Maintenance Test Pilot

[tsimmns]

I see jobs all the time wanting these positions, my question is how do you become qualified on the AH64 to be a maintenance test pilot if you have never been a pilot in the military?

 

Just for instance there is a job right now with the South Carolina Guard for a AH64 Maintenane Test pilot. Does this job require you currently be a pilot or are they looking for enlisted to send to WOFT?

[aviator]

Those are basically prior military experience positions. Theres no real other way to get into them.

[tsimmns]

Bummer

[UH60L-IP]

If you are looking at anything indicating Maintenance Test Pilot, Instructor Pilot, etc., for an Army airframe, read that to mean "Only prior military aviators, rated in this specific aircraft, having attended the Army's maintenance test pilot course (IP course, etc.) for this aircraft, need apply. Nobody else will be considered. Thank you."

[smalltownguy]

You can get hired by the manufacturer and trained by them to fly their aircraft, but EXTREMELY rare... essentially have to be a badass and know someone. What I'm trying to say is, if you have to ask... then you are not qualified.

[Velocity173]

You'll notice on these contract jobs that not only do they need an MTP but one with experience (1,500 hrs). Only way you are going to get that kind of experience is being prior military having done MTP for several years.

[tsimmns]

Here is a question then about instructor jobs at Rucker then. I have heard of some instructors at Rucker having no prior military flight experience. How would they be hired, if this was the case to instruct someone? I assume instructing in the helos at Rucker is different from a maintenace test pilot or instructing someone in a specifc type airframe?

[smalltownguy]

The birds at Rucker are just Bell 206s... I don't see there being any advanced airframe guys that were not prior though. However, I did go to college with a guy that flew Blackhawks and has never been in the military a day in his life. I'm just saying it is possible but HIGHLY unlikely. You most likely will never see a guy in one of the gun platforms that isn't prior, but even that I wouldn't put out of the realm of possibility since I've even seen that in the fixed wing sector. The guy I mentioned had a rich dad that owned a Blackhawk parts company and had three personal blackhawks (talk about a hawk drivers wet dream haha). This guy would take buddies up in the 60s for fun and all his friends would come back bragging about having 60 time.

[Velocity173]

Here is a question then about instructor jobs at Rucker then. I have heard of some instructors at Rucker having no prior military flight experience. How would they be hired, if this was the case to instruct someone? I assume instructing in the helos at Rucker is different from a maintenace test pilot or instructing someone in a specifc type airframe?

You'll see some TH-67 guys with no military background. It's not really important for that phase so all they care about in hiring is flight time in 206s.

 

I saw only one IP in 60s with no military background. That was pretty much a fluke though. He flew Hueys as a civilian and got hired on at Lowe instructing Spanish students in the Huey. When the Huey went away he got a Black Hawk transition. That's not a problem if you're teaching basics to Spanish speaking students. The guy had a wealth of flying experience that he could pass down to his students. The problem was that we used him with other Spanish IPs across the street in FS XXI. Unfortunately his experience had no application for the tactics phase and his student critiques reflected it. I couldn't use him for sling loads and I don't think he was even signed off for multi ship. It was a time when we were hurting for IPs so we had no choice.

 

Prime IP for advanced airframe is a CW2-CW3 right out of combat with 1000-2000 hrs. That way students are getting the most current TTPs being passed down to them. It's not critical to have current info because you're teaching basic tactics anyway, but it's nice to have.

[ospreydriver]

How complicated are Army test cards that you have to go to a special school to be an FCP (USN/USMC maintenance pilot)? I've been signed off as an FCP in the TH-57 and V-22 and all I did were some simulated test cards and a stan ride with the maintenance officer. Even the guys assigned to factory acceptance of aircraft don't need a special school.

[Chitty777]

How complicated are Army test cards that you have to go to a special school to be an FCP (USN/USMC maintenance pilot)? I've been signed off as an FCP in the TH-57 and V-22 and all I did were some simulated test cards and a stan ride with the maintenance officer. Even the guys assigned to factory acceptance of aircraft don't need a special school.

 

That's a question that has been bugging me when I heard about it too. If someone can shed some light on the subject, I would like to know also.

 

FYI, I'm not bashing or being critical about the Army's way of doing things. just curious.

[Velocity173]

How complicated are Army test cards that you have to go to a special school to be an FCP (USN/USMC maintenance pilot)? I've been signed off as an FCP in the TH-57 and V-22 and all I did were some simulated test cards and a stan ride with the maintenance officer. Even the guys assigned to factory acceptance of aircraft don't need a special school.

