Most likely, but every generation throws up a tiny number of exceptional individuals who may thrive within the system, but occasionally despite it or by different routes. A number of the people flying for Scaled Composites, for example. In Britain right now, Dr. Bill Brooks would be another. Winkle Brown, of his generation, was certainly one such.

G

Reinhardt,

Izzy is indeed my partner (since 2013), and that's no secret. The only surprising thing is that she sees anything in me!

However, if you can contain your excitement for a moment, read my post again and you'll notice that I confine myself to the facts. There was and is no personal interest in what I've said.

This thread is about routes to becoming a test pilot, and it's important for prospective trainees to understand that test pilot courses at the recognised schools are not attendance courses. They are expensive, and there is a risk of not meeting the required graduation standard. In the case of ETPS, *a number of students have indeed not reached the required standard for short-course graduation over the years, just as is also the case for the long courses. However, those schools will take care to advise potential students on their course entry standard and likelihood of success.

Your reference to '2 day courses for airlines' must refer to training for pilots preparing to fly technical sorties such as post-maintenance checks. I don't know whether ETPS now offers such training, although the major manufacturers do. Such a course and a subsequent technical pilot role would be an excellent first step towards test flying for someone in an airline (or similar) career path, but would not be adequate preparation for immediate employment as, say, a production tp.

As regards your reference to my 30 years flying, I have no idea what you're on about. But perhaps we could keep the thread to its intended subject, of providing advice to prospective flight test professionals?

"WAS" or "IS " ? - we need to know, reaching this level of the discussion :O

but anyway, family businesses are usually the strongest, be it at Airbus or Boscombe - my little two pence :ok:

On the subject of advising Inquisitive about his intended career route, then the question to ask is could inquisitive follow Izzys career path?

I would say probably not, as he/she (that is inquisitive) has to face the prospect of first funding the training for a frozen "ATPL", I would say the one thing which contributed to Izzy been able to self fund ETPS was the fact she was a fully funded Cadet at BA. Now that in itself is quite an achievement considering the numbers that used to apply for the scheme. As I pointed out a cadet from the new BA FPP scheme has a 84000 loan taken out in their own name; this I would assume would severely limit the ability to fund further training in such a short time scale as Izzy did.

I am making no dispersions on Izzys capability, it is apparent she is capable at what she does (probably a fair better pilot than I ever will be). But realistically someone coming into the system now would be unlikely to follow the same route unless they had serious private financial backing.

The truth is I don't think she can be used as an example or role model a what can be achieved to younger people because the same opportunities no longer exist in the same form anymore.

Irrespective the primary reason she is where she is was the capability to self fund ETPS, not through demonstrating excellence as an Engineer working at an Aerospace company.

Another point to consider is that European flight test training (Cat A or B) candidates should be looking at the schools that have EASA FTO approval, and whose courses comply with the EASA Flight Test Rating syllabus. Training elsewhere risks failing to obtain the FTR, which I think will become increasingly important in the future.

Also, the 'big four' military schools are exactly that; their first priority is training their government customers. 'Commercial' customers could be bumped from the course at quite late notice in favour of the core business, which can be a problem if you've made significant arrangements to attend.

The commercial test pilot schools are probably more able to provide modularised training and perhaps spreading of cost, but you'd need to speak to them.

And yes, it's quite possible to progress from design engineer to experimental test pilot, all within a major manufacturer.

Recceguy,

In flight test we obtain data before drawing conclusions. The same in recce, I would have thought? But thanks for your, um, tuppence worth. I've PM'd you. :)

Flight test training at the moment is, let's face it, a bit of a mess: although possibly that's actually a good thing. There is a straightforward route - for those small number of people who have gone military --> TPS. But there are a lot of individuals for whom that's not (been?) an option. EASA have tried, badly and without the support of SFTE or SETP, to create a single solution to the problem and it's clearly not working well.

I recently as a freelancer got one-off approval from EASA for a CVE (FTE really) training course for a part 23 manufacturer: appropriate to the task but not involving any TPS, various of us have been approved for particular jobs based upon particular training and experience, and needless to say no two flight test programmes are alike anyhow.


