Airworthiness Advice from Qinetiq

[LFFC]

Bidders Eyeing Qinetiq Where Government Still Has The Key (http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSL0216161020070402?pageNumber=3)

Reuters - 2 Apr 07:
There are rekindled talks about whether Qinetiq, which has performed poorly since its partial privatisation, might be better off as part of a bigger company. The company's senior management would be happy if the government sold its 19 percent stake in the company, especially given the controversy surrounding the company winning a 16 billion pound contract to run the Ministry of Defence's training. BAE Systems could be a possible bidder if Qinetiq became available.


Could we still rely on Qinetiq to give us independent airworthiness advice if it was owned by BAES?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

A solution maybe to use the resultant appropriations in aid from the sale to set up the Air Force and Navy with an evaluation Squadron. We could do all our own evaluation and development trials and give it a snappy title. The Aeroplane Armament and Evaluation Establishmnt has a certain ring to it.

[Vage Rot]

The Aeroplane Armament and Evaluation Establishmnt has a certain ring to it.

Cynic!! You'll be advocating no more Force Headquarters and going back to Ops Sqn next!!!

[BossEyed]

"Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment", if you'd be so kind.

Thank you.

[Milt]

Here is my Quote for the day.

"No sooner do we have a new super system to replace the old than there will be mounting pressures to change it again."

I've hardly learned yet how to pronounce "Kinetic". Perhaps the wheel will do a full turn back to AAEA under a reactivated Ministry of Supply!!

[tucumseh]

"No sooner do we have a new super system to replace the old than there will be mounting pressures to change it again."


Spot on. This constant grind of change for the sake of change is dragging the MoD down more than anyone can imagine. Initiatives, some good, others bad, seem to last about two years. The originator gets his promotion, a new guy comes in and changes again.

I don’t think it matters who airworthiness advice is provided by, be it QinetiQ, BAeS or Westland. They simply will not jeopardise their position by deliberating providing poor or false advice. If you’ve ever attended project meetings, you’ll know that the most independent guy at the company is the Safety Manager. Their probity is not the problem.

The problem is that MoD does not have to explain or justify WHY it does not accept advice from Boscombe. See Mull of Kintyre.

Fifteen years ago it would never have crossed my mind that an MoD project manager would dare ignore Boscombe advice. Now, they are effectively encouraged to do so if implementing that advice affects time, cost or performance (and safety is part of performance – although many disagree with me). This is precisely why unsafe aircraft and equipment have been accepted off contract and offered to the Services. This is not just my own opinion; far more senior and knowledgeable people than I have criticised MoD and Ministers for the same thing, only to be told they are wrong. Perhaps I am, but I know how to deliver airworthiness and also know that it is easier now, and more rewarding in promotion terms, not to.

[Release-Authorised]

"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."

Caius Petronias, AD 66

He wrote this in Latin, but it still holds good for nearly every thread on PPRuNe.

[Double Zero]

When I worked for BAe, the official title of the company changed so often that we gave up trying to keep up.

For a while we were 'Military Aircraft Division' until someone actually twigged the acronym was ' MAD '...