QinetiQ to be sold off

[propulike]

HMG, short of cash again, is to sell more of QinetiQ.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4604568.stm

Apart from the security concerns of Mil projects and Civvie companies, is this a bad thing? Perhaps it'll take less than 4 years to clear items of standard aircraft fit after the sale! Taking longer will have no impact compared to the length of time it takes now - by the time any clearance arrives it's already well past it's useful implementation date.

[tucumseh]

Undoubtedly QQ have very good, knowledgeable staff and are the MoD's preferred source of independent technical advice. I can only see the price for this going up.

However, any DPA PM will tell you the most annoying thing about QQ is their tendency, some would say policy, to leave reports open ended with a recommendation that further work takes place. Sometimes this is down to the PM not specifying the requirement properly, but more often it is what I call the "scientist's mindset" - many have no inkling of what the customer or user want, and just want to do ever more research and development with no regard to programme timescales. Put another way, they have little or no experience of actually delivering a product into service. (Not unlike most DPA PMs nowadays!). I can honestly say I've only ever come across one instance where I was content leaving QQ to get on with the job, and deliver precisely what the contract said. Step forward Farnborough Systems Integration Dept.

I should add that I don't really regard Boscombe as QQ - the key staffs I deal with are serving officers and SNCOs who will often be the user at their next posting. They are superb.

[southside]

Apart from the security concerns of Mil projects and Civvie companiesWhat security concerns???? I have worked with many civilian companies over the past 5 years and can say without dobt that their security is a damn sight more stringent than ours.

[Soiled Glove]

Personally I think it is a sad state of affairs when the people tasked to provide independent advice on military procurement are in fact a profit making organisation who will shortly be at the mercy of their shareholders. While I agree that there are many commercial aspects to QQ that warrant selling off, the fact remains that A2E2 or AT&E or JTEG or whatever they call themselves these days should remain as an government agency - responsible to the MoD for delivering the necessary clearances and advice, not some organisation who are at the mercy of shareholders.

Surely there is a potential conflict of interests: military capability vs annual profits?

SG

[highveldtdrifter]

I have worked with QQ, in its may forms, over the last 15 yrs. They have many pools of excellence (TPs boffins etc), although the organization as a whole leaves something to be desired. They were only made the 'preferred' independant saftey advisor in order to ensure a steady source of work to make it attractive to investors. I agree about the increasing tendancy to recommend 'future work'. However, one problem is that some risk averse IPTs feel obligated to take them up on it. I think it may be a good thing that the other half is being sold off, because the new owners will asset strip and maybe streamline the organization a bit. The question is, can QQ be considered an independant advisor with so many inside interests?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

More to the point, will being floated increase problems with technology transfer vis a vis the US?

[BossEyed]

It's interesting that you guys refer to "...the increasing tendancy to recommend further work'", as this is a criticism that has been internally addressed directly over the last couple of years (at least). It is not the intention to lead an IPT in a particular direction, really it isn't.

I'm not saying that it can't be done better, or that such recommendations never make it into reports now, but I am saying that it is something the organisation is trying very hard not to do. It is most decidely NOT "policy", tecumseh (Bite).

Reading some of the comments here, one might gain the impression that report writers/reviewers and the military side of the partnership are kept carefully apart. Nothing could be further from the truth; quite apart from anything else, they are often the same people and of course the insights that the military guys bring to what the user actually requires is one of the major reasons why Boscombe can achieve what it does. Long may the partnership remain strong.

Now, at this point you may well be thinking that Mandy Rice-Davies applies, and "he would say that wouldn't he?" It's very easy to bash the place from the outside I know. But come and visit, talk to the coal face. Some, at least, of your prejudices may be modified - hopefully positively!
As for the sell-off... Comments on that are above my pay grade.

[Controversial Tim]

kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft, yet they sell themselves as specialists. They have single-handedly put current mil projects back by more than any foreign power could dream of doing. They are in fact worse than the enemy. Get rid of them. (Especially those with big thumbs and small brains.) Or charge them with treason and shoot the b@st@rds.

[Bob Viking]

Are my eyes deceiving me?
Did you really just admit that your beloved Navy isn't the perfect institution that you would have us all believe?
As far as you had told us, the mighty RN is perfect in every way and beyond reproach. Please don't tell me now that you have mis-educated me. I can feel a tear welling up.
BV:p

[snapper41]

The great QinetiQ (cr@p moniker, I always thought!) sell-off makes Page 12 of the ToryGraph this morning - the sub-headline reads 'Company would be at home in a James Bond movie'...

Except of course all the gadgets in a James Bond movie work, are delivered on time, and presumably on-budget:) :rolleyes:

[tucumseh]

[QUOTE=BossEyed]

It is most decidely NOT "policy", tecumseh (Bite).


I think I'd like you BossEyed. Finger trouble when registering and I am forever stuck with a mis-spelt handle!


Not policy then but common practice I'm afraid. And no matter how many Channel Managers you speak to, a report writer who is under pressure to bring in more work (profit) will always want to demonstrate that he or she knows there is almost always more to be done. QQ don't have to make the decision on when to draw the line on a design, and go for it. That falls to the DPA project manager. It is frustrating for all concerned knowing that what you will deliver is largely obsolescent, but it will always be so - especally in the high tech aircraft world.