Well it's complicated enough to have a completely seperate course setup for them. They're the only ones who can go out there, turn wrenches with the crew chiefs and return an aircraft for service.

 

Their maintenance manual is completely seperate from an aircraft operating manual or -10. There are proceedures and limits in there that as an IP I had no clue about. With all the responsibilities that an IP, safety or TACOPS guy has, they don't have time to study the MTP side of the house.

 

I remember one time as a PIC I was flying with an MTP for static and dynamic stability checks. He had a laptop hooked up to the aircraft measuring how many occilations it took for the aircraft to stabilize after a cyclic input was applied. He also checked to make sure the aircraft's flight path stabilization would keep the aircraft within +- 5 degrees of of heading with my feet flat on the floor. No way I could do that sort of test with all my additional duties and my limited knowledge of the aircraft. Same as IP, we send people to a specialized school to do specialized tasks when they get back. All your additional duties go bye bye after that.

 

Now in the civilian world, my mech works on the aircraft and I go out and do a test flight with no specific MTP training whatsoever. Still, I'm limited to what I can do as far as working on the aircraft.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Velocity173

[Hotdogs]

So in the Army MTPs can actually change parts, remove and replace fiters, plugs, fittings, etc.? Navy and Marine FCPs do all the standard track, balance, vibes, control checks, engine power assurance checks plus a myriad of other things but we never actually pull things off of the aircraft and make adjustments ourselves. We just fly the profile or specific card and record results, then go back to QA and see if it passes.

[Velocity173]

So in the Army MTPs can actually change parts, remove and replace fiters, plugs, fittings, etc.? Navy and Marine FCPs do all the standard track, balance, vibes, control checks, engine power assurance checks plus a myriad of other things but we never actually pull things off of the aircraft and make adjustments ourselves. We just fly the profile or specific card and record results, then go back to QA and see if it passes.

Well I don't know how in depth they can go in repairing an aircraft. If they're taking things off an aircraft a TI is there to supervise. It's really about how hands on a particular MTP is. Some will stay out there all day and help the crew chiefs while others just go out and fly when the aircraft is ready. An MTP isn't just taking up an aircraft for flight though. They're there to ensure the commander has mission capable aircraft based on his flight schedule.

 

You could look at is this way. When you have missions, whether combat or stateside, the scheduling officer is putting solid PCs and IPs on those missions. The MTP's job is to ensure those guys have FMC aircraft to fly, not take part in those missions themselves. With their maintenance responsibilities they just aren't proficient enough to be doing some air assault at night under low illum. They usually don't have time and don't want to take part in that stuff anyway. They work long hours hanging out with the mechs, looking through manuals, doing short test hops. It's a full time gig.

 

Anytime I did an instument eval on an MTP I knew they'd be a bit rusty because it's not something they concentrate on. Just like I didn't have time to go out and do a track and balance, engine flush, FPS checks, etc., they dont have much time to study instruments. Its a team event where every tracked guy has a place on the team.

 

The unfortunate part of being an MTP is that that just don't get many flight hours. Majority of their flights are short. Unless they're particularly motivated, they won't be volunteering for most missions. In my opinion the MTP in a unit is the most important aviator you have. You're FMC rate is almost a direct reflection of how good your MTP is.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Velocity173

[brackac]

It would be difficult for a maintenance test pilot to diagnose/verify Apache specific systems, specifically PNVS, TADS, and BUCS, without first being a qualified Apache driver.

[ospreydriver]

I guess if you have the manpower to do it, having a dedicated MTP helping maintenance track down some weird ghost gripes would be nice. At the same time, though, it seems like unnecessary overhead. For phase/acceptance flights, I fly the profile on the card, write down the numbers they want, make sure what's supposed to turn on, turns on, and return a data download to QA that they do adjustments off of. I guess it works for the Army, though--perhaps it's because you consolidate your maintenance at a higher echelon? Our operational-level maintenance is done at the squadron (12-18 a/c) level, and a test pilot may or may not have work to do on a given day.

[Rob Lyman]

I've been a Navy FCP and I am now an Army MTP/ME/IP. So here is the skinny from my point of view:

 

Navy FCP: as OspreyDriver says, you fly test cards and bring them back to QC. Not that hard to do but you should know systems pretty well.

 

Army MTP: You create the test card and fly it. You recommend and/or approve what parts to replace or adjust. When it works, you sign it off. You may or may not provide hands on effort in the repair/replacement. You often will TI the work if you aren't hands on. How often you are hands on or TI the work depends on who is available and the situation. You generally try to avoid that so as to involve as many sets of eyes in the work as possible. When it doesn't work, you recommend or decide (depending on experience) what to do next. You OWN the problem and troubleshooting until the aircraft is up and flying again. You often hold authority to downgrade red X status for one time flight to ferry the aircraft to maintenance or to attempt to duplicate the gripe. When it comes to aircraft systems you are the expert.

