Originally Posted by tester355
No raised eyebrows here at all. In fact, 90% of my work is systems testing and for the reasons you describe above it is (and becoming increasingly) more heavily weighted than HQ testing. The difference is, however, that one can still get away with sub-optimal systems design and certify an aircraft..
Which probably explains the trend for more & more Avionics & Systems rigs - even quite small aircraft now have full System Integration Test Rigs (SITRs) - where the interfaces between both the Avionics suite and the other systems (mainly micro-processor based) are checked out well before first flight even on an aircraft without fly-by-wire. In our organization we assign both a Project TP & FTE as well as system test lead engineers to any new product or significant upgrade right from the get-go. The trouble is that, most Avionics suppliers can not produce a credible software update in under three months from receipt of the previous one's problem reports - the first fixes often only reveal other more complex problems. Couple that with budget & schedule pressures and it's easy to see where Tester's "sub-optimal" systems can come from (not that they are on any of our products....).
Sorry if this is getting a little off topic but it's not that often we get to discuss HOW we should test the modern aircraft and the many types of expertise required.