I think this sell-off will simply increase the cost of this work, and there is only one source of income - the Defence Budget. As happened when DERA started hard charging (i.e. money changed hands) projects will NOT be given compensatory extra provision, but will have to cut requirements from the project. Same happened with DARA, and all the internal MoD departments and services we now have to pay for. All it does is create jobs for people who have no direct input to the deliverable - military equipment. The Government continue to sell the crown jewels, a chosen few line their pockets, and front line suffers.

[gijoe]

The number of ex-serving people employed by QQ is slowly growing and, hopefully, this will help reduce the amount of 'boffiness' sometimes contained within QQ reports.

The scandalous bit: all of the property assets given to QQ by the Government.

What happens next ? QQ boot the government bits off of the land that the government gave them or screw them for every penny eg Malvern, West Freugh

Just remember that one thing matters to QQ : the bottom line.

[BossEyed]

I think I'd like you BossEyed.

Oh, everybody does. :hmm:

The only influence that an individual report writer has on profit is, in the vast majority of cases, solely to deliver the report on time, on cost, and to an appropriate standard. They, at least, are not under any instructions to bring in further business as part of their report writing or assessment role. Some may not believe me, but that's the way it is!

Recommendations for "Further work" nowadays should always be caveated with information for the IPTL or desk officer on what the risk is of NOT doing that work. "Risk" here includes both safety and capability, and the latter particularly is heavily informed by the expertise of the military assessors and/or reviewers.

Never forget that deliverables from Boscombe are Recommendations. It is a shame that the trend over at least the last decade has been to dilute technical expertise within the IPTs, and no doubt this has led to some of the problems that you have seen, and it may be that BD took some time to recognise this and tailor deliverables accordingly. I repeat, though, we recognise this and are a lot better and continuing with that aim. (NB: I am NOT intending to redirect flak to IPTs here in order to deflect criticism aimed at QQ).

As for Controversial Tim: Thanks for that. A reasoned debate is always a joy. Your handle clearly wasn't a random choice. I doubt that anything I can say here would remove that chip, so I repeat what I said earlier - why not visit, and see the reality in action?

[PTR 175]

There realy should not be too many security concerns. When the Mod split up DERA they split it into two, with QinetiQ being the commercial arm and DSTL being the other. The interesting work is still in the safe hands of DSTL :eek: which is still under the control of the Mod and the civil servants.

[Controversial Tim]

why not visit, and see the reality in action?Because your lot would probably impound my car as it hadn't been cleared to carry a Boscombe Down style car pass, only passes from other stations. Whilst missing that the brakes don't work and the steering wheel is in the wrong place.

[BossEyed]

I see you agree that reasoned debate is one of life's great pleasures. :rolleyes:

[propulike]

Although Controversial bloke is trying to be just that, he does have a point. BD seem to obstruct rather than help, and have aircrew who aren't very good at operating the aircraft!

The 'J' airframe hasn't changed since we bought it but only now are clearances to use it effectively being released. It's now 6 years old - 15% of it's way through an optimistic 40yr service life! It took over 2 years to clear it to carry DAC freight (such as a tin of paint :hmm:) whilst the BD luvvies went after an in-flight refueling clearance that wasn't needed (and spectacularly messed that up with a 'trim runaway' that they then declared needed some kind of warning system).

Bring on the sale. It can't get any worse.

[Safeware]

Boss-Eyed, Cont Tim is a well ballanced chap so be careful. He obviously has a chip on both shoulders :)

As for him getting a car pass, given the state of his car, I don't think he should be allowed out to play with anything more technical / dangerous than Lego.

sw

[SlipperySlappery]

kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft, yet they sell themselves as specialists.

Tim,

So I guess the ETPS door is being knocked off its hinges by J pilots who think they can do a better job? If you think that the system is so broken then why don't you apply yourself?

SS

[5206]

kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft, yet they sell themselves as specialists. They have single-handedly put current mil projects back by more than any foreign power could dream of doing. They are in fact worse than the enemy. Get rid of them. (Especially those with big thumbs and small brains.) Or charge them with treason and shoot the b@st@rds.
So, what specialist aircraft do we have that aren't / haven't been through assessment by QQ/DERA?

What projects have been put back by QQ more than the enemy could do?

Propulike, whose AAR requirement were QQ try to clear? QQ don't have clearance requirements, the customer does.

5206

[propulike]

5206

I don't know. The requirement wasn't from the front line. The mishandling and subsequent nonsense trim warning system that it induced however was the single biggest bit of bo!!ox I have seen in an aircraft. Not what I would have expected from any professional.

[soddim]

No doubt since 1982 there have been many occasions when BD delivered the goods on time and in a hurry but what I will not forget is that, after the Falklands war, they tried to withdraw all the clearances they had given. The excuse was that they had been hastily given and were therefore intrinsically unsafe. Either they can do it properly in a timely way or they should not have the job at all.

One hopes that employment under contract after the sell-off will present them with penalty clauses so that the cost of under-performance is too much to risk.

[Safeware]

No doubt since 1982 there have been many occasions when BD delivered the goods on time and in a hurry but what I will not forget is that, after the Falklands war, they tried to withdraw all the clearances they had given. The excuse was that they had been hastily given and were therefore intrinsically unsafe. Either they can do it properly in a timely way or they should not have the job at all.
One hopes that employment under contract after the sell-off will present them with penalty clauses so that the cost of under-performance is too much to risk.