Pretty much all of the "experts" in the community recognise that in reality you pick the best person for the job, based upon their whole experience and education background - and sometimes that best person is certainly an ex-military TPS grad. But even they're not alike - I don't want somebody whose experience is virtually all on combat aircraft to lead a short field transport programme, nor somebody whose experience is virtually all transport for a a fighter programme. I'm a pretty average pilot compared to several people posting on here and nobody in their right mind would give me an A320 to fly - but I have a PhD in flight mechanics, so might well be the best person for a university led flight mechanics research programme on a smaller aeroplane: that's just my profile. The lady we've been discussing sounds like she has a fair bit of airline operational experience - so you can see why she'd be regarded, as she's also had appropriate technical training, as a safe pair of hands in acceptance testing. I recall BDN once using an FTE who had several thousand hours on gliders as the TP for an air cadet glider programme, as his grasp of the aircraft and requirements was clearly far superior to that of the military TPs available.


There are ongoing attempts to create a relatively standardised licencing system - but that, frankly, is daft and hopefully doomed to failure. Aviation is too varied, and thus so are the range of test flying tasks for "one size fits all" to make real sense. The lady in question is just one example of that.

The best any of us can do is have the best possible combination of flying and technical experience and education, make ourselves available when opportunity presents, and keep trying to do the best job we can.

G

Genghis,

I would agree with the thrust of that post. The key point is that the ability to conduct a given flight test role is a product of both relevant experience AND appropriate training. The balance between these will vary between individuals, and must be judged accordingly. Some of the best FTEs I have worked with never attended a formal course!

InquisitivFlyer,

I think you've had a reasonably well-balanced overview from most of the posts above. You can probably spot the very few that have no relevant experience to offer you. If you have a real deep-rooted interest in how things fly (and making them do so better), then it can be a great career.

To give your morale a bit of a boost, I can tell you that the test pilot group of 'a major manufacturer of airliners based in the south of France' is made up of about 50% production test pilots and 50% experimental test pilots. Six nationalities are represented, and two, in fact, are female.

The majority of the production TPs were trained under the auspices of the company (or by their previous companies) to an accredited standard, having gathered previous flying experience of various kinds. Several started as engineers.

Of the experimental TPs, about 70% trained through the military long course route (both heavy aircraft and fast jet backgrounds), and the rest via progressive upgrades with the company, again to accredited standards. All are approved by the French DGA according to their qualifications and experience.

Two more points:

You need to be prepared to re-locate internationally, perhaps several times. You've heard about the UK and US industries, but companies such as Pilatus have busy flight test departments too. What about helicopters?

Secondly, I don't think we've answered your question re your medical issue. To undergo training at one of the military schools, you would need to satisfy the medical requirements to fly in their aircraft. However, these are likely to be less demanding than for those joining the military for a full flying career. For the other schools and for later civilian work, expect to need a Class 1 medical; if you can achieve that, you should be fine.

In summary, it's a great career (but never just a job) and it's achievable. But 'selection and maintenance of the aim', commitment and enthusiastic hard work will be needed, until the day you retire! To sustain that, you need a true interest in what you're doing. If that is you, then working as a design engineer, test engineer, FTE or test pilot should all appeal, and you may end up doing any, some or all of these roles. If your username is descriptive of you, then all to the good!

Feel free to PM me if you wish.

This is a pretty important factor. There is simply no way that a pilot can hold the skills to fly everything well. It is a stretch to think that a pilot can even safely fly everything - the scope of aircraft and operations is just too broad.

It'll be better to focus on at least a range of aircraft types, and operations, if not a class of aircraft. That's not to say that you won't be able to grow those skills laterally.

Tester78,

Of the test pilots at Airbus that are from a pure civilian background how many are UK nationals?


