DERA AT &E PPP effects and ramifications
 

It seems as if the government have ignored the advice of many and gone for the PPP option for AT & E.

Questions:

1. Can it really now be independent test and evaluation.
2. How will the military element be paid for, will they be government furnished equipment (GFE).
3. How can they possibly revamp the air fleet without massive private investment?
4. Will the MOD be so willing to lend aircraft for free to conduct trials?
5. Why not get a bunch of ex-military and ex-DERA together and for a competitor?

Comments?

1. I don't think DERA has offered genuinely independent T&E for several years. Consider the Jaguar GR1b where kit was developed by Farnborough, tested by Boscombe, but the initial development and final acceptance testing was done by the same squadron? However, whilst the aircrew are serving RAF/RN/Army that is where their loyalty will rightly lie, and they will certainly do their best to get the best kit for their mates on the front line.

2. Since DERA was formed the military element has been charged at commercial rates, a proportion of which I believe has been paid back to MoD for their use - that's unlikely to change.

3. BDN / Farnborough has never ever had a modern fleet - it has almost always existed on surplus aircraft and ex-prototypes. (Most) CT or research flying doesn't require current types, only development or certification testing for specific types absolutely requires that.

4. If a company need approval from CAA for an aircraft, it provides an aircraft for CAA flight department to test, who give it back afterwards - it's a condition of the certification system. Presumably the same will apply to MoD (or more accurately DPA) and DERA?

5. I'm an ex-DERA FTE, I know several ex military test pilots, flight testing is an enjoyable occupation. Why not?.

G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 15 August 2000).]

I take all of those points, but how happy will devoted military personnel of all three services feel when the profits and share price of an essentially private company (DREA-P) will, to a greater or lesser degree, depend upon the output of military staff?

Most of us volunteered for tp duties to put something back into the system and help the chaps at the frontline by evaluating aircraft and equipment from the users point of view. I think there is a very distinct danger of MOD independant T&E being singnificantly diluted by the present proposals for DERA P.

Crack on!

Hi Twister

I used to work as an RAF Flt Lt tp for the RAE boffins on Aero Flight in the 60’s before joining
HSA as a civvy tp. My motivation on Aero Flight was just to enjoy the opportunity (even privilege) of being in a position to assist in improving the stock of knowledge of how to make better aeroplanes. The taxpayer paid the bills and the UK (and sometimes France – but that’s another story) got whatever benefit accrued from our work.

Now just suppose that the output of the Aero Flight team of pilots and boffins had been sold on to the benefit of shareholders who “owned Aero Flight” (and by the way would have had to pick up our costs) would I have felt upset? Thinking about it now I don’t think I would have minded that at all.

Perhaps it’s a generation thing. Many of my generation would be considered naive today, but providing we had enough to live on we were more driven by doing and achieving what we wanted than by what went into our pay-packets. Job satisfaction was very important I guess.

But then did you not say the same at the start of your second para?

Having said that, I can visualise a whole lot of problems with the new DERA set-up regarding independence of thought, professional integrity and security, but I don’t really know enough about how the set up will work to be more specific than that.

JF

John - you say "I don’t really know enough about how the set up will work to be more specific than that". An excellent point, and unfortunately nobody in DERA AT&E (at least at working level) knows either - that seems to be one of the "minor" details to be worked out later http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Even those still in the system have been starved of hard information as to how the change will occur, and how the business will operate. This has naturally had the expected effect on morale. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

My personal opinion is that privatisation (that's what it is, not a "partnership") will probably be positive for (most of) DERA when considered parochially, but I cannot see how it can be more efficient for the taxpayer. We'll never know in detail, I suspect, since there won't be sufficient hard data available to make a comparison. Heaven knows DERA needed to change from the old RAE/A&AEE culture in terms of milestones and cost efficiency, but some might think that many of the technical efficiency savings have been lost in additional beaurocracy... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif Will this improve after Privatisation? It'll have to, but is the management culture there?

You say that most of your generation were driven more by job satisafaction than what went into your pay packets - I think that the same was true for my generation of (civilian) Boscombe entrants, since the civil service salary was never the greatest! It will be interesting to see what happens in the future if and when NewDERA staff decide that one commercial organisation is as good as another.

The working assumption is that Boscombe will be part of NewDERA, but at the moment this is not finalised, as confirmed by press reports recently. DERA are keen to keep AT&E, though.

Genghis, I understand your point about projects where kit was developed (and in some cases implemented) by other parts of DERA but the general culture still is one of independance, and most staff take a pride in that. It's their raison d'etre after all, as most see it. Hopefully commercial pressures and even partnerships (if they happen) will not erode that.

Twister: The integration of military staff is another of those minor points still to be worked out, but we are assured that there are no significant stumbling blocks. I take your point about how the seconded military staff (not just tps, of course) will feel if they are contributing greatly to, but not being acknowledged for, the dividends and share price of the new organisation. Another schism may occur if and when the perceived needs of the DPA and/or front line do not align with the requirements of the organisation. This is a significant concern to my mind, but not one that has been realistically considered IMHO.

The real issue as far as AT&E is concerned is "Does the MoD actually *need* independent T&E?". Having seen what is sometimes presented from contractors to Boscombe as a finished product, I would have to say emphatically "Yes" - your opinion may differ. I'd be interested in other's comments on this. This is not necessarily a slur on those companies - after all, specs and contracts are not MoD strengths sadly, even now, following the panacea of IPTs ;).

Sadly the whole DERA privatisation issue has not been aired publically in the same way as, say, PPP of NATS or the Underground. The press, and therefore the public, hardly seem interested since of course there's no threat, is there? ;) The House of Commons Defence Select Committee are less than impressed, e.g. "In our judgement the current risks of proceeding with the public-private partnership even in its new and improved format continue to outweigh the still hypothetical benefits." and "There is too much staked on the future success of DERA in sustaining capabilities critical to our defence for us to accept without further examination proposals that currently rely far too much on a wing and a prayer." These are selective quotes, of course, from the Conclusions to a report published in June 2000. For the full story see http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../46206.htm#a8. The same is true of the Unions who to my mind have been realistic and pragmatic about this for a change. But the DoD are happy, so we are told (but no hard evidence provided) and the MoD have been assured that the £250M or whatever is raised from the sale will now remain with them and not go to the Treasury as originally planned, so that's OK then. As an aside, the last was in the small print of Gordon Brown's recent statement that included a Defence Spending increase (by 0.3% above inflation...) next FY - now we