Those may have been 'the bad old days' when BD was seen as the 'Release Police'. It isn't the environment now - BD can neither 'give' nor 'take away'. What happens is that advice is given against a requirement for the customer (so, if as propulike discussed BD were chasing an unwanted clearance, it was against someone else's requirement) and it is for the customer to make use of that advice, be it for 'normal' RTS or an OEC. Whether that be implement, ignore, extend or limit is down to the customer to base against his capability need and safety management.

As BossEyed says, if you have a perception problem, get down there. I'm sure the tps and engineers on 'your' platform will be glad to chat.

sw

[SlipperySlappery]

Propulike,

The fact that an experienced C130 pilot managed to inadvertently apply so much nose trim in that particular situation suggests that there was a problem of some sort. Better that it happened when it did rather than with an aircraft half-full of troops and at night.

The problem here is not what happened in the air - it happened and not because of any incompetence by the crew. The problem is with the subsequent approach to dealing with a problem which had been identified (and accepted by the IPT) years earlier. That approach was slow, shambolic and unscientific and in this respect, your comments are fully justified. In particular, fitting that trim warning thing was complete buffoonery.

On a slightly different note, why will an RAF of 41 000 still have 2 flight test organisations (OEUs/AWC and ATEC)? Surely a single joined-up organisation would be better.

SS

[Safeware]

On a slightly different note, why will an RAF of 41 000 still have 2 flight test organisations (OEUs/AWC and ATEC)? Surely a single joined-up organisation would be better.
They part of the same organisation, under the same man - ACOS T&E, because they both cover test and evaluation. However, what they cover is different. ATEC are focussed on Development T&E, whereas the AWC and OEU (as the name suggests) are focussed on Operational T&E.

So, what's the difference? I hear you ask. DT&E is about the overall flight characteristics of the aircraft and the effects of the integration of weapons. OT&E, taking those established flight characteristics, is about how you develop the tactics to be used.
sw

[L Peacock]

Bear in mind that the majority of test aircrew at BDN are still RAF.

[propulike]

The fact that an experienced C130 pilot managed to inadvertently apply so much nose trim in that particular situation suggests that there was a problem of some sort. The fact that an experienced and competent pilot managed to induce so much nose up trim does suggest that there was a problem. But not with the aircraft in this instance, more to do with the visitor not knowing basic SOPs for the aircraft being flown. Experience on one type of C-130 doesn't all carry over to another type, as new arrivals on the ‘J’ OCU quickly discover (me included). With 5 buttons, two 3-position switches as well as the elevator trim all under one hand on the control column there's only one thing going to happen if you don't hold it 'properly' - one of controls is going to be pushed when you don't mean to!

The point is that to just turn up and expect to be good is not the professional approach I would have expected from BD. The fallout from it which assumed the regular operators were also going to hold the control column as though it’s on a K was ridiculous! Fortunately there is now a fair amount of experience on the ‘J’. Unfortunately it’s not being ‘tapped’ by visitors or posters - eg the new boss of the ‘J’ OEU is brand new to type!

[SlipperySlappery]

Propulike,

I'm fairly sure that I'm right in saying that the trim incident happened in 2001 and the then boss of the J OEU who had as much C130J experience as anyone in the UK was occupying one of the front 3 seats at the time. I suggest that back in 2001 the RAF (actually all C130J operators) were learning about the aircraft fairly fast and standardisation was not all it could have been. However, I doubt whether 2 Gp would have had much time for a BD suggestion that all C130J test pilots were put through the J OCU in order to ensure standardisation; perhaps this is one of the inherent problems with introducing new aircraft to service.

Which leads me back to my earlier point to Controversial Tim about C130J pilots applying for ETPS. If we (the RAF) can't get some of our experienced C130J pilots through ETPS in the next couple of years, the A400 work will be done principally by C130K pilots. The more immediate point for the C130J force is that they are never going to get the same quality of service when their aircraft is developed by tps with no operational experience on the aircraft - that is life. Think that the boss of the OEU is a slightly different issue - the key people on the test sqns and the OEUs are the flt lt aircrew who have recent operational experience (ie last tour).

Safeware,

If they are from the same organisation, why is there so much friction between them? Surely if there was really a single organisation providing a composite DT&E and OT&E output (rather than a common 1* at High Wycombe) then problems such as those identified with the C130J would be less of an issue.

SS

[Safeware]

S-S,If they are from the same organisation, why is there so much friction between them?
Dunno. The ACOS T&E organisation was set up to address previous 'friction'. As to how things currently sit, I'm not aircrew, so maybe those that are aircrew from either half can discuss (rather than those with a mild perception of the issues).
sw

[propulike]

Not sure who was on the 'trim' flight along with Thumbs B and back then there was very little experience on the type so I'm not sure it would have mattered! It would also be impractical for BD pilots to complete an OCU for every type they may have to fly, in fact doing a full course may remove the 'fresh pair of eyes' aspect. It isn't a good idea though to jump on board an aircraft when you don't know how to handle/operate the controls and a 'Senior Officer' type course would be just the type of thing to give a simple familiarity with the frame.

As for getting guys to try for ETPS, unfortunately the current reputation of BD on the Sqns means very few people are interested in that direction (I think there was 1 app last year?) so starting a predictable cycle. I can't believe the choice of boss for the OEU - poor bu99er, I don't envy his learning curve!

