The criticism of QinetiQ and the MOD Boscombe Down organisation in previous posts raises some 'old chestnuts' that have been debated for decades, and probably even longer, about relevant experience when carrying out flight assessments. The tps are assessing whatever against the capabilities of the 'average' pilot'. Hence, it would be unwise to use specialist pilots who are very experienced in the role/task as they would be likely to cope with a difficult task without much problem. Whereas 'joe average' may struggle or even get into trouble.
However, many of the perceived faults with the system raised by previous posters are down to the requirements of the flying regulatory system under which the MOD Boscombe Down organisation operates. Namely, that of Director of Flying DPA and not the usual 'Service Regulated' flying environment that regulates 'normal' military flying. The D/Fg system allows aircraft to be operated beyond current MAR/RTS limitations, which must happen to provide the assessment results to extend the current limitations/approvals. Sensibly, such events are carefully supervised and all risks fully assessed. The rules and procedures developed over many years of practical test/assessment flying may appear restrictive at first sight but they have passed the test of time. Hence, within the test/assessment flying environment many of the options raised by previous posters are not readily usable even when common sense indicates relaxing a rule/procedure in a particular situation could be beneficial.
The question of costs etc that accrue from QQs commercial status is a different subject but government policy produced the beast and the situation is not far removed from the full cost accounting processes rapidly taking over all military activity.
lm