechanics of flying test points in a given class of aircraft. It embeds a philosophy of how to approach any given task, even if this is in a previously unknown field. Part of this flight test philosophy is an appreciation of the lack of ones experience in a given field and the training required to become proficient in it. Therefore, a graduate test pilot or flight test engineer does have the ability to perform flight testing on any type of air vehicle, although there may be significant pre-trial training required.
Have no fear - if a pilot or flight test engineer at a recognised test pilot school does not develop the skills discussed above, he will not graduate.

Ghengis

Does that mean if I've got a PPL, and some muggins pays me to fly in an aircraft and give him my advice/opinion, then I'd be a Test Pilot? Does it mean that I don't even have to be an Engineer, or have done ANY engineering training to be a FTE?

I think the ACCREDITATION element provides a recognised skills set that allows an individual to prove they have (or don't have) the required skills to pass a course that is seen as the 'industry standard'. Otherwise, ANYBODY could set themselves up as a TP/FTE without formal qualifications. How could that be right? In most professions there is a REQUIREMENT to be ACCREDITED to professional body, to have completed training to a set standard. Without ACCREDITATION, there is no credibility.

John Farely has written: You are indeed picking the fly poop out of the pepper and while I do not disagree with the general intent of your post, I would argue the specifics only because I would not want those who are not test pilots to read this thread and form the conclusion that all military TPS graduates are omniscient, omnipotent gods capable of every feat possible in aviation.

At what point does your definition of help become training? Knowing how to do a thing, being trained to do a thing, does not always equate to being able to do a thing. The verb 'train' is defined by one source I consulted as: "undergo training or instruction in preparation for a particular role, function, or profession". When a person provides help to another in preparation for a particular role or function, is that not training? If a person reads the regulations him or her self is that not training? Sure, a fast jet pilot can fly a microlight and yes his training will allow him to fly that aircraft with the least possible risk but if he only attended military TPS it is unlikely he was schooled in the regulations and accepted civil techniques of microlight certification (if there is such a thing) so he will need 'training'.

Edited from 'fete' to 'feat' because '!!!!' is a clever fellow who seems to know a great deal about four letter F words. Soon this knowledge will allow him to attain a position of wealth so that he might be able to purchase a much coveted personal title.

!!!!: say something constructive, or don't bother !

Genghis
Forum moderator.

As I said earlier, what is accreditation?

The world is full of people who have conducted test flying without formal training or qualifications. I've met a few who, in my opinion at-least, should be quickly locked up before they do any real damage. On the other hand a great many are extremely competent and well trained (whether formally or informally).

The bottom line will rest then with those employing them and accepting their work. This is how most of the world (and in fact most other professions) operate.

In the UK, where I work most of the time, anybody without any formal qualifications can set themselves up and call themselves an Engineer. In the USA, anybody can design build themselves an ultralight, with no design knowledge, then test fly it, without any flight test knowledge - without any external oversight in either case. It's an imperfect world!

In most countries however, the system is broadly that "the authorities" have to formally accept work from somebody (test flying, engineering, whatever), and you can assume that in most countries that system of approval (to conduct or submit work) is pretty rigorous - although it may not involve formal qualifications.

G

Ghengis

The TP/FTE schools spend a lot of time focussing on safety and risk mitigation, as well as running trials and understanding the procurement process. By completing a recognised course at a recognised school they gain professional standing and credibility, in the same way a doctor or solicitor does. Legal and medical training takes a long time and is expensive, which is why some practices chose to make use of secretaries and nurses to do some of the work, but they would never allow them to do ALL the work.

If an aircraft company choses to use 'unqualified' or 'unaccredited' TPs/FTEs, surely they're just overrated secretaries/nurses making out they're solicitors/doctors!

I’ve worked with a lot of Test Pilots, some were not TPS graduates – however, the vast majority of these TPs would (IMHO) have had little trouble graduating from TPS. Not everyone is given the opportunity to attend a TPS, so there must be other routes to becoming a TP.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that graduates of a mil TPS are ‘Godlike’ – just that the training they get is superb and gives them the skill sets they need to start in the test world. Certainly the chop rate of the TPSs demonstrates that the course eminently passable (albeit hard work requiring a baseline level of intelligence) – rightly, only those who cannot achieve the standard, despite extra help, are discarded.

It's a fair argument, but ignores that there isn't a standard qualification or accreditation available to a lot of people.

Going back to my previous example, all of those non-graduate TPs working for Scaled composites for example are pretty universally regarded as being amongst the best in the flight test profession - despite a lack of formal "accreditation" as TPs. They certainly aren't overrated people pretending to be something they're not.