Also remember anyone intending on undertaking an Aeronautical Engineering degree needs to be aware what they are most likely going to end up doing, not what they may end of doing if the cards stack heavily in their favour. So on that note failing to make it initially into a flight test position may mean having to undertake a less interesting project integration position or pure office based analysis role.

I was able to fund training for a frozen ATPL because I didn't have to pay tuition fees at university so graduated near enough debt free; at 9k a year in the UK for a four year MEng plus living expenses the debt an engineering graduate now acquires will hinder the acquisition of a frozen ATPL post graduation.

Secondly acquiring relevant flight experience as a self funded pilot can also be very difficult task in itself let alone looking to progress to flight test.

While many on here have a lot of experience in flight testing, I am not sure they really appreciate the obstacles a UK based civilian Aerospace graduate in 2015 will face.

Portsharbourflyer,

There are 2 Brit test pilots with all-through civilian backgrounds.

Your other points above are all well-made, and I certainly don't underestimate the difficulty of making a success of this career from a purely civilian background and/or from an Eng degree start. That was my point in my last para above, when I suggested that InquisitivFlyer would need to be prepared to spend time or even complete his/her career as a design engineer, FTE. There is certainly an element of luck required. Those of us that got a flying start from the military do indeed have much to be thankful for, although that's a very hard path too! There is no easy route.

Someone mentioned QinetiQ, and I think they also still employ Flight Test Observers (FTOs), a position that has historically been a springboard to FTE status. The FTOs have typically been engineers and trials officers, whose work involves occasional requirements to fly. Airborne trials photographers are also in the FTO cadre.

Tester78, I am intrigued to hear that.

Yes it was one of my earlier posts that stated Inquisitives best chance of becoming an FTE would be through Qinitiq.

I would also say getting in to the correct specialisation to start with will help, flight dynamics, airworthiness are the first position a graduate really needs to be in to get the best chance of getting into flight test. It is possible to change specialisations but that isn't that easy once established.

I would say that unless things have changed a lot that the aircrew role at QQ is pretty much separate and complementary to the job role.

Trials Officers at Boscombe Down are what most of the world would call FTEs. Unsurprisingly, the majority of them are professionally qualified engineers, although there are a few exceptions - I can recall a few current or retired RAF Navigators when I was there, and one physicist.

Photographers, well they're photographers.


The FTO role is inevitably compatible with both of the above jobs. But, for example if you're on a single seat fighter programme, then you may well be an FTE, but you're unlikely to have reason to fly as an FTO.

The same would be true many other places - BAeS at Warton for example employs a lot of FTEs, but very few of them fly on trials.

If you want to be an FTE doing a lot of flying as part of your job, transport or training aeroplanes are probably the best place to be, followed by helicopters, and least of all fighters.

UAVs are interesting - they also need FTEs, typically with an excellent understanding of the eventual role of the UAV (for example I work mainly in earth sciences research flying, where we do a lot of UAV work, but most of our operators and testers come from an earth sciences professional background - possibly via airborne science in manned aircraft). Some of those may get involved in pilot-in-the-loop work, but fairly inevitably there's no flight deck to progress into. That said, I've met a few earth scientists who progressed from the lab to the flight deck as well - research pilots are not the same as test pilots, but the skill sets have a lot in common.

G

Reinhardt,

You do not know who I am, because you are not part of the flight test world. A significant number of those on this forum for flight test professionals WILL know me, not least because my username is also my previous flight test PERSONAL CALLSIGN! :ugh:

The fact that you accuse ME of hiding behind an identity is an utter joke. Who are YOU???

I will answer your post, but only to defend the reputation of both Izzy and ETPS.

No, I was not on the graduation board! I wasn't even a member of the ETPS staff at that time, although I have been. I was in a management post with QinetiQ, and had no role in the graduation of students.

How do you suggest I have been 'selling her professionally'? Read my posts again. I simply pointed out, in response to your implied accusation, that you cannot buy an ETPS graduation qualification and that test pilot courses are not attendance courses. That is directly relevant to those reading this thread for its subject; how to become a test pilot from a civilian background. I described the training course she did, because that, again, is relevant. In this thread, and others, you have peddled factually incorrect information about test flying that could mislead the OP and others in their career decisions if they made the mistake of thinking that you knew what you were talking about.

