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?

Probably where it is at the moment.
Military staff at Boscombe are involved in airworthiness assessment - it isn't just about tps.

sw

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.

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 :ok:

i'm just thinking about those arguments. 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. The C-17s that the RAF use - i think they were bought off the shelf and not tested in the uk - is that right? it almost makes you wonder whether the suppliers of military planes, eg Boeing and EADS, could just supply a tested piece of kit thats ready for the military to decide how to use - like they do with their civilian planes.

The folks at JATEU will love that, barely 3 years since Airborne Trials Squadron moved from Boscombe to Brize Norton to amalgamate with JATEU.

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 :ok:

No. The manufacturers do their own testing, but then the relevant national Authority (FAA in the US, JAA/EASA in Europe, etc) does its own independent Certification testing before paying passengers get a look in.

Slightly off thread, but just putting things straight.

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:
???

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rawdata

Check your PMs

JF

So JSF, A400M don't have new and untried technology in them?:O

well i think that goes without saying! the previous post implied that civil planes were a one way bet compared to testing military ones. i was just highlighting that they very often have novel and complex features too, although i believe the civil flight testing regime to be organised significantly differently to the military one.

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.

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

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

same paradigm
 

The role of QinetiQ at BD is the same as the CAA, AIRWORTHINESS issues only (ie does it meet the requirements of DEF STAN etc)

But the big difference is that QinetiQ do not certify the airworthiness of the aircraft, they provide recommendations to the relevant IPTs who are the authors of the RTS (and are free to ignore it as they see fit)

The specialists at QQ do not have the operational experience necessary to evaluate operational worth (and neither do the contractors), that's the OETUs job

The most efficient way forward is to have truly integrated test teams (like the USA) based at initially at the contracors base then at the OETUs with a joint team of Contractors, MoD staff and OETU staff carrying out the testing ONCE (not 3 times), each getting the data they need from the one set of flying.

The Mod can then base the specialists at Abbey Wood, move the test facilities (REG, NVSTH etc) to say Warton and sell BD as South West International

seemples !!! (?):ok:

DM

So dig up the reg and move the NVGTH has to warton and give it to BAE ? Relocate all the test teams and trials support and give up one of the last MOD runways in the area not to mention the south QRA which has moved there from St Mawgan ? As for like the yanks how about Edwards or Pax river or any of their other flight test centres ? :ugh:

dangermouse, there's a lot of sense in what you say, but there're many key misunderstandings as well. (Obviously, I'm ignoring your mischevious stuff! :=)

"Test once, use many times" - too right! Truly Combined Test Teams (CTTs - which is the wrong name, because you need a proper evaluation element too, which will probably include lots of non-test work) are very much the way to go, but unfortunately for whatever reasons attempts over the last several years have only made limited progress until fairly recently.

Some of those reasons have been very parochial, others more understandable. The incorporation of HATS into 206(R), and FJTS into 17(R) & 41(R) should be a good start - so long as all concerned do not forget that the tps are only part - albeit one of a few essential parts -of the Aircraft Test & Evaluation Collaboration. (ATEC).

Speaking of ATEC, you say:

As written, that's true. However, it doesn't recognise at all that the QQ specialists do not work in isolation at any level - they have the ability to draw on/be guided by the tps (of course), but also the substantial number of AWC military personnel who also function as embedded SMEs throughout the T&E work done at Boscombe.

Now, of course, the Test & Evaluation Squadrons (wot's an OETU? :}) can call on that expertise, and the ATEC can call on the TES' - see what I mean about a good start? Closer working with the manufacturers is also making headway from all "sides", which is nice. :ok:

Other comments:

Yes.

No.

They are required to justify their reasoning, it's far from "freedom". Tucumseh and others have explained what they should be doing in some detail in other threads on the Mil Aviation forum, of course.

It's not quite the same as the CAA; come for a visit and see. More importantly, though, Airwortiness most assuredly doesn't mean simply checking that the requirements of "DEF STAN etc" are met; there's rather more to it than that, as contemplating the implications of the JSP definition of "airworthiness" will reveal.

DM

Things have moved on a bit, with the OEUs combining with the Test Sqns all under the command of the AWC CTP. 206(R) now has elements at Boscombe and Lyneham with further permanently deployed flights envisaged.

Regards

thanks for the clarifications
 

and my earlier message was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek

DM