For that matter virtually all FT departments have some damned good FTEs who may or may not hold an engineering degree / CEng / PEng, but their real ability comes from starting at the bottom and learning on their way up, within a very competently managed framework.

And, whilst from the outside (or for somebody who has graduated from a TPS and can't understand why their new boss didn't!) this looks odd - the fact is it works.

Maybe there's scope for some form of universal TP/FTE licence collecting up all of the many routes to professional practice. Maybe it exists in Membership of the SETP and SFTE? But to mandate that, would it do anything but restrict the flexibility of organisations that are managing quite competently already?

G

Excellent response Genghis the Engineer - one that accurately represents flight test as I have known it.

Accreditation is an oft discussed subject in and out of flight test. I have heard arguments that since the Empire Test Pilots school is recognized as the oldest test pilot school it should be the one to decide what the standards should be for accreditation and what experience and knowledge would be necessary for accreditation on a worldwide basis. Setting aside political considerations, the other test pilots schools can't always agree on which TPS organization has the highest standards and should be entrusted with setting the standards.

There are some who have discussed a civil test pilots license or certificate in the French fashion.

Responsing to an earlier post by Affirmation; in the US, a Flight test pilot is defined in Title 14 CFR Aeronautics and Space in part 21 Certifications procedures for products and parts:

§ 21.37 Flight test pilot.
Each applicant for a normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category aircraft type certificate must provide a person holding an appropriate pilot certificate to make the flight tests required by this part.

[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14564, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21–59, 52 FR 1835, Jan. 15, 1987]

I fear this thread could just run and run, but to summarise:

I think that accreditation and completion of, and graduation from, a recognised school and course should be mandatory for TPs/FTEs involved in aircraft test and evaluation where there is a safety concern. There should be a minimum criteria for such a course, which focusses deals with risk assessment and mitigation.

Just because the rules say that a nurse can do the job that a highly trained doctor usually does, I wouldn't want a nurse performing open heart surgery on me, regardless of how many times she'd seen a qualified doctor do it, or how long she'd stood in theatre. I'd go for the newly-qualified doctor every time. I wouldn't let a sectetary represent me in a complicated fraud case, regardless of how many times she'd filed some legal paperwork; I'd always take a proper brief.

A TP without TPS accreditation is just a pilot, an FTE just an Engineer (although you don't even need ANY qualifications to call yourself an engineer. I told my nan this, and she's just applied for a job at BAEs as an FTE).

Genghis (The Engineer),

A few observations, if I may. I completely agree with your example regarding the Scaled Composites pilots – a look at their extensive experience and achievements speaks for itself. Their skills, however, are a stark contrast to those of some others who use the title ‘Test Pilot’; these quislings, to use your words, are ‘overrated people pretending to be something they are not’.

Regarding your boss (if I understand you correctly, forgive me if not) – I’d not feel too odd about having a boss who had not graduated provided that he was competent. We have all experienced the teacher at school who we know to be a bumbling fool, he is ridiculed but doggedly clings to his position of authority – not realising he is only there by virtue of time passing and hoop jumping. Your wording suggests (?) that your boss ‘didn’t graduate’ vice ‘didn’t attend’ TPS - I am sure you could clear the air by asking him why he started but didn’t finish?

Rich Lee brings up a good point about ETPS, perhaps, setting the standards for accreditation – what are your views on that?

Kind regards,

Ray :-)

As one who has taught at three different test pilot schools, worked for a manufacturer (briefly) and also for a civil certification authority, and been on the membership committee for Society of Experimental Test Pilots, perhaps I can add a few words.
The whole area of flight testing is so vast, and has so many components to it that it would be impossible to set up criteria that would satisfy every one.
More than 50% of the flight testing that is being done now revolves around avionics and displays, for example. How do you set standards for what is going to be taught for this subject? Do you cover this at the expense of performance?
It has been modestly predicted that even a very cursory look at all the areas of certification would take a minimum of 18 months, if not two years at a flight test school. No-one could afford to have an experienced pilot on their staff away for that long, nor afford the cost of the course.
Like Genghis and Rick, I have seen pilots and engineers who are not graduates of formal training who run circles around those who have attended Test Pilot Schools, just as I have seen those who are self-taught who shouldn't be allowed to drive a car without adult supervision.
I wish there was some way to give some structure and form to the whole process, but it would be nearly impossible given the number of different interests involved.

Right then, got it:

1) Let the qualified and certified TPs/FTEs do the tricky bits (envelope expansion, handling characteristics, new and difficult stuff) and be accredited by virtue of them having completed a TP/FTE course.

2) Let the unqualified and uncertified pilots and engineers do the systems/avionics work, but understand they're not TPs/FTEs because they haven't completed a relevant course.