Before you suggest it: No, I did not help Izzy get a job at Airbus. If you wish to, check with the Chief Test Pilot. PM me and I'll put you in touch.

All this is grossly unfair to a lady who has managed to achieve what you probably envy. She has never sought publicity; she had to be persuaded (even instructed) to give the interviews quoted, and now declines them. She just wants to be allowed to get on with her chosen career. Her case was raised in this thread (not by me) as an example of what can be achieved. She is not the only female test pilot, or the only one from a civilian background, and she is simply one of a great team of highly competent and qualified people.

Reinhardt, take a long hard look at yourself. And stop blundering around in a forum for which you appear to have no credentials and nothing relevant or factual to contribute.

Oh, and I still have no idea what your last point means.

Never mind.

Ladies and Gents,

Thus far I have restrained from making any comments on this thread but I have followed it closely. Now I feel obliged to join in.

I will vouch for the validity of all of the information that Tester78 has posted regarding his role within QinetiQ and ETPS, Izzy's training at ETPS and her role at Airbus. I will also confirm the fact that ETPS has very high graduation standards and not all students who start the courses there complete them successfully, whoever they are and wherever they are from. But I will also add that this is because not everyone has the ability to pass the courses although they do all try very hard and it is difficult for the ETPS staff when nice, professional people who work very hard simply are not suited to the flight test discipline.

Reinhardt,

Perhaps you owe it to followers of this thread to establish your credentials for joining in the debate here, obviously without compromising your anonymity.

Rgds

L

I'm quite glad right now that I no longer have responsibility for keeping certain people to good behaviour on here, but I will say that I know and trust both Lomcevac and T78 well enough to take anything they say here as truthful.

I also know well the aerospace academic who was ETPS' external examiner for some years - he supervised my PhD and recently examined one of my own PhD students. He would have been utterly intolerant of the sort of malpractice Reinhardt is alleging. The same I'm sure would have been true of any credible replacement.

G

We're on the ragged edge here posters, could we reign in the rhetoric please....

To the OP, those who aspire...

The term "test pilot" has a core understanding, though has a broader interpretation too. There is no one kind of test pilot, nor one kind of aircraft to be tested. Thus there can be no one kind of test pilot - it takes many.

I don't know of a definition for test pilot. I am certainly subject to highly qualified opinion here, but I will suggest that "test pilot" could mean that you act as a flight crew member, as directed by a competent entity, to evaluate, confirm, or demonstrate compliance toward certifiction or acceptance of a type or a modification.

Test pilots will have in common a serious and inquisitive interest in how and why aircraft fly, and how they can contribute to defining that, and making it better, or at least documenting its compliance.

Test flying is not about looking for excitement - it's more about enduring some excitement, so the pilots who fly that type will not be exposed to surprises.

A test pilot has missed the mark, if an operational crew comes back, and draws their attention to a meaninful flight characteristic, which they had not detected within the scope of their testing. I have been in this situation twice. Niether were "serious" - but they did remind me to be more vigilent.

There is a pride in flight testing an aircraft, and adding value. Resist the notion of being seen by an adoring audience climbing into the cockpit with your white scarf, that can lead to sudden ego adjustment, when something does not go as planned.

I enjoy test flying modified aircraft (I don't test new types, just certified aircraft with modifications), but in truth, taking a freind, or family member on an adventure in my plane is just as much fun!

Just quoting from the SETP paperwork (not contradicting anything DAR has said, just expanding)...

And to quote Rusty Lowry, recently of USAFTPS and a good and knowledgeable chap...

G

To keep the record straight, Rusty Lowry was the Technical Director of USN TPS until he retired a year or so ago.

I must be non modern then, as I have neither of those. ;)

Thanks for that correction Lomcevac - my (rather embarrassing) typing error.

G

...is an FTE?!

