Strange Question: Test Pilots' Career Paths?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I have been involved with TPs for many years both from an OEU and Release To Service Standpoint. There is no doubt that there is a place for TPs in the RAF but it has changed over the past 40 years. The pilots selected for ETPS are all Well Above The Average.
Most of the bad press received by TPs has been out of frustration by the FL not receiving what they think they want. The blame lay at "the system", MODPE, BD and QinetiQ. The tardy way that they have done their business and ripped off the tax payer was a disgrace.
The remit of the person responsible for an aircraft's RtoS is to seek BEST ADVICE. If the established system could not provide it, then look elsewhere.
A certain GC at the AWC some years ago had the vision to incorporate TPs within OEUs. I believe that within the FJ community this has worked well. It managed to take much of the power away from BD without them realising. BAEs realised that their TPs lacked credibility with the FL and so the new breed maintained CR status on a squadron as Reservists.
Being a TP is a laudable achievement within the aviation community. It is only the w*****s in high places that have been responsible for the qualification being under rated. Hopefully, that is all in the past!
Most of the bad press received by TPs has been out of frustration by the FL not receiving what they think they want. The blame lay at "the system", MODPE, BD and QinetiQ. The tardy way that they have done their business and ripped off the tax payer was a disgrace.
The remit of the person responsible for an aircraft's RtoS is to seek BEST ADVICE. If the established system could not provide it, then look elsewhere.
A certain GC at the AWC some years ago had the vision to incorporate TPs within OEUs. I believe that within the FJ community this has worked well. It managed to take much of the power away from BD without them realising. BAEs realised that their TPs lacked credibility with the FL and so the new breed maintained CR status on a squadron as Reservists.
Being a TP is a laudable achievement within the aviation community. It is only the w*****s in high places that have been responsible for the qualification being under rated. Hopefully, that is all in the past!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Darkest Dorset
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
I know your son well, thoroughly enjoyed flying with him. Last saw him in SA where we enjoyed some great food and just a few glasses of red....please send my regards.
ET
I know your son well, thoroughly enjoyed flying with him. Last saw him in SA where we enjoyed some great food and just a few glasses of red....please send my regards.
ET
When the Tornado OEU (TOEU) was first formed in the early '80's a Tornado tp from 'A' Sqn was posted in deliberately as a tp. When he was tourex they decided to replace him with a non-tp. However, then boss (RB) shortly after realised the advantages of integrating a tp into an OEU and I was asked by him if I would like to move across. I said yes but the politics between A&AEE and CTTO at the time were such that it never happened. However, the working relationship on Tornado between 'A' Sqn/Fixed Wing Test Squadron and the TOEU (later SAOEU) was always excellent and very productive. Unfortunately, our relationship with the F3 OEU was never as productive, probably because it was not co-located and perhaps due to personalities.
Although it was some years before the Jaguar was integrated into the SAOEU there was always an excellent working relationship between FWTS and CTTO on the Jag. The highlight of this was the integration of TIALD for Bosnia (Op Deny Flight). The development sorties were flown in a modified T2 and for about 95% of the sorties there was a tp in one cockpit and a front line QWI/Staneval/CTTO pilot in the other. Agreement was reached in the debrief on the way ahead, and it was the most fascinating and satisfying project on which I have ever worked, resulting in a system that worked well, came in on time and under cost!
Although it was some years before the Jaguar was integrated into the SAOEU there was always an excellent working relationship between FWTS and CTTO on the Jag. The highlight of this was the integration of TIALD for Bosnia (Op Deny Flight). The development sorties were flown in a modified T2 and for about 95% of the sorties there was a tp in one cockpit and a front line QWI/Staneval/CTTO pilot in the other. Agreement was reached in the debrief on the way ahead, and it was the most fascinating and satisfying project on which I have ever worked, resulting in a system that worked well, came in on time and under cost!
LOM
Do you mean when I was in ATC there (83-86 )? In the good old days before CAA lost the contract!
I don't suppose many people know that ATC at the MOD(PE) airfields, previously Ministry of Supply, was done by civilian ATCOs. The Boscombe contract was lost in '92 to Airwork, who IIRC were unable to obtain sufficient staff and so the RAF took over in '93.
I did a 5 month attachment to JATE, then at Abingdon, in 72/3 and flew into Boscombe on numerous occasions to pick up various loads to throw out on Salisbury Plain.
I don't think I can persuade Shaun to Prune ( a new verb! ), No2 son an ATCO at Swanwick isn't interested either - perhaps it's because their old man upsets people on it
.
I don't suppose many people know that ATC at the MOD(PE) airfields, previously Ministry of Supply, was done by civilian ATCOs. The Boscombe contract was lost in '92 to Airwork, who IIRC were unable to obtain sufficient staff and so the RAF took over in '93.
I did a 5 month attachment to JATE, then at Abingdon, in 72/3 and flew into Boscombe on numerous occasions to pick up various loads to throw out on Salisbury Plain.
I don't think I can persuade Shaun to Prune ( a new verb! ), No2 son an ATCO at Swanwick isn't interested either - perhaps it's because their old man upsets people on it
.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
If I recall correctly, the RAF had to man-up Boscombe ATC with about 24hrs notice following Airwork admitting it had insufficient staff the day prior to its contracted takeover date.
The Centre has still not 'learnt lessons' particularly the one about Cheapest is never Best!
lm
If I recall correctly, the RAF had to man-up Boscombe ATC with about 24hrs notice following Airwork admitting it had insufficient staff the day prior to its contracted takeover date.