3) Let employers decide who to employ based on their professional qualifications and courses completed, as well as their abilities. I agree there must have been some chimps who passed the 'official' courses, and I imagine there must be some good guys who could pass if they had the funds/backing to get through. But the fact remains, any idiot could take 17 years to eventually get his PPL, attend and fail an 'official' course, and still call themselves a TP/FTE because there is no formal accreditation. Sounds daft and dangerous to me. Bring on proper accreditation, even if it is focussed (in the same way a doctor/lawyer specialises in a certain field rather than trying to do everything).

4) My nan's got her BAE interview next tuesday. Any tips?:}

Around 1990-1991 there was discussion in, I think, the RAeS about licensing TPs. Several test pilot prominente were involved, and I remember a slightly heated exchange on board the boat on which the cocktail party of the '91 SETP European symposium was held.

The end result is no licensing/accreditation system to embrace all test people. What do they say is the collective noun - a Disagreement of Test Pilots?

Rich, you say you would not want those who are not test pilots to read this thread and form the conclusion that all military TPS graduates are omniscient, omnipotent gods capable of every feat possible in aviation.

Well nor would I - indeed nothing could be further from the truth, which was why I said they would need help.

But what they do not need is further education about the mindset that is required to test. That is what they get at tps - as Lomcevac has said.

My post was never intended to take issue with what you or Lomcevak have written concerning this subject. My comment concerning TPS graduates as omniscient, omnipotent gods was only hyperbole used to emphasize my argument concerning the definitions of the terms 'help and training'.

I am perhaps more sensitive to the use of the terms 'help and training' than most. When I argue for a training budget, senior managers often ask why a TPS graduate pilot should need additional training to become a fully qualified member of our flight test team. In my corporate world, 'help' is unfunded, 'training' is funded.

This was a generic point, I had no specific individual in mind.


So you'd sack, for example most of the flight test team at Scaled, or for that matter one poster above to my knowledge is / has been CTP for several very well respected organisations, published widely on test flying practice, yet not attended TPS. I'm pretty certain you'd also be sacking virtually all of the FTEs and TPs in the British, American, French, Australian, Czech light aircraft industries that I'm reasonably familiar with. Oh yes, and the majority of FTEs at BAE(S), although having worked with a few of them, I didn't notice a particular lack of competence - and much of the rest of the world seems very happy to buy their aeroplanes.

Yes, TPs and FTEs have got to be competent - no debate. But surely it's the overseeing company and authority that should determine that, not graduation from a particular school, nor oversight from (for example) ETPS which is without doubt an incredibly competent organisation but inevitably has teaching staff drawn almost exclusively from a particular parish: UK and US military testing. (And whose syllabus, as various people have said, can't possibly encompass every area of flight test in any reasonable time).

G

To keep the personal or personnel side out of this - this attitude seems terribly old-fashioned and just doesn't square with the requirements of current test programs. With FBW or even conventional + AP systems where the usual flight sequence is "Gear Up, Flaps Up, Engage AP", it's becoming less & less clear where the general flight qualities end & the "systems" begin. The corollary to this is that complex systems often require more specialist knowledge not always found in conventionally-trained FTEs or even TPs.
Maybe that's why most organizations I know use a team approach where the certification is carried out by TPs, FTEs, engineers & specialists working together using rigs, simulators and aircraft.

Genghis

Without formal accreditation what officially separates the Nurses from the Doctors, and the Secretaries from the Solicitors?

I have no doubt there are some very highly-qualified and competent pilots and engineers that haven't completed a TP/FTE course. But at the moment anybody can call themselves a TP just because they have a PPL, and anybody can call themselves a FTE without ANY formal qualifications at all. Bonkers :eek:

I read an article in Scientific American a while ago about a South African lab technician who did much of the detailed technical work behind the first heart transplant. He then went on to do much of the training of the first 2 or 3 generations of heart transplant surgeons who came to South African to learn.

Yet he was never (until near his death when he got an honorary doctorate) formally recognised for his skills. Why? He was black, and apartheit era ZA couldn't possibly recognise such abilities in somebody the wrong colour.



One of the most capable and respected Test Pilots I've ever worked with has last I asked around 5,000 hours on the class of aircraft that he tests, and has probably flown towards 200 types, and goodness only knows how many first flights. Yet he's never attended TPS, nor for that matter got a commercial licence - because he tests microlight aeroplanes, he functions with a PPL. This didn't stop UK-CAA authorising him as a TP.


What's the issue here? I'd say that both of these people were formally accredited - by the authorities overseeing their work. The lack of a medical degree in one case, or CPL / ETPS / whatever didn't change that fact in either case.


Where I think that you are wrong is in looking for a single central accreditation - this just isn't achievable: the global flight test community (and medical community) is just too disparate. I believe that de-facto accreditation exists and is by and large pretty rigorous; but it's more localised than I think you are hoping to see.


