Questions on TPS (Test Pilot School)

[WeMeantWell]

I'm putting together my app for this year's board. I think I have a pretty strong package,

If you want to go to AFMC, you have to start using "sts" after statements like that.

I would focus on the positives, why you SHOULD be a TP grad. I wouldn't mention the Q-3 (the details are already in the Form 8 if they want to see), I would only mention Form 8 info if you had an EQ, or some other really positive write ups. Yes, they will look through your FEF, but it won't be the focus. I think that is the real kicker that most people do not realize, TPS grads are not chosen because they have great hands (although it is important), they are chosen and used because they can apply engineering disciplines to flight (If you wanted to be chosen for great hands you would of applied to a weapon school instead). So engineering schooling, especially masters level work is a positive reflection that you can take difficult concepts and apply them to aircraft. If you have time, search out OT wherever it might be and get in on it if you can, or any other "testing", even if it is reflective-belt wear-testing... its still testing. Create a new tactic (within the bounds of your T.O.!!) and pitch it to your tactics shop or Sqd/CC and then ask for a few training hours to develop it and write it up, send it to AMC/HQ, etc...

Focus on what in your history is related to test first, then delve into the breadth of your accomplishments (especially awards, or any type of excelling). I don't think not being an MWS IP will hurt a whole lot, since you have two airframes. Strats won't hurt, but I wouldn't focus on them unless the pertain to test or flying. I would get at least one or two good recommendation and don't water them down by trying to add a third weak one.

Here is a little dose of reality (IMO) you most likely will be selected based on the AF needs for a C-5 Test Pilot grad. Since you don't fly pointy nose jets, you probably do not matter to 90% of the folks on the board. (AFMC has a few high-visibility test programs, and aircraft that start with C or KC are not them, not even KC-x... I know *gasp!).

Since there is not a lot of C-5 testing to be had, you have to have an amazing application for them to believe that you could one day fly another type of aircraft (which you have already shown) and, of course that there is not another pilot from that community also applying with a similar looking app.

Also, I think the class sizes are being reduced from 24 back to 20. I am not sure how the break out works, but I would imagine that means cutting 3 to 2 ME pilots. But with the interview process you should still have a decent shot of getting out there to show them what you got...

Good luck!!

[Guest]

I think that is the real kicker that most people do not realize, TPS grads are not chosen because they have great hands (although it is important), they are chosen and used because they can apply engineering disciplines to flight (If you wanted to be chosen for great hands you would of applied to a weapon school instead).

Or both...

Edited March 26, 2012 by Rainman A-10

[WeMeantWell]

Or both...

Duh!, always a few outliers in the data...

[Daredevileng1]

Or both...

Like a proud father with the picture is his wallet. Is it normal for Patches to get into TPS? Do many Patches want to go to TPS? This career progression (WIC to TPS) is what I would call about as good as it gets. What else did he have other tours did he have leading him to this (google didn't find that anywhere)?

Edited March 26, 2012 by Daredevileng1

[pcola]

@wemeantwell - thanks a ton for the info. I'll try to put it to good use.

TPS grads are not chosen because they have great hands (although it is important), they are chosen and used because they can apply engineering disciplines to flight (If you wanted to be chosen for great hands you would of applied to a weapon school instead).

I totally get what you are saying here and the fact that it raises questions about my hands is what bugs me about the damn Q-3. I realize the majority of the pointy nose guys on the board will have no way to relate to the challenges of taxiing a beast like the C-5. But clipping a taxi light doesn't mean I can't AR like a champ. Anyway, I digress. Not arguing with you at all, a Q-3 is a Q-3, I get it and I know it's a challenge I'll have to face. Thanks for the advice about not mentioning it in my statement.

Here is a little dose of reality (IMO) you most likely will be selected based on the AF needs for a C-5 Test Pilot grad. Since you don't fly pointy nose jets, you probably do not matter to 90% of the folks on the board. (AFMC has a few high-visibility test programs, and aircraft that start with C or KC are not them, not even KC-x... I know *gasp!).

Since there is not a lot of C-5 testing to be had, you have to have an amazing application for them to believe that you could one day fly another type of aircraft (which you have already shown) and, of course that there is not another pilot from that community also applying with a similar looking app.

Yeah, I figured as much. I know for the heavy guys its more about who they need in the next couple of years than anything else. If they don't need a C-5 guy, I'm SOL. Well, I'm still gonna put in my app. If I don't try, I certainly won't get picked up.

Again, thanks for the post. It is very helpful.