Seriously though, I would say that the first requirement of a test pilot is to fly the test with sufficient accuracy to obtain good data and form useful opinion.

To do that safely and effectively, he or she needs to understand how and why that test has been designed; where the edges of safety might be; and how the data will be used. That requires a level of engineering understanding, which (I suspect) is the thrust of Mr Lowry's point. But the TP must still fly the aircraft to the necessary standard in often unusual conditions. This does not normally require an exceptional level of pure handling ability, and the white scarves should most certainly be left at home. But the nature of flight test is that things go wrong, and an ability to react quickly and correctly is also needed.

DAR is right to point out the wide breadth of the flight test world and the range of skill sets needed. But, for me, a test pilot in a flight test team is there as a pilot with engineering understanding. A flight suit with an engineer inside, if you like!

The English langage (well, only as used by some) is confusing, because of being too simplistic, not enough vocabulary : the reported sentence from mr Lowry can make a lot of people believe - and notably the airline pilots without University background - that the guy signing the tech log will become one day a Test Pilot, given the opportunity.

It should be stressed that an engineer is a mechanic, and not a Graduate Engineer (somebody with a couple of Masters or PhD in Engineering from difficult Universities, who could or couldn't not be very good in changing the tyres or unplugging the GPU after starting the engines)

You meet the graduate engineers in aircraft factories, and some from Flight Test department will work on a daily basis with Test Pilots, and some of them will therefore become FTE (Flight Test Engineers) through the appropriate channels. In some countries you even have a distinction between Flight Test Mechanics and Flight Test "engineers" - separate courses at the Test Pilot School, different diplomas, different backgrounds (which doesn't mean they don't work together after !)
Same for Test Pilots and Acceptance (or production) Pilots, either you ave the diploma, or you don't.
Same for Test Pilots, factories (not only in Aerospace) are full of people claiming to be Graduate Engineers, when they are technicians at best.

A couple of technical questions or homework will usually put the record straight...

Now I'm expecting the usual answer "who cares about the diploma, it's the value of the individual who comes first.." Typical political correctness, in times when any youngster downloading stuff with a laptop does claim to be a scientist...

My personal advice to anybody aspiring to a career in the area : go for the highest diploma first, associated with the highest qualifications, that will solve a lot of your job-searching tasks... otherwise, be prepared to be hired through graphology, group exercises, psycho interview, Zodiac signs, freemasonry, or even quotas for previously disadvantaged populations...)
As some people say, diplomas and qualifications are only for people who couldn't do otherwise !

A lot of issues are currently coming from EU bodies (EASA) trying to streamline the diplomas amongst 28 or so countries - and for diplomas related to flight test, only a handful of nations have a significant aircraft industry, and feel (or not !) the need to standardize it. For example Ireland with thousands of commercial pilots and the english langage like US or England, but without a related industry, will not care at least....

I agree with everything Tester 78 said in his post.

However I add the following thought:

I suggest those whose duty it is to criticise but who give way under management pressure are letting down their fellow airmen, no more and no less. In my view such men are not test pilots, they are just pilots who fly flight tests.

A thought or two:-

John.F - Couldn't agree with you more. Very hard to train, and often against significant management pressure - but yes, vitally important.


Tester78 - Agree also, but I'd never wish to denegrate some very good FTEs out there who don't go flying. There are certainly pilots I've worked with whose understanding of engineering is better than a few engineering graduates I've worked with - so it's inevitably a blurred line.


Reinhardt - "an engineer is a mechanic". The English language does the engineering profession no favours and the terms engineer, technician and mechanic are all ambiguous, but you're not helping either. However, (and I "speak" as somebody with a better university education than most) you are wrong in almost any part of the world. Degree certificates are useful, but they're absolutely no substitute for a demonstrated skill in the job.

Much the same might be said of pilots licences - you obviously need the licence to fly the relevant flying machine, and in some environments there's significant benefit in having graduated from a particular (type of) specialist training school. But, ultimately, you need to prove you can do the job well enough for the programme.