[gijoe]

:eek: There realy should not be too many security concerns. When the Mod split up DERA they split it into two, with QinetiQ being the commercial arm and DSTL being the other. The interesting work is still in the safe hands of DSTL :eek: which is still under the control of the Mod and the civil servants.

Hear, hear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[soddim]

Interesting Telegraph article today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/01/17/cnqin17.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/01/17/ixcitytop.html

It would appear that their lordships are anxious that the present owners of QQ - the residents of UK - should not be allowed to buy shares when their property is sold. Their excuse for this is just not valid.

So this is democracy at work in UK today?

[5206]

So, 5 days ago I asked Cont TimSo, what specialist aircraft do we have that aren't / haven't been through assessment by QQ/DERA?
What projects have been put back by QQ more than the enemy could do? and he hasn't managed to get back with an answer.

So here's my take on it. MOD contracts Supplier X to deliver a capability by a certain date and QinetiQ to carry out an assessment, based on the product and the evidence. This is to produce an RTS by date Y. For reasons various that aren't important right now, Supplier X is late delivering the product and the evidence. However, the MOD still wants an RTS for said capability by date Y. BD, using its expertise still has to try an meet the customers expectation but now with less time and less to work with. Generally this is successful and the capability is duly delivered. It may have some constraints placed on it but these are workable.

So, where in that are QinetiQ holding things up? Getting caught in the crossfire isn't a reason for a public hanging.

If you have a beef, is it really with BD?
5206

[Controversial Tim]

So, where in that are QinetiQ holding things up?Flying an aar sortie that nearly took the tail off a VC10 as the tp was holding the cc incorrectly. Not admitting same and insisting on fitting an absolutley ar$e trim warning system (10 month delay).
Flying MOS onto natural surface and concluding a Sqn pilot would need a strip 5500' long to be able to use it safely. (What the he!! were they DOING on that strip???!!!??? :eek: )
Jumping chox by downshifting all 4 engines at the same time and then claiming there was a problem with the equipment.
Not avoiding all the above and more by familiarising themselves with the SOP or aircraft.
And when have QinetiQ used their 'expertise' to get something out on time and to the users requirements?
That's where I have my beef. Bring on the sale.

[El-Dog]

From his ramblings it appears to me that CT has a problem with a particular personality/project and solely on this he bases his completely over the top carte blanche rants. As 5206 suggests, its usually the constaints of the system that c*cks it up, not the organisation.

[Soiled Glove]

Probably failed the ETPS selection process and now has a grudge to bear.

Perhaps the pilot wasn't familiar with the aircraft because 2 Gp wouldn't release any Sqn flying/aircraft to BD for CT prior to the trial. BD pilots seem to spend most of their time flogging around in Tucanos/Harvards and Alpha Jets these days rather than operational types. Perhaps the money raised from the float will go to acquiring some modern aircraft for QinetiQ or perhaps the float will be the catalyst to bring the testing side under full STC remit.

Also I am lead to believe, the TPs assess the system for the lowest common denominator and if it is there to be f*cked up then it will be by someone - maybe not CT as he is obviously a gifted pilot who has never got anything wrong, but maybe by someone under pressure who reverts to old habits - tanking I am sure we all agree is stressful and there is no more stress than trying to 'get in' crossing the pond prior to an abort point, IMC at night with a 40kt crosswind at Sondestrom - could a pilot not inadvertently revert to old habits that worked on a previous model? ie hold the stick the way it used to be held? Of course no-one has ever got into a hire car and put the wipers on when they actually meant to indicate! Surely it was better that someone did it under a controlled test environment than a Sqn abo pilot.

One worry I have about the float is that QinetiQ will become even more of a 'safety sam' outfit as there advice will be so squeaky clean for fear of liability over the advice they give. It is one thing having MOD liability when you are an agency, but a whole different matter when you are a public company. Shareholders will not want to see the company dragged into litigation because they cleared something that subsequently was proven to be in error. This in turn will put more pressures on IPTs to err on the side of caution on the MA Release and it will soon be forgotten that the role of the military is to actually train for and to fight wars and that has an inherent danger in itself. You can't go to war if you've been flying an Airbus during training!

[Safeware]

CT,And when have QinetiQ used their 'expertise' to get something out on time and to the users requirements?
That's where I have my beef. As has been pointed out already, BD don't have requirements of their own, the aim is to meet the customer's requirements (ie the IPT) with one eye (JTEG personnel and those with relevant service experience) on what the end user would be after. Sometimes the constraints placed by the customer in getting some form of capability into service may make it seem as if BD are holding back, but that isn't the case - the aim is always to exceed expectations. However, if the end user has an issue with what they receive, then that needs to be directed back up the line (eg through RMs).

As for the use of expertise, timing and satisfaction, I only have to think back to GWII and the flurry of UORs across a multitude of platforms that required a significant effort (in all senses) from a lot of people in a short space of time to deliver previously unavailable capability.

As for today, our customer satisfaction is measured and the MOD have appropriate big sticks. Satisfaction levels are above the bar (and it isn't a low one) and the timeliness of milestones, while not perfect across the board (see 5206's last post for some idea of reasons) don't indicate the cr@p organisation you imply. Your bad experience is regrettable, but don't drag the whole place down because of it.