[Guest]

Like a proud father with the picture is his wallet. Is it normal for Patches to get into TPS? Do many Patches want to go to TPS? This career progression (WIC to TPS) is what I would call about as good as it gets. What else did he have other tours did he have leading him to this (google didn't find that anywhere)?

Yes, I'm proud. Proud to know him, nothing more. I take zero credit for what he has pulled off through skill and hard work.

He was a brand new Lt in my flight at Eielson and he told me he wanted to do TPS on day one. I told him Nellis first (my bias) and then he could think about Edwards if that's what he really wanted to do...assuming he was willing to do the work starting that day. He was.

I think he did a tour at Pope after he went through FWIC and he was an IP at Nellis and that's where he got picked up for TPS, IIRC. I remember writing him a letter of recommendation and asking him if TPS was what he really wanted, it seemed like a waste for him to be doing bullshit like verifying the climb charts. Little did I know.

Nellis to Edwards is not common but there are several examples I can think of. However, I can't think of any examples of guys going Edwards to Nellis though so you need to go to FWIC first if that's part of your gameplan. I doubt Nellis will ever take a Golden Arm, it just doesn't make sense.

Emmit has done a nice job getting back into the ops world in a pretty cool way. Something not easily accomplished. He would be a great person to work for if you can get an F-35.

[WeMeantWell]

I totally get what you are saying here and the fact that it raises questions about my hands is what bugs me about the damn Q-3.

It doesn't hurt as much as you think it does, if everything else you have is competitive... Fvcking up is human, 1 data point is not a trend. Many of them understand the concept of AMC's Q3-Q1 candy, I've heard a few stories of fighter bubbas taxiing into things and they got a call-sign out of it. AMC is full of many leaders that only understand leadership as an avenue to place blame... but that is an entirely different discussion.

I realize the majority of the pointy nose guys on the board will have no way to relate to the challenges of taxiing a beast like the C-5. But clipping a taxi light doesn't mean I can't AR like a champ.

They can relate, it is tough, but so is rolling on your back, puling to fly straight at the ground to put a piper on a target, watching 15+ different parameters and pickling at the precise moment while watching three, green 1LTs do the same... (I know I probably messed up that verbiage), but thumping your chest about hard your pilot job is doesn't get you anywhere. Every plane has its challenging $hit.

Well, I'm still gonna put in my app. If I don't try, I certainly won't get picked up.

It's amazing how many people really don't understand that statement, they pick the best from those who apply... if the best don't apply, sucks for them.

[Muscle2002]

@wemeantwell - thanks a ton for the info. I'll try to put it to good use.

I totally get what you are saying here and the fact that it raises questions about my hands is what bugs me about the damn Q-3. I realize the majority of the pointy nose guys on the board will have no way to relate to the challenges of taxiing a beast like the C-5. But clipping a taxi light doesn't mean I can't AR like a champ. Anyway, I digress. Not arguing with you at all, a Q-3 is a Q-3, I get it and I know it's a challenge I'll have to face. Thanks for the advice about not mentioning it in my statement.

While the FEF is looked at, the board looks at everything in deciding who they will invite out for the flight eval and interview. Moreover, the FEF is a major reason they instituted the Comprehensive Candidate Eval a couple of years ago. The board knows no two communities grade checkrides the same and they were beginning to see folks come through here who looked great on paper, but with hands like cinder blocks. If the rest of your package (sts) is impressive, then they may give you the nod for an interview and the chance to prove the Q-3 was an anomaly.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Muscle2002

[Mitch Weaver]

The board will have your FEF, but those writing your recommendations may not. Making them aware of your Eval history gives them the opportunity to alibi.

[Mongoose]

@pcola,

WeMeantWell pretty much hit the nail on the cranium - I only have a couple of things to add. Don't try to "alibi" the Q3, just focus on your strengths, and have your recommendation writers focus on your strengths. The fact that you don't have a MWS IP qual is completely mitigated by the fact that you were a C-21 IP. The biggest reason that TPS AFMC wants prior IPs is so your future AFMC Squadron isn't required by AFI to send you to a formal IP school for your future IP ugrade, they can do it in-house. This saves TDY time and $$, time being the most important factor.

As to the FWIC -> TPS route, I'd say that those are 6 sigma (yes I'm a geek) outliers and some special circumstances. Honestly, you aren't doing anyone any favors if you plan to go and use up years and millions of the AF's $$ going to FWIC and then back to the CAF, then turn around and go to TPS. There is a reason that most of the OT guys are FWIC graduates - that's where they are needed. DT is an entirely different mindset. Not that FWIC guys can't do it, most of those guys can do anything, it's just that it is a waste of their f*#(ing time.