G

Ta Genghis, the point I was trying to make (which I might not have made clear) is that I think a test pilot has a duty to see that the data he hands over is properly used. If he doesn't bother about that I see him as just somebody who flies flight tests

I recall the author going into more detail on the point, extremely well and with real world examples, in this very readable book.



G

Reinhardt, try as I may, I struggle to understand the point you may be trying to make...

I agree that "Engineer" is a too widely used term, and thus subject to conveying a lack of clarity. For myself, I like to show the respect earned, by using it to only those who have earned the privilege of being accepted into a professional engineering association. I am not such a person. Otherwise, we also have technicians and mechanics - which I am both, with the skills and signing privileges to prove it.

But, for my experience, and knowledge of many test pilot's backgrounds, a test pilot can come from a wide range of life paths, with none being better than another. Nearly all of the test pilots I know, including myself, were drawn into the role by invitation, rather than application. For me, and many other test pilots I know, it was suitable flying experience on the type, and role, with a strong mechanical/systems/aerodynamics or certification background, which resulted in their being invited into the job of test pilot.

It can also be a matter of the body of skill and knowledge being deep or wide. I know some test pilots who only fly a few types, and freely admit that they would not even touch certain types or tests, where others (like me) are wide but not deep in their role. I "check" test fly many different types, with many different modifications, but if a very substantial test program is needed, I will probably hand the program off to a more qualified or experience test pilot, with a skill set in that specific realm.

This may be a rather "old school" perspective, but it is what I know from my corner of the industry. The result is a great challenge in defining a prescribed path to end up a test pilot, it just seems to happen to those who can fill the role as needed. I think it is very much the employer's to choose what experience and qualifications are needed, not so much the applicant's to anticipate.

Therefore, for anyone aspiring to the job, the best which can be said would be to gain education and experience, along with piloting experience, and then be sure to be employed somewhere that flight testing is being undertaken, so you can express your interest.

Perhaps more will work toward, and apply for this role than will be called, but we will happily encourage those who demonstrate an interest, as new test pilots have to come from somewhere....

Reinhardt - your profile says you're in Qatar. The SETP members database lists none in Qatar. Qatar does not have an aircraft manufacturing industry.

I'm sure that it has a few military TPs somewhere, but far too few to be a representative sample.

I've met many Airbus TPs, some but by no means all of them are former fighter pilots. Some of them don't have technical degrees, some don't have degrees at-all, and not so few its irrelevant.

I am quite sure that if I am looking towards a test pilot job a prospective employer is far more interested in my flying and flight test experience than my BEng and PhD. If I was looking to a university research job that involves some test flying (oh gosh, that's what I actually do, but I already knew that I'm not qualified to work as a TP for Airbus in Toulouse) then the reverse would be more true.


So, I'm afraid Reinhardt that I have to concur with Tester78 and Lomcevac - you really don't know what you are talking about.

For what it's worth, as I'm probably better known on Pprune than they are - I've known both T78 and Lomcevac for a couple of decades, flown with both, and they're vastly more experienced pilots than I am - as well as both having been TPS instructors (I just supervise flight test related PhDs and do a bit of flight testing and specialist training from time to time).

G

I think that I can add some clarity!

Reinhardt is French (although with some experience of the UK, n'est pas?), and it's true that there have been differences of national approach across the world. It used to be the case in France that all fixed wing military pilots selected for training as experimental test pilots were from a fighter background, but that's no longer the case. Meanwhile, the UK (for example) has trained fixed wing pilots from both fighter and heavy aircraft backgrounds since the earliest days of ETPS. But that's of only passing interest to the OP and others reading this thread with an interest in the civilian route.

There may also be confusion between the terms 'test pilot' and 'experimental test pilot'. I don't mean to reopen the question dealt with above: the definition of a test pilot. I've had my say on that. But let's clear up the regulatory/qualification issue. In France, the CER of the DGA approves individuals to conduct flight testing, both military and civilian. Approvals are granted on the basis of qualifications and experience (but not education), and must be renewed 6-monthly. Approvals can be as 'test pilot' or 'experimental test pilot', and these categories are reflected in the ops manuals of the companies conducting flight test. Test Pilots can captain flights that do not involve envelope expansion, and can fly as P2 on flights that do. Experimental Test Pilots can captain the full range of tests.