Soiled Glove, One worry I have about the float is that QinetiQ will become even more of a 'safety sam' outfit as there advice will be so squeaky clean for fear of liability over the advice they give. It is one thing having MOD liability when you are an agency, but a whole different matter when you are a public company. Your concern is well understood and, as above, there is one eye on what the advice means at the sharp end. The advice that will be given is always aimed to be best advice given the evidence available and making clear the risks involved. If a customer were to think that this advice was over cautious, they should be well armed in making their own decision as duty holder.

edited to respond to S_G

sw

[BossEyed]

Safeware makes a number of points better than I.

Lest there be any doubt amongst readers, though; when SW refers to "one eye" from the JTEG personnel within ATEC on the needs of the operational user, that is one eye in addition to other eyes representing the user that live within the IPTs at desk officer level and elsewhere, which are focussed on user requirements driving BD tasking requirements.

There are inevitably several layers between the front line and the T&E staff - if the system works correctly (and all have a responsibility to ensure it does, and it is better than some would lead you to believe - albeit always ripe for further improvement) then the user will get what they need with appropriate priority. ("To Time, Quality & Cost", as the mantra has it.)

I say again: come and visit. You probably all have comments and advice we (=IPT & ATEC) can use, when directed constructively.

[BEagle]

"......in the next couple of years, the A400 work will be done principally by C130K pilots"

Oh really? My understanding was that Airbus Military will do all test, development and certification work for the A400M centrally. It's by no means certain that even crew conversion will be done the old-fashioned 'OCU' way, but possibly by an A400M TRTO followed by specific role conversion by the customer nation. A sort of TTTE for truckies? Probably more cost effective to give role conversion to Type Rated pilots than to duplicate effort "Because it's always been done that way".

As for BD doing much in the way of A400M 'work', just how much C-17 work did they do?

[GeeRam]

QinetiQ float made the front page of the freebie 'City A.M' rag this morning, with the headline,
"The National Audit Office is considering an investigation into the IPO that will make a fortune for defence group bosses"......

:hmm:

[Controversial Tim]

Safeware - thank's for your answer. I don't mean to knock the whole place - but it's not all working well.

Soiled Yourself - Failed the ETPS selection?

Blimey, with that speed of uptake, awareness and ability to remember what you've read in a whole 2 previous pages you are ideally suited to the blinkered world of 'aren't I doing well' with your motto of 'I don't like criticism'.

As for the idea that TPs have to plan for crews forgetting which aircraft they're flying - oh for heaven's sake :yuk:

Looking forward to your answers on the C-17 intro to service though :cool:

[Soiled Glove]

kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft
CT - I guess that Herc SF pilots and Tornado/Jag/Harrier QWIs are not experts on specialist aircraft?? FYI I'm not a TP though I do know some of the guys who went there. Feel free to criticise me, but at least I don't come up with b*ll*cks such as
They have single-handedly put current mil projects back by more than any foreign power could dream of doing. They are in fact worse than the enemy. Get rid of them..... Or charge them with treason and shoot the b@st@rds.
Furthering the debate with puerile statements such as that!

[Controversial Tim]

Clearances that take 6 years to go through 'cos we're waiting for [some at] BD to figure out how to use the kit before they can say that a lowly sqn bloke could do it.

An opponents dream.

So what is your position on the C-17 introduction to service? :D

[Soiled Glove]

C-17 - never been near one though did see one at an airshow once, so absolutely no idea about the entry into service. I would imagine that a fully certified aircraft flying passengers and cargo between A and B would be pretty easy to integrate into service flying. And given that they are leased we probably are required to run them along the lessors rules - after all, when you hire a car you have to answer to the rental company's terms and conditions when you give it back!
But not being a blinkered chap I (and all the other readers) am willing to be educated on the C-17 introduction into service and maybe someone reading from BD/IPTS etc will realise that they've been doing it wrong for the last 50 years.
SG

[Controversial Tim]

A simple summary for you then. Introduced into service in weeks rather than years by bypassing the BD setup in total. Even use USAF flying suits as it would take TOO LONG for BD to approve RAF ones as suitable.
maybe someone reading from BD/IPTS etc will realise that they've been doing it wrong for the last 50 years. Nice to see you coming around. I hope so too. That's the only reason I hold out any hope from the sale. That and when it's civvy someone may be allowed to start up in competition.....

[LunchMonitor]

But surely, now we are buying the C17, it will have to have undergo the full QQ clearance process.......

[BossEyed]

...someone may be allowed to start up in competition.....

Competition to QinetiQ Aircraft T&E already exists, and has done robustly for some years. Such competition takes several forms, some of which BEagle alludes to. We are hardly complacent about it, and the IPTs etc are well aware that they have alternatives, notwithstanding the Long Term Partnering Agreement for T&E (http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2003/1st_quarter/qinetiq4.html).

[Trumpet_trousers]

Introduced into service in weeks rather than years by bypassing the BD setup in total.

A simple statement that proves your lack of knowledge on the subject:
From 'flash to bang' (as an ex-boss would say,) the process from being given the go-ahead to first ac delivery was one year and one week, IIRC. (That's 53 weeks to you, if you wish to be pedantic.)
Bypassing the whole BD setup in total? No.
A document audit/trail was done well before the first ac arrived in UK, (to forewarn/foresee of any potential showstoppers,) and at least one frame visited BD for a short period of time for RF compatability testing IIRC.
Btw, it's "tp" and not "TP".....

