Future of QinetiQ flight test at Boscombe Down
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future of QinetiQ flight test at Boscombe Down
I saw the post about the test squadron moving away, to combine with the operational test squadron. Also heard something recently about the military taking more of a role in airworthiness assessment of their aircraft in the future - is that correct?
So where does that leave QinetiQ / Boscombe Down?
So where does that leave QinetiQ / Boscombe Down?
The debate about the best location for UK T&E has been long with many possible solutions. As the military side of T&E has now become an arm of the AWC organisational change is enevitable and the move of FJTS to a FJ MOB is just the start. What options are being currently being considered for 206(R) and RWTS, I don't know?
IMO it would be sad to see an end to Boscombe Down as the UK T&E centre as the arguments for it's existance are compelling.
IMO it would be sad to see an end to Boscombe Down as the UK T&E centre as the arguments for it's existance are compelling.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N51 09".94 W001 45".51
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qinetiq at Boscombe down is now a partner with AWC. 206(R) is happily based there, crash and smash will be there soon and there is also talk of JATEU possibly coming too. There is plenty of the life there yet. The FJTS move has been on the cards for a long time 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the arguments for it's existance are compelling
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N51 09".94 W001 45".51
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently no room for JATEU at Brize once everything moved there. As for the c17 if any airdrop or para work ever going to be done from them then trials will have to be done same with A400m also FSTA need AAR t&e with all recievers so like i said plenty of life left in Boscombe yet
When BA or Virgin or Easyjet buy a new type of plane, it isnt sent to QinetiQ at Boscombe Down for testing. Boeing or EADS do all that.
Slightly off thread, but just putting things straight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
new airliners arent flown through a comprehensive test program by EASA/FAA pilots though?? i thought that was a military thing and in the civil world the testing was all done by the manufacturers. (obviously the aurthorities set the standards and verify that the manufacturer did actually do the test).
Consider:
Airliner:
Take off in all weathers using all aids available. Climb to altitude, navigate to destination using all aids available. Land in all weathers using all aids available. Operate throughout with maximum conspicuity and within a relatively limited set of procedures.
Military aircraft:
???
Airliner:
Take off in all weathers using all aids available. Climb to altitude, navigate to destination using all aids available. Land in all weathers using all aids available. Operate throughout with maximum conspicuity and within a relatively limited set of procedures.
Military aircraft:
???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm not sure what your point is. different machines do different jobs. civil jets often have new untried technology in them, consider the a320 or certainly the 787 - as an extreme example. but that doesnt mean that the manufacturer cant test it and then supply a product which is ready to use.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rawdataILS
I suspect there are a lot of EASA/FAA pilots out there who would give you an arguement over that statement.
You might like to get 'Handling the big jets' from the library or do a search on the major - and I do mean major - mods that the civil cert pilots have demanded before granting certification of a particular type.
Directional control with asymmetric thrust and stalling symptoms (or insistence on shakers and pushers being added) are two particular areas about which there is a lot of history.
new airliners arent flown through a comprehensive test program by EASA/FAA pilots though??
You might like to get 'Handling the big jets' from the library or do a search on the major - and I do mean major - mods that the civil cert pilots have demanded before granting certification of a particular type.
Directional control with asymmetric thrust and stalling symptoms (or insistence on shakers and pushers being added) are two particular areas about which there is a lot of history.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, i will have a look at handling the big jets, i should have read it by now really..
my statement about new airliners not being flown by easa/faa test pilots was more of a question, i dont know that much about certification. but i had a feeling that the way civil planes were qualified was very different to the military process, with the regulator providing oversight, rather than actual man power and facilities to conduct its own testing.
the reason i brought it up was because with the fast jet squadron leaving boscombe down and the general decrease in military aircraft numbers and programs (and in the context of the report into the nimrod accident, which i'm told didnt paint a great pricture of the status quo for the MOD/QinetiQ airworthiness process), i wondered whether the powers that be were thinking in terms of systemic change.