To be clear, there are plenty of pilots working their way up the flight test ladder in France as well as other countries. Those starting via the military do indeed need a good educational standard to be selected. But many others are following different routes. So yes, in France there are ex-FTEs that have gained approval from their national authorities as test pilots. In the same way, there are test pilots who have become experimental test pilots. It's called professional development, and requires appropriate training at every stage. There will always be people masquerading as things they are not, in all professions, but that doesn't change the fact that many others work hard to rightfully progress in their chosen careers.

Reinhardt's description of the French test flying environment is a bit out of date and overly simplistic. I share his pride in the aeronautical history of France. But I'm equally proud of that of the UK, and I don't see a significant difference in the efficiency or safety of test flying on each side of the English Channel over the decades. There have been differences of approach, but none clearly superior. Nonetheless, it's certainly true that someone starting a clean-sheet civilian career with the long-term aim of becoming an experimental test pilot, via, say, a design office and FTE development path, would be well-advised to start with a relevant engineering degree to minimise the requirement for luck. Rest assured that astrology and quotas play no part, though. In my experience, flight test is still a meritocracy and I don't see that changing.

Reinhardt, we see things differently, based on different history, and experience, and that's perfectly fine, as long as each respects the other.

As you said, my experience and observation is opposite to yours, mine, and that of a number of Canadian and US test pilots I know, is exactly the meritocracy which Tester78 so aptly describes.

I was chosen. There's no other way to describe it. Transport Canada Aircraft Certification Engineers called upon me as a citizen, and then later as an Aircraft Certification Delegate of Transport Canada, to fly a number of aircraft for the purpose of confirming continued design compliance, following external modifications or alternate landing gear being installed. I did not request or apply for this role, I was asked, and agreed to fly. Interestingly, for one of those programs, I was the only pilot TC could find within their available choices nationally, who had the required combination of skill experience and qualifications at the time. Happily, TC has since hired a very competent test pilot, who also has the required experience, and he and I have flown together a few times on program.

The TC request for me to fly was based upon my skill and experience flying this type of aircraft and or modification configuration. I was "taught" to be a test pilot for this purpose, by being told what to fly and evaluate, how to gather the data, and what information the report was to contain. So, a pilot with good technical knowledge was taught to be a test pilot.

But there are more types than just jet transports and fast jets. And sub from that, there are unusual operations to be evaluated too. The modification might be how the aircraft is being flown, more than the modification to it. (Parachute exit from GA aircraft, or deploying and recovering a towed object for example)

For myself, I have never flown a jet powered aircraft, and nothing in my career expectations suggest that I ever will. 30 years ago, when I was a very young part time sim tech for an airline, I had access to the DC-8-63 full motion but nearly no visual simulator we had. I taught myself to fly it late at night, after the real pilots had finished training. I read the flight manual, and with zero dual instruction just went "flying". I accumulated 45 hours of accident free flying in it, including a number of self induced emergencies. It was an airplane. What it had in common was that I would take off from a runway of suitable length, and return to that same runway. It was not particularly challenging.

When things get different is when the type of aircraft is other than a jet, and the thing you are doing with it is other than landing on that nice paved runway, or the aircraft is changing configuration in flight. I assure you that it is much more safe to take a competent pilot on type and operation, and ask him to gather flight test data, in accordance with a prepared and accepted flight test card, than it is to send a highly qualified engineer to fly a very different aircraft in a different environment. In the worst case, the non TP "pilot" will miss the test objective, and have to repeat the test to get the required data.

Sending a non qualified pilot, highly qualified "tester" (TP) out in a new plane could have needlessly high risks. I assure you that from my experience, a jet/mid to large transport pilot is going to have a seriously hard time flight testing a floatplane, flying boat, or taildragger on skis. These aircraft must be tested too, and the pilot doing it in accordance with an accepted test plan would seem to be a "test pilot".