[GeeRam]

In amongst the interesting operational discussions...:D
Just had a chance to read the City A.M. article and this bit will make you weep as a tax payer to HMG...:{
‘A senior NAO insider said: “Any enquiry will focus on what QinetiQ’s head Sir John Chisholm and his team will get. They are set to make themselves very rich during this process.” He added: “the NAO will want to look at whether the public purse was protected when it came to the pricing of the company and the allotment of the shares to its employees.” Chisholm’s shares are expected to net him over £20m on his £129,000 investment.:eek:

[Controversial Tim]

weeks rather than years. :hmm:

Did it take a plural number of years? No. Did it take 53 weeks instead of 15? Yes. Why? TPs had to be included. 53 weeks! The thing had had an RAF exchange officer on it since the early feckin 90s!!!!

I suppose you're one of the ones that call the introduction of C17 a success for BD rather than a success for missing them out?

[Trumpet_trousers]

Controversial (United Nations) Tim wrote:

"Why? TPs had to be included. 53 weeks! The thing had had an RAF exchange officer on it since the early feckin 90s!!!! I suppose you're one of the ones that call the introduction of C17 a success for BD rather than a success for missing them out?"

Yet again you display a breathtaking lack of knowledge of the case. Try ringing Boeing up and ask if they can give you 4 aircraft at 15 weeks notice - I think you will be surprised by the answer. So, an exchange officer to 'give it the nod' is all that's needed then - glad we've got that established :mad:

[BEagle]

Well, at least we're getting good input to the A400M programme from the outset, eh TT?

PS - The Glen Grant was excellent! Many thanks.

[Controversial Tim]

an exchange officer to 'give it the nod' is all that's needed thenStop being a c0ck.

You reckon you can "'phone Boeing" and get 4 C-17s at 53 weeks notice? Do you think perhaps some trials may already have been completed with the aircraft? Do you think there may have been someone with RAF invovment who could give an insight into whether the aircraft had major problems or is being on their STANEVAL not a good enough standard for you to recognise?

From when delivery was agreed the aircraft was completing ops v quickly as the inefficient intro to service by guys who don't understand the frame was bypassed. (Kept the movers off it as well for a while :E ). Or perhaps you know a different reason why it was so quick?

When you can catch your breath again perhaps you could compose an informative answer like bosseyed and safeware have taken the time to do.

[SlipperySlappery]

Tim,

You obviously have some fairly strong views on this subject. I am interested in how you think this could be done better - and I am actually interested in what you think rather than just wanting to bitch about what you write - so please check that 'rant mode' is deselected before replying.

As a starting point, I think that it is reasonable for you to assume that

a. Test pilots are not going to disappear.
b. Qinetiq is not going to be re-nationalised.
c. The aeroplanes we buy or the upgrades we commission for them are unlikely to be perfect first time round in future meaning that we still have to do some sort of aircraft test and evaluation before they reach the front line to make sure the kit does what we want - for example, the Block 4 software on the C130J didn't work and did get fixed because of the T&E process (but lets not get into another massive debate over the J)
d. Tony is unlikely to persuade Gordon to give us a stack of extra cash to implement your idea.

S-S

[Trumpet_trousers]

S-S, well said.
I too would be interested to know how CT would do things differently, given that the T&E world does its work in response to customers requests - no request, no work, its that simple. Clearly it was recognised that as the C17 had been in service for several years then a lot of repetitive work did not need to be done, but his assertion that BD was bypassed in total is simply wrong - they did some work, actually quite a bit, (albeit none of it flying) in response to the customers requests.
As to the exchange officer thing - despite being a good egg - it doesn't matter what lofty position he may have held with the USAF, he almost certainly would have been asked for his opinion but in the overall scheme of things it would not have held that much sway.
How would you have introduced the J (for example) into service any differently CT? Are you asserting that you would rather give it straight to the frontline and let them learn as they go along, with no formal training on testing procedures?

[Controversial Tim]

How to do it? I don’t believe it! I was convinced at least one of you was from BD, but if you’re asking for someone else’s opinion……. (oops, must try harder ss :E ) Are you asserting that you would rather give it straight to the frontline and let them learn as they go along, with no formal training on testing procedures?With a new aircraft I don’t think we should introduce it trusting blindly the manufacturers claims. However the Italians did just that with the J, and after taking delivery on Friday of their first aircraft launched it on Sunday full of relatives on their families day. It also came with factory clearance for freight and all fitted systems including DAS. Seeing as they haven’t been throwing aircraft away and were doing the job immediately which intro was better – that or the protracted intro to service bo!!ox we got lumbered with?

What would I do different?
How about not repeating full trials that have already been done – but haven’t been charged for by QinetiQ? eg CDS. Like it’s a new delivery system .………....

How about listening to experience when it’s available instead of thinking you’re a skygod? Eg initial MOS strip length required

How about chasing the important stuff instead of the niff naff – eg control column position vs trim warning system

How about coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t – eg carrying low grade DAC in a vibration zone

In other words, how about saying yes to something other guys are already doing instead of demanding ANOTHER trial - or having a gross error check of your ‘discoveries’ with experienced operators?

Was the C-17 a success for the BD way? Don't think so.