 

Velocity173, your experience with MTPs' quals and capabilities does not hold across all commands in the Army. It certainly doesn't hold in the Guard. In our case, the MTPs usually have multiple tracks. We have two MTPs that are also IPs. We have one that is TACOPS. We have only one MTP that is only an MTP and he has about 1900 hours. We ALL fly missions. As for not having time to study instruments, that is a poor excuse, not reality. When our APARTs come around, noone wants to ask MTPs any systems questions for fear of looking like a chump. But, I am sure it varies depending on community and command.

 

Oh, and air assaults under low illum are a walk in the park compared to night unaided shipboard landings on a cruiser or frigate.

[Velocity173]

I've been a Navy FCP and I am now an Army MTP/ME/IP. So here is the skinny from my point of view:

 

Navy FCP: as OspreyDriver says, you fly test cards and bring them back to QC. Not that hard to do but you should know systems pretty well.

 

Army MTP: You create the test card and fly it. You recommend and/or approve what parts to replace or adjust. When it works, you sign it off. You may or may not provide hands on effort in the repair/replacement. You often will TI the work if you aren't hands on. How often you are hands on or TI the work depends on who is available and the situation. You generally try to avoid that so as to involve as many sets of eyes in the work as possible. When it doesn't work, you recommend or decide (depending on experience) what to do next. You OWN the problem and troubleshooting until the aircraft is up and flying again. You often hold authority to downgrade red X status for one time flight to ferry the aircraft to maintenance or to attempt to duplicate the gripe. When it comes to aircraft systems you are the expert.

 

Velocity173, your experience with MTPs' quals and capabilities does not hold across all commands in the Army. It certainly doesn't hold in the Guard. In our case, the MTPs usually have multiple tracks. We have two MTPs that are also IPs. We have one that is TACOPS. We have only one MTP that is only an MTP and he has about 1900 hours. We ALL fly missions. As for not having time to study instruments, that is a poor excuse, not reality. When our APARTs come around, noone wants to ask MTPs any systems questions for fear of looking like a chump. But, I am sure it varies depending on community and command.

 

Oh, and air assaults under low illum are a walk in the park compared to night unaided shipboard landings on a cruiser or frigate.

Never said my comments were universal. I too have known MTPs, TACOPS and safety guys as IPs, but that's the minority. Fact is MOST MTPs just don't get the flight hours that other tracks get. Last year I vouched for a former 60 MTP in getting a SPIFR job for the company I work for. Our asst chief pilot (former Army) was throwing a fit because he believed the guy didn't have the experience for the job. I'm currently in communication with a 64 MTP looking at getting hired as well. He was complaining that as an MTP he didn't get as many hours as he wanted.

 

It's just been my observation that most MTPs have a full time job with the maintenance side. Do they get put on missions? Sure they do but not as often as the other line pilots.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Velocity173

[Chitty777]

 

Oh, and air assaults under low illum are a walk in the park compared to night unaided shipboard landings on a cruiser or frigate.

 

Spot 5 or 6, low light in the middle of ocean in a 53 sucks too.

[stearmann4]

Rob & Osprey,

 

Before I got involved in maintenance I asked the same thing; "Why does the Army have to have an entirely seperate track and training for a job that Navy/USMC complete as a collateral duty?" I spent 3 years as an aircrewman and collateral duty inspector on CH-46s back (like before NVGs) so I knew a little of Naval Aviation Maintenance.

 

The easy answer; Maintenace Test Pilot school for all airframes goes deep into systems, and we don't just read test cards and record results, an MTP is heavily involved in the trouble shooting process. As another poster said, an FCP finishes his flight, hands the test card results to maintenance Control and comes back wen it's ready to fly. We'll generally land, break open the maintenance manual and start working the problem with the shop guys.

 

Although it's not taught in the MTP course, MTPs are also maintenance managers, quality control and production control officers. In the Navy/USMC those positions are all held by non-flying officers/CWOs.

 

As for flight time; it may not be typical (MH-47s) but we fly as much or sometimes more than line pilots. When sequestration/shutdown hit, we were still flying 10-15 hours a week. I'm an ME/IP, safety officer and quality control oifficer, and I still maintain all my assault skills (NVGs, decks, air refueling) and I still fly assualts overseas periodically.

 

Mike-