my statement about new airliners not being flown by easa/faa test pilots was more of a question, i dont know that much about certification. but i had a feeling that the way civil planes were qualified was very different to the military process, with the regulator providing oversight, rather than actual man power and facilities to conduct its own testing.
the reason i brought it up was because with the fast jet squadron leaving boscombe down and the general decrease in military aircraft numbers and programs (and in the context of the report into the nimrod accident, which i'm told didnt paint a great pricture of the status quo for the MOD/QinetiQ airworthiness process), i wondered whether the powers that be were thinking in terms of systemic change.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rawdata,
EASA/FAA (or Transport Canada) TPs do also test fly any new aircraft type prior to certification but usually the company TPs have already carried out the particular test point (designated as a "C" or Certification point and an "A" or Agency point in our company test schedules at least). FAA will also put a pilot through the proposed type rating training & verify, say, that a common rating with a previous version is possible. Rarely a pilot from a customer airline will also be invited into the evaluation pool but this is more likely to be during the operational test phase rather than the certification phase.
The Canadian DND, for one, will also test a civilian aircraft & do its own certification - for example the Canadair Challenger was test flown by a pilot from Cold Lake before it was given the CC-144 (CL600) and CC-144A (CL601A) codes.
EASA/FAA (or Transport Canada) TPs do also test fly any new aircraft type prior to certification but usually the company TPs have already carried out the particular test point (designated as a "C" or Certification point and an "A" or Agency point in our company test schedules at least). FAA will also put a pilot through the proposed type rating training & verify, say, that a common rating with a previous version is possible. Rarely a pilot from a customer airline will also be invited into the evaluation pool but this is more likely to be during the operational test phase rather than the certification phase.
The Canadian DND, for one, will also test a civilian aircraft & do its own certification - for example the Canadair Challenger was test flown by a pilot from Cold Lake before it was given the CC-144 (CL600) and CC-144A (CL601A) codes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So JSF, A400M don't have new and untried technology in them?
perhaps i could have said 'civil jets often have untried technology in them TOO' to make it crystal.. anyway, now we're reading from the same hymn sheet
I don't think there's any doubt that Civil aircraft are tested, prior to initial certification, about as much as Military aircraft prior to RTS - but the tests aren't the same and the civil ones normally get done much faster - and with less fuss.
I believe this is because there may be less parameters to test, but I stand to be corrected. I also believe that, if given the job, Qinetiq would not have completed as many hours as Boeing have on the 787 to date.
UK civil aircraft used to routinely get "handling checks" for C of A renewals and handovers to new owners too, during which there could be some quite upsetting manoeuvers (Thats bound to be spelled wrong).
Does anyone here remember doing C of A Flight Tests and slow speed stalls over the North Sea? All disappeared with the onset of EASA.
I believe this is because there may be less parameters to test, but I stand to be corrected. I also believe that, if given the job, Qinetiq would not have completed as many hours as Boeing have on the 787 to date.
UK civil aircraft used to routinely get "handling checks" for C of A renewals and handovers to new owners too, during which there could be some quite upsetting manoeuvers (Thats bound to be spelled wrong).
Does anyone here remember doing C of A Flight Tests and slow speed stalls over the North Sea? All disappeared with the onset of EASA.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first difference between civil and military testing is that the military service is both the customer and the approval authority. In the civil arena, the operator is the customer and the FAA/EASA/??? are the approving authority.
However, the major difference is that with the military service as the approving authority, they have to pay for any changes. I once worked on the FAA certification of a military transport. This "off-the-shelf" approach was intended to reduce the cost of flight test. However, there were some relatively minor changes (mostly dealing the NVG compatible cockpit lighting) mandated by the FAA which had to then be changed when the airplane went into service.
By the way, most FAA flight tests are flown by company or consulting designated engineering representative pilots, not by FAA employees.
Goldfish85
However, the major difference is that with the military service as the approving authority, they have to pay for any changes. I once worked on the FAA certification of a military transport. This "off-the-shelf" approach was intended to reduce the cost of flight test. However, there were some relatively minor changes (mostly dealing the NVG compatible cockpit lighting) mandated by the FAA which had to then be changed when the airplane went into service.