[Safeware]

CT,
Earlier I thought I had you back on track. However, I'm not sure now. What I think T-T was effectively saying is that it isn't as easy as you may think, and not because of any 'rules' that you think BD set. We don't set the rules, we assess against a set of criteria (JSP 553 etc) given to us by the customer.
The test sqns fly against established methods in achieving this, everyone else has their part to play. One of the 'rules' imposed on us is about having an audit trail to show where every piece of advice we give comes from, ie going back to the evidence (flt test, modelling, assessment, manufacturers documentation etc etc). While this may seem tedious to you, your view of 'How about coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t' doesn't work in this model of our world. Hindsight is a wonderful think, but you don't want the 'ah, you can't do that then' to be sparked by the loss of an aircraft, crew, passengers, civvies on the ground.

Some questions that I think (hope for the last one) the answer from you should be 'Yes':
1) You're a J bloke?
2) You're unhappy about how you feel BD fits in to your perspective of the real world?
3) You don't fully understand what goes on at BD?
4) You'll come down and visit, with some of your equally sceptical mates, to learn a bit about what goes on?

It's not that far and phoning BD to arrange this is a breeze - it still has its own operator, so when you phone up and ask for HATS, they'll know who you mean.

sw

[BEagle]

When the FJ proximity trials with the Boeing 767 were conducted for the FSTA programme, Queera's estimate for the work was so expensive that it was cheaper for a BA 767-300 to fly across to Pax river and do the trials with the USN instead.

Another BD triumph!

[Controversial Tim]

I am interested in how you think this could be done betterThat was why I posted again - how COULD it be done better. I'm all for keeping aircraft safe. I am not for using that as an excuse to repeat trials already completed by other countries, especially when those 'new' trials are flown by guys who don't know the aircraft. That repetition is slow, expensive, unnecessary (unless you're a QinetiQ accountant) and worst of all it's hurting our effectiveness on ops.

The service is dire, antiquated and SLOW. I'm sure it's expensive as well but I don't pay the bill from my budget.

I feel we're going in circles now. Time to quit. If I do try and visit I'll let you know who's asking. And I won't bring my own car :cool:

[tucumseh]

CT

“I'm all for keeping aircraft safe. I am not for using that as an excuse to repeat trials already completed by other countries, especially when those 'new' trials are flown by guys who don't know the aircraft. That repetition is slow, expensive, unnecessary (unless you're a QinetiQ accountant) and worst of all it's hurting our effectiveness on ops”.


I couldn’t agree with you more. There are many methods of verification, among them Read Across, Technical Assessment, Subjective Assessment, Rig Test, Flight Trials. (The cost of these ranges from zero to £25,000 plus per hour). The evidence is recorded in the Verification Cross Reference Index, or similar. A purpose of this process is to avoid the repetition you mention. However, when inviting proposals from industry and QQ, both will inevitably recommend their own trials. It has long been recognised that this is a complete waste of money and, if the DPA/DLO project manager is on the ball, he will simply direct that Joint Trials take place. This can save many millions and it is a simple job to establish boundaries of responsibility to determine liability. The trouble is that the personnel I refer to seldom have the necessary experience and just go along with the company/QQ recommendations. I find that if you demand joint trials, they both give a wry smile and get on with it. Clearly, the answer is that joint should be the MoD default position. But that would require common sense. And you don’t get promoted in DPA by applying common sense or saving money! (Or “keeping aircraft safe” for that matter).

[SlipperySlappery]

CT - if you're still there.

Hmmm, not sure that the Italian example is great - they did insist on flying 25 hours per airframe with Lockheed in the US before flying them back to Italy and they did benefit from the changes that Lockheed were forced to make by UK/US and Australia. They also paid top $ against our 'pin Lockheed up against the wall until they give us what we want' attitude (which is good for the taxpayer but bad for on-time introduction to service).

Fair point on not repeating trials unnecessarily, but lets be clear that the data has to be available and one of the great things about selling off your military T&E outfit is that not everyone wants to hand over their proprietary or nationally-sensitive information to QinetiQ. I recall that this was an initiative that the IPT were going to persue with the other customers a while back - wonder if it got anywhere.

On the subject of 'coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t', I doubt whether the people in high places (like at DPA and AOC 2 Gp) are prepared to sign off the risk themselves without QinetiQ advice. I can think of at least 2 instances on the J where QinetiQ advised the IPT against doing a trial on the grounds that there was no point, but the IPT insisted on having the recommendation backed by data that was very difficult to obtain and delayed the clearances significantly. Back to the point that has been repeated several times on this thread - QinetiQ do the work required by their customer - the IPT. Agree that the low-grade DAC business was a nonsense but if the requirement was missed by the IPT - it's hardly QinetiQ's fault.

Still waiting for some J pilots to apply for ETPS - that's the most effective way of improving the J knowledge at BD.

SS

[Re-Heat]

Personally I think it is a sad state of affairs when the people tasked to provide independent advice on military procurement are in fact a profit making organisation who will shortly be at the mercy of their shareholders.
Competition between profit-making organsations will however increase the quality of servie provided and ultimately lower the price.