So, flight testing is not a one size fits all. Pilots are not, and cannot be one pilot fits all aircraft types. Respecting Genghis' kindly provided definitions of a test pilot, the only thing that makes me think I am one, is that people keep asking me to flight test their aircraft, and the authority keeps approving the flight test plans, and accepting my reports in support of STC approval.

Other than that nuance, I'm just a pilot, with some flight test training, and 20 years experience, flying some really weird light aircraft. Attempting to include to exclude a pilot in the test flying world, may work if you are the person doing the hiring. Otherwise, your opinion is interesting information about your local environment, but has no affect on other jurisdictions. Whatever the DGAC chooses to do is fine with me, it's not my flying environment....

DAR and T78, I had much pleasure reading your posts, and I must say that I do acknowledge your assertions as being full of sense.
Even if I do recommand a strict system of diplomas and qualifications, that doesn't mean that I do advocate an apartheid sytem where people would be doomed for ever in their positions ! Steps ans stairs have to exist, to encourage people to climb them - and we all know some talented professionnals who did.

It's just that some order is needed, and competitive exams based on established abilities and knowledge do seem for me (and a lot of others) the fairest way to get to the positions.

I remember a CTP about to depart for an experimental flight with a big airliner, disembarking in a most expeditious way some people without a clearly defined role or position... and that doesn't mean mistakes have never been made in that field.

DAR, we have in this country a TP course for light aircraft, which is by no means an easy program. Those aircraft have to be treated with respect - I think in my whole career so far, the most difficult a/c I happened to land (or try to) had been one of them, an absolute terror...

TP from this country get the right to fly everything, which is the beauty of the job, trust us.... But it's usually a short-timed assignment (in fact it's probably better, as some would consider themselves as God after some years) and then once with Airbus, it will only be Airbus products !
To finish with DAR, not, not in any case will it be a DGAC affair (they are too busy with licences, duty times, private flight schools agreements, colors of lifejackets) to have a Flight Test Department ( the sort of which Transport Canada does seem to have, as per your post)
Maybe all of us will have learnt a little bit from those exchanges, and that prospective TP will have found a little bit of it useful....
In any case TPs often have to suffer from the jealousy of other colleagues, so maybe we can limit our disagreements between ourselves !

And... guys, sorry it was a great day in Qatar today (no civilian stuff) - read the aerospace news - so back to the drinks....

Naturally. A test flight is not the time to take non crew members - whatever their qualifications.

Anyhow in my book education and qualifications (for ANY job) merely allow your name to finish up on the short list of applicants.

Thanks Reinhardt

And that is probably central to the differing perspective various posters here could have. Of course, one should follow one's desired pilot path as much as possible.

I know that very modern airliners are an order of magnitude more systems complex, and I'm sure a total mind capture, for those pilots who enjoy that type of aircraft. I completely respect that, but it's not for me. The apogee of my flight test career will not be in a jet, or a systems complex aircraft, it will probably be in another floatplane, or rag and tube taildragger, and I'm fine with that.

In our evolving aviation industry, there will be a need for test pilots who can evaluate new small aircraft designs as well as large ones. The great challenge is that there is no where near the financial inertia in flight testing modest light aircraft as there is in airliners, helicopters, and military aircraft.

It is less likely that the light aircraft industry will find a large aircraft, fast jet, formally trained "test pilot" who has thousands of hours of experience flying very light aircraft, to undertake flight testing of a mod, or a new aircraft design. For the pilots who do have the flying experience on these types, and varied undercarriage configurations, it is very unlikely that they have come from a career path where formal flight test training was an element.

A generation ago, the light aircraft test pilot could be drawn from a military pilot group with lots of small aircraft experience on light types, but I think not so much these days.

Flight testing is a larger "industry" than just big, complex aircraft, and therefore "test pilot" is a much more varied role than one type of pilot could be expected to accomplish....