The Centre has still not 'learnt lessons' particularly the one about Cheapest is never Best!
lm
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
LOMCEVAK, I agree with most that you stated about the TOEU and the SAOEU. However, for much of it's early life the F3OEU was committed to make the Foxhunter and then Link16 work. This was done through a CTT with Marconi and BAEs being the other partners. The CCT was an example of how development should be conducted.
A&AEE were involved through their partnership agreement at Warton. I would still maintain that the best people, and their qualifications/experience were utilised correctly. The fact that some felt that their flying had been stolen is by the by. The final result justified the path that was taken. By the time the radar had matured to Stage 1Plus and then Stage 2 it was among the best at that time. A shame it was 15 years too late.
The final outcome, with the Fast Jet OEU being located with the Front Line with TPs embedded is as it should be.
A&AEE were involved through their partnership agreement at Warton. I would still maintain that the best people, and their qualifications/experience were utilised correctly. The fact that some felt that their flying had been stolen is by the by. The final result justified the path that was taken. By the time the radar had matured to Stage 1Plus and then Stage 2 it was among the best at that time. A shame it was 15 years too late.
The final outcome, with the Fast Jet OEU being located with the Front Line with TPs embedded is as it should be.
Last edited by Dominator2; 26th Aug 2014 at 13:00.
Dominator2,
The problem that we had with relationships with the early F3 OEU was that there was a great reluctance to have any contact with FWTS at all. We were conducting trials exactly as you say and it was going to be helpful to all to communicate what was happening on both sides of the fence but what we encountered was not a helpful attitude.
I could continue about why AWSMDS never entered service on the aircraft but perhaps that is too much thread creep. If anyone is interested, please start a thread asking the question and I will reply!
The problem that we had with relationships with the early F3 OEU was that there was a great reluctance to have any contact with FWTS at all. We were conducting trials exactly as you say and it was going to be helpful to all to communicate what was happening on both sides of the fence but what we encountered was not a helpful attitude.
I could continue about why AWSMDS never entered service on the aircraft but perhaps that is too much thread creep. If anyone is interested, please start a thread asking the question and I will reply!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
LOMCEVAK.
The fact that you talk about "sides of the fence" typifies the attitude of FWTS of "not invented here". Why should there have been only one unit that had primacy over Release To Service advice?
We shall all be very interested in your version of why AWSMDS did not enter service in the RAF but did in the RSAF. I do hope that you have the correct facts to hand!
The fact that you talk about "sides of the fence" typifies the attitude of FWTS of "not invented here". Why should there have been only one unit that had primacy over Release To Service advice?
We shall all be very interested in your version of why AWSMDS did not enter service in the RAF but did in the RSAF. I do hope that you have the correct facts to hand!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again, re-fighting old battles!
Test and Evaluation Organisations, and that includes everyone involved, have always and only delivered Advice to a nominated Central Organisation. The Central Organisation responds to the Advice based on numerous factors. Many of those factors are hardly conducive to delivering the best outcome.
Oh, and of course The Contractors also deliver plenty of Advice.
Historically, the end result has invariably been an unhappy one. We all know of the problems, the pressures, late spec changes, failure to meet the spec, someone new and senior arriving in an influential position and wanting changes and so on.
There is no point in banging on about things long past. It would be refreshing to believe things were now better because of 'Lessons Learnt' - how many times do we hear that statement - but things are not any better by far from where I sit.
lm
Test and Evaluation Organisations, and that includes everyone involved, have always and only delivered Advice to a nominated Central Organisation. The Central Organisation responds to the Advice based on numerous factors. Many of those factors are hardly conducive to delivering the best outcome.
Oh, and of course The Contractors also deliver plenty of Advice.
Historically, the end result has invariably been an unhappy one. We all know of the problems, the pressures, late spec changes, failure to meet the spec, someone new and senior arriving in an influential position and wanting changes and so on.
There is no point in banging on about things long past. It would be refreshing to believe things were now better because of 'Lessons Learnt' - how many times do we hear that statement - but things are not any better by far from where I sit.
lm
Last edited by lightningmate; 29th Aug 2014 at 06:39.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
LM, It is worth shaking the tree every now and then, just to see what falls out.
I agree with your sentiment that hopefully things are now better due to "Lessons Learnt". I also, from outside the fence, hear that this is not so. They can apply as much "process" as they like but where is the common sense?
I agree with your sentiment that hopefully things are now better due to "Lessons Learnt". I also, from outside the fence, hear that this is not so. They can apply as much "process" as they like but where is the common sense?
Dominator2,
Apologies for my poor, ambiguous use of a coloquialism. In stead of '.. both sides of the fence ..' I should have said '.. between the two units that were responsible for F3 T&E at the time ..'.
I am quite happy to discuss personally with you the communication problems at the time, although I will say that during the latter stages of my tour on FWTS during the run-up to Op Granby things improved significantly and by talking we helped each other.
I agree that there were some personalities around at the time who felt that their flying was 'being stolen' or that 'they should be giving the R to S recommendations' but please understand that these were more personality issues and did not reflect an overall belief within FWTS; I certainly was not one who subscribed to that philosophy.
Rgds
L
Apologies for my poor, ambiguous use of a coloquialism. In stead of '.. both sides of the fence ..' I should have said '.. between the two units that were responsible for F3 T&E at the time ..'.
I am quite happy to discuss personally with you the communication problems at the time, although I will say that during the latter stages of my tour on FWTS during the run-up to Op Granby things improved significantly and by talking we helped each other.
I agree that there were some personalities around at the time who felt that their flying was 'being stolen' or that 'they should be giving the R to S recommendations' but please understand that these were more personality issues and did not reflect an overall belief within FWTS; I certainly was not one who subscribed to that philosophy.
Rgds
L