Sad? - depends upon your view of socialism and holding state-owned enterprises - but judging by the complete lack of drive within many organisations owned by ours and other governments, it can only be a good thing.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

A Cold War legacy was that the Govt found itself with an R&D capability that was no longer required in the form of defence research establishments (RAE, RSRE, A&AEE et al) scattered all over the country, manned by ~12,000 civil servants.
What it did was to give it agency status (DRA=>DERA) prior to splitting it off into DSTL (for the nationally sensitive stuff with ~3,000 civil servants) and QinetiQ with ~9,000 employees (no longer civil servants). The challenge for Qinetiq was to become commercially viable in short order prior to sell off.
As far as the Govt is concerned, they are winning all round, having turned a drain into a potential income stream as:
1. The Treasury has reduced its salary and pension liability significantly.
2. The Treasury will be a major benefactor when QinetiQ is floated on the stock market. It could be argued that the Govt could have handled the flotation rather better but that's another story.
As a tax payer, this sounds like a good deal.
It seems though that it's become fashionable for some crew room cognescenti to denigrate QinetiQ, chiefly it seems for wanting to make - cover your ears - a profit. Companies that don't make a profit aren't companies for too long. And, as has been said in previous posts, the customer sets the task.
By the nature of some of the work it's involved in, QinetiQ can't advertise all its capabilities in open forum but there is far more to QinetiQ than Boscombe Down.
Find out which QinetiQ site is supporting your platform and/or sensor and take up the repeated offers to fix up a visit.

[tucumseh]

sidevalve

“It seems though that it's become fashionable for some crew room cognescenti to denigrate QinetiQ, chiefly it seems for wanting to make - cover your ears - a profit”.


What you say is basically correct, but remember that this profit, and all other QQ costs, only comes from one place – the Defence Budget. I say this without wishing to denigrate QQ or Dstl or PFG or DARA or any of the other services that DEC and DPA did not have to budget for in the past.

A simple example. A project is costed at £20M pre-QQ/Dstl etc. During the project life the PM is suddenly told, “You’ve got to pay for all these services - £4M please. And we‘re not giving you extra money, you must cut something” (thereby failing to meet the endorsed requirement). Letter to DEC, “What do you want to cut”. He reluctantly chooses one of the sensors you speak of. User complains of a capability gap the project was designed to bridge. And so on.

This is nothing more than a political device to chop the Defence Budget by stealth. This is not hypothetical – I can quote numerous examples involving much larger sums than this, and greater losses to capability. The politicos rely on this knowledge fading with the passage of time, and the influx of new staff who don’t know the history. Just so you know.

[Re-Heat]

What you say is basically correct, but remember that this profit, and all other QQ costs, only comes from one place – the Defence Budget.
But that is completely misguided, as without the profit incentive, it is not only a proven fact that organisations will waste money, but one that has been proven time and again with formerly state-owned enterprises shedding fat and providing better services once they are subject to competition (except the trains).

Essentially prices charged to the defence budget will be lower even with the profit incentive, as formally bloated areas that have no commencial justification are wiped out - for example swathes of management eliminated from BA since privatisation for example.

[500days2do]

Fortunately ive only 'worked' alongside BD and its merry bunch for a few hours as a fill in 'eng' . My abiding memory was of the crew discussion into the next flight trial date...the nav was unavailable to fly the next day due to prior arrangements. Medical..? No. Leave..? No. Golf day would you believe..!! I drove back to rompers green with my decision to leave more firmly cemented in my mind.

Vote with your feet..

5d2d

[tucumseh]

But that is completely misguided, as without the profit incentive, it is not only a proven fact that organisations will waste money, but one that has been proven time and again with formerly state-owned enterprises shedding fat and providing better services once they are subject to competition (except the trains).
Essentially prices charged to the defence budget will be lower even with the profit incentive, as formally bloated areas that have no commencial justification are wiped out - for example swathes of management eliminated from BA since privatisation for example.


Reheat

You're missing my point. I don't dispute much of what you say but the way in which the transition to QQ/Dstl was implemented meant that the budget that previously funded them was NOT shared among the projects that used them. My example is typical. A huge % increase in project cost, with no extra provision. I got the same excellent service as I always did from BD, at greater cost (as they added profit), but my Customer had to ditch much needed capability. This was repeated on all my projects at the time, and it will happen again. What I describe is a de facto cut in the Defence Budget.

Privitisation has created swathes of management in QQ and Dstl, mainly non productive commercial and finance staff. And an equal number in DPA and DLO to deal with them. Given a policy of "staff neutral" changes, all this means is that all organisations have lost the people who directly carry out the respective primary roles. This is a greater waste and the more difficult to correct. If you want to conduct MoD business like BA, then show us the timetable for future conflicts and we'll make ready. I suggest we need to retain flexibility.

[5206]

tuc,I got the same excellent service as I always did from BD, at greater cost (as they added profit), but my Customer had to ditch much needed capability.Thanks.
What we also have to watch for though is a need to cut back on capability in order to meet the political ends driving the customer delivery date. All that I can see happening then is the real customer (the one sitting in the cockpit) being frustrated by what he sees as a poor service from BD - kinda like some of the previous comments on this tread.
I always thought it would be better to have the OEUs at BD, rather than move SAOEU up to the flatlands. That way the 2 aspects of T&E could have worked together within the one environment.
5206

[tucumseh]

"I always thought it would be better to have the OEUs at BD"


Couldn't agree more. When mine moved (scrapped actually) BD lost a lot of expertise. I always thought there was even more added value as current front line aircrew found themselves very close to the procurement decisons and often influenced them for the better. When they are at air stations Customer 2 sits between them and they get a say once a year at the CAG (if indeed they are still held, which I sometimes doubt).