By the way, most FAA flight tests are flown by company or consulting designated engineering representative pilots, not by FAA employees.
Goldfish85
Firstly, it's worth remembering that flight testing (or I'd prefer the term T&E) is not just about having the Test Pilots fly it. It is about an enormous team of specialists - with TPs clearly at the core - assess the aircraft.
Presumably most of that team remains at BDN for FJ flight testing - which shows a major potential absurdity of this decision. To take the TPs, who are so fundamental to much of the T&E process, and move them away from the other specialists who rely on daily contact with them to properly assess the airborne system, does not strike me personally as very sensible.
However, also on the subject of military versus civil "certification".
The civil authority (CAA/FAA/EASA/etc.) does not care at-all whether an aircraft is useful to the customer, fit for purpose, sufficiently stealthy, able to maintain secure communications with the ground, or 10001 other things. It is interested in one thing only - which is the basic safety of the system, as demonstrated by compliance with the design code. This can be done by the manufacturer conducting their own programme, providing reports to the authority, and then the authority T&E team cherry picking some key conditions and re-testing. The authority can use their combined information to make decisions about accepability, or about required changes.
The military authority however does care deeply about fitness for purpose, and 10001 other related topics. It also is certifying something about which purchasing decisions are already probably made by the nation's taxpayers, and has a huge responsibility to both them and to the front line operators. This means that simple compliance with a design code is totally inadequate to approve a military aircraft - of just about any flavour, and the relatively simple process used for an A380 would be unsuitable for a Typhoon.
There's much more to it than this, but I believe that this is enough to clearly demonstrate why the UK government needs to maintain a substantial T&E capability.
Whether it's based at BDN of-course is much less important; but, since it's there at the moment and the facilities are excellent for most purposes, the arguments for not keeping it there are unlikely to be seriously considered by anybody.
So what we have here is that a core part of the T&E team for fast jets has been moved offsite. The result will be reduced effectiveness of the whole team, increased T&S costs, and much annoyance amongst people who really should be worrying about "higher things". It seems unlikely to degrade BDN's real role as the centre of UK government aircraft T&E.
G
Presumably most of that team remains at BDN for FJ flight testing - which shows a major potential absurdity of this decision. To take the TPs, who are so fundamental to much of the T&E process, and move them away from the other specialists who rely on daily contact with them to properly assess the airborne system, does not strike me personally as very sensible.
However, also on the subject of military versus civil "certification".
The civil authority (CAA/FAA/EASA/etc.) does not care at-all whether an aircraft is useful to the customer, fit for purpose, sufficiently stealthy, able to maintain secure communications with the ground, or 10001 other things. It is interested in one thing only - which is the basic safety of the system, as demonstrated by compliance with the design code. This can be done by the manufacturer conducting their own programme, providing reports to the authority, and then the authority T&E team cherry picking some key conditions and re-testing. The authority can use their combined information to make decisions about accepability, or about required changes.
The military authority however does care deeply about fitness for purpose, and 10001 other related topics. It also is certifying something about which purchasing decisions are already probably made by the nation's taxpayers, and has a huge responsibility to both them and to the front line operators. This means that simple compliance with a design code is totally inadequate to approve a military aircraft - of just about any flavour, and the relatively simple process used for an A380 would be unsuitable for a Typhoon.
There's much more to it than this, but I believe that this is enough to clearly demonstrate why the UK government needs to maintain a substantial T&E capability.
Whether it's based at BDN of-course is much less important; but, since it's there at the moment and the facilities are excellent for most purposes, the arguments for not keeping it there are unlikely to be seriously considered by anybody.
So what we have here is that a core part of the T&E team for fast jets has been moved offsite. The result will be reduced effectiveness of the whole team, increased T&S costs, and much annoyance amongst people who really should be worrying about "higher things". It seems unlikely to degrade BDN's real role as the centre of UK government aircraft T&E.
G