So, a senior flight test manager working in the airliner community, the military community, the light-GA community, etc. knows what is acceptable basis for his or her organisation to accredit any given flight tester as "fit to practice" in that environment.

Similarly, a senior medic in a hospital (or more likely these days, the managing committee!) knows which medical degrees and qualifications they'll accept, and which they won't. This amounts to a system of accreditation again - but is still not universal: somebody accepted as a medical Doctor in e.g. Azerbaijan, is unlikely to receive automatic acceptance in Paris (nor vice versa), they have different practices and standards.




In the meantime, anybody can call themselves an FTE, TP, Doctor, Nurse, accountant.... That's inavoidable, the problem lays with anybody then employing them.

G

Genghis, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were black, and you're still working in 1980s South Africa.:ugh: Women never used to have the vote, and now they're allowed to buy their own washing machines without supervision. Whatever next??

Anyway, back on thread.....

Actually, the point I was making is that there is a formal qualification route to identify a Doctor from his formal training and accreditation. If a Doctor is not qualified he is not a Doctor. If he is qualified and turns out to be rubbish he is struck off, BY THE GOVERNING BODY. Any monkey can call themselves a TP/FTE, and there is no governing body to set the standards, only a company who chooses whether to continue to employ him.

As to the rest of your post, I agree, that at the moment TPs/FTEs are accredited by their companies only. The same companies that, by your explanation are small and probably poorly funded. In my opinion these are probably not the best people to also be regulating their own TPs/FTEs.

Sorry, but I really feel that you are arguing that black is white. (Pun intended!, but my previous serious point was about the difference between visible qualification and accreditation for competence - not a statement about any political views I might, or might not, have).

If you want to be a TP or FTE (at-least, one who signs anything) for any UK organisation, you have to submit all of your experience and qualifications to the relevant authority: either CAA or (what used to be called) DFlyingPE, who then decides whether to approve you, and with what conditions. This may be largely invisible at the working level, particularly in military FT - but at any level of seniority in civil aviation it's quite an invasive process. They aren't necessarily looking for a specific qualification, but certainly for overall track record and competence in the role.

In the USA the equivalent civil system is called DER - Designated Engineering Representative, so an authorised TP or FTE has to be approved as a "flight test DER". I've had to deal with various other countries around the world (Australia, Cz, Eire) who all have similar approaches.


Similarly in medicine, anybody changing discipline, country (or in the US, even state) has to be re-accredited by the relevant authority in that geographic / skill area. So, apart from their getting to keep the title "Doctor", I really don't see a major difference. In any case, the world's full of people awarding themselves grand titles (for a hobby, I run a Jiu Jitsu club, and you should see the daft things some self appointed martial arts masters call themselves) - why should our profession be any different ? A title alone doesn't get you work.

Dr.Genghis :E

...when they should know better than passing themselves off as something they're not. TP my @rse.

Lord Chief Justice Affirmatron, DFC and bar. OUT

There are three things: training, belonging to a professional organization, being licenced by a government agency.

If I was getting open heart surgery, I'd demand all three.

If I'm buying a new airplane, I'd demand all three.


The Government licence without the professional body runs the risk of paper qualifications without merit. The Professional body without the government licence sets up for internal, incestuous regulation. You could say that the professional organization and the licence confirm the training requirements, but doctors still tend to put their degree on their walls, as well as the others. Where/how you were trained says something other than being licenced by the gov and accepted by peers.

I wouldn't look past a skilled pilot with a suitable background to be employed as a TP, or similiar conditions for an FTE, and I wouldn't demand the ETPS Graduate course for every flight test position, but there are other courses available.

Matthew.

"....The same companies that, by your explanation are small and probably poorly funded. In my opinion these are probably not the best people to also be regulating their own TPs/FTEs"

What, like Bombardier or Cessna? What about the Boeing Airline division; are they all graduate TPs (maybe Rich knows)?

A clear, shining, example has to be Nick Lappos: 32 years with Sikorsky, test flying all the major types (including the Commache) during that period, and finishing as Program Manager on the S-92, but a non TPS graduate.

Well at my end of the ramp, the vast majority ARE TPS graduates - some of more than one (mainly Cold Lake & Edwards so you can work out which of the above I work for - with a sprinkling of NASA, Pax River, EPTS & ENER ). There are, however, some extremely competent TPs & FTEs who didn't come through the military route. Most of these, indeed, don't even appear to originally have had a burning desire to test but gradually ended up doing so after many years of on-the-job experience & training.

This business is an incredibly small world such that a lot of people either know their counterparts or have mutual friends & acqaintances which makes it effectively self-regulating.