Cheers,

Jason

[Dupe]

Also, I used to work as a civilian DOD engineer, so I have some experience with the DOD acquisitions process and with DOD engineering program management. My question for grads or those that have been selected is what should I focus my personal statement on? Should I focus on why my prior experience and education would be a benefit to the class and ultimately the test community, or should I attempt to explain away the negatives

I'll beat the near-dying horse here. Definately put your previous-life acquisition experience in your statement. The statement is the one place to put anything that's not in your official records. The board will have your OPRs, FEF, transcripts, and SURF. They have no data on anything you have done previous to Mother Blue. Having acquisitions experience sets you apart from other applicants...clearly state what you did and what DAU certifications you reached. The board isn't some giant random monstrosity like a promotion board. Its 5-6 guys from around DT who gather in San Antonio to drink beer and decide the near to medium term makeup of DT. There will be a herbivore guy there to clearly state the merits of the heavy dudes.

I'm constantly shocked in my flight test job at how the flying is often not that complicated. I spend a majority of my energy fighting with idiots at the SPOs and passing lessons/ideas to my OT bros. There's no one technical area of the TPS curriculum I use all the time. Some of that stuff I haven't seen since I graduated. The aquisitions part, however, I use all the time.

[pcola]

wemeantwell, muscle, MW, mongoose, and dupe:

Thanks for all the replies. I now have a pretty good handle on what my app narrative will look like. I'm actually feeling pretty decent about my chances right now, either this year or the next. Time will tell...

Cheers!

[Milchstrasse]

Bit of a revival.

I have a few questions that I don't think have been directly addressed thus far.

1. Given a long term goal to someday attend TPS, should I be planning my airframe choices starting now to maximize my annual flying hours? If going the guard route, I imagine this becomes more of an issue as flying time is reduced. Do most guard pilots accumulate the required hours before the 9 year 6 month limit? I've only read a few reports of annual hours... something like 100-200/yr traditional guard, 400/yr for a bum.

2. Would engineering work for a defense contractor, NASA, or other government affiliated industry be of any benefit in the application process if done concurrently with said guard position?

3. Do prestigious fellowships/scholarships awarded during academic studies carry any weight in the application process? What about quantity/quality of publications? I somehow can't imagine someone on the board giving diddly squat about some obscure work done in a highly specific corner of the scientific community.

Thanks.

[Termy]

As of yet, no one from the ANG has attended TPS. One AFRC pilot has thus far. And your comment regarding flight time is backwards in some cases; there are guard/reserve units that are flying more than the active duty; fighter and heavy and even in some TFI units.

[Tonka]

6-8 years from now? There is a LOT that can change. Judging by our recent acquisition failures and our inability to get any MDS on track, the future is not bright for AFMC...

... should I be planning my airframe choices starting now to maximize my annual flying hours?

Nah, pick what you want to fly. I seriously doubt the decision to choose someone ever came down to hours... upgrade on/before time and fly safely (Q1s). Typically, they need folks from all communities, and guessing flying hours in a specific community over the next decade is close to impossible (unless you want to fly from the ground, which they are taking folks for that too). If you dream of NASA, you'd better fly something with a pointed nose, I think there has only been 1 pilot from the heavy side to go up. However, "in general" heavy guys don't apply as much, so less competition... I've heard it is even smaller #s of Helo pilots that apply.

2. Would engineering work for a defense contractor, NASA, or other government affiliated industry... 3. Do prestigious fellowships/scholarships awarded during academic studies carry any weight in the application process? What about quantity/quality of publications? I somehow can't imagine someone on the board giving diddly squat about some obscure work done in a highly specific corner of the scientific community..

...ummm, yeah. All/any of that as long as the work is relevant:scientific, research, engineering (open/closed loop systems/responses, controls, aero), working in the advertising department at LM would be worthless. Most pilots don't have any of those things coming in, and the people on the board typically have written quite a few obscure papers in very specific corners. FYI: These folks are not Chuck Yeagers... rather, Engineers that learned how to fly and apply engineering principles to what they fly. Don't think Wildly Coyote on a rocket, think Sheldon Cooper building an Extra.

Anything you can do to separate yourself from common, and get some sort of test experience where ever you can. Most airframes periodically have testing that uses line pilots, so search those ops out and volunteer. It is just like every other opportunity in the AF, focus on your primary job, become a respected expert, and doors will amazingly be opened.

[Muscle2002]

6-8 years from now? There is a LOT that can change. Judging by our recent acquisition failures and our inability to get any MDS on track, the future is not bright for AFMC...

Don't you think that the folks writing the requirements (not usually DT folks) and those with constituencies standing to make a lot of money (i.e. politicians) should bear the brunt of blame for acquisitions failures? Yes, there's more to AFMC than just test pilots, but DT does the best it can with the stuff it inherits.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Muscle2002

[HuggyU2]

If you dream of NASA, you'd better fly something with a pointed nose, I think there has only been 1 pilot from the heavy side to go up...

...and he was a great American.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/scobee.html

[Butters]

If you dream of NASA, you'd better fly something with a pointed nose.

If you dream of NASA do not listen to Tonka.

Google Sunita Williams. I never knew helicopters we considered "pointed nose"

[Milchstrasse]

Scobee was a great american indeed. I'm actually reading Riding Rockets (by Mike Mullane) that covers that era of NASA's history and would highly recommend it to anyone remotely interested in the shuttle program.

NASA (or whomever is launching Americans into space a decade from now) is indeed my ultimate goal, but I am acutely aware of the minuscule chances of becoming an astronaut. I'd have to be extremely lucky, and timing would have to be perfect. But it's worth a try, especially since the path there involves flying some great machines. I'd be more than happy with a career in the Air Force.

I digress. This thread is a wealth of information -- thank you. I am finishing my PhD now. Not aerospace, not electrical, not mechanical, or anything remotely aeronautical, but rather chemical engineering. My undergrad grades are good, my grad school grades are just ok. I assume at the PhD level this isn't so important. I am trusting that this engineering background is highly adaptable (with some training and education) to a variety of aircraft related systems.

If I am fortunate enough to attend UPT I'll just do my best, aim for the airframe I think I'd be happiest flying. I've considered many "dream" aircraft over the years, and the F-16 would probably remain my number one out of UPT, but I'd go for anything really. If it track toners, I'd hope for C-130s or C-17s. If I track UH-1s, then HH-60s would be my first choice.

I don't know what "MDS" stands for (but I assume it's not myelodysplastic syndromes, as google would have me believe) but I would certainly try to take advantage of any testing opportunities on whatever my current MWS happens to be.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Milchstrasse

[Clayton Bigsby]

MDS = Mission Designation Series. As in the designation of your aircraft.

[Tonka]

Don't you think that the folks writing the requirements (not usually DT folks) and those with constituencies standing to make a lot of money (i.e. politicians) should bear the brunt of blame for acquisitions failures? Yes, there's more to AFMC than just test pilots, but DT does the best it can with the stuff it inherits.

Yep, agreed. Just because AFMC isn't the sole problem doesn't mean they won't have to change to fix it. But they are definitely not blameless.

If you dream of NASA do not listen to Tonka. Google Sunita Williams.

If you dream of joining NASA by attending any TPS as an Air Force, fixed-winged pilot your chances are greatly increased by not choosing to fly a heavy aircraft...

I never knew helicopters we considered "pointed nose"

I've never known any helicopters that "we" considered to be "pointed nose" either.

[gimmeaplane]

Milchstrasse, since you're a technical type and not in UPT yet, you have an alternate path if UPT doesn't work out (age/medical/whatever). You could go TPS FTE and then transition to NASA mission specialist.

NASA did a couple rounds of recruiting for last year's board at EDW. They want blue patches to apply.

[Muscle2002]

NASA did a couple rounds of recruiting for last year's board at EDW. They want blue patches to apply.

I'll second that...there were at least three briefs given by current astronauts in addition to the NASA administrator's.

[Milchstrasse]

A technical type, yes, but with a dream to fly still. I feel I'd be more competitive as a military pilot (if I'm any good!) with a PhD than as a civilian with a PhD.

From the AF99-107 it states that civilians may apply with 2 years of test and evaluation (T&E) experience. One issue here is that my degree is in Chemical Engineering, and I may have a difficult time selling myself as a strong candidate as an FTE if I am up against mechanical, electrical, and aero types. I suppose one thing I could do is find a position with a defense contractor (or related) that would give me T&E experience more appropriate to aviation.

Could anyone elaborate on how the training of an FTE differs from the pilot types? How competitive are these TPS slots compared to other TPS slots, or is it pretty much the same?

[HossHarris]

Rockets!! It's all rockets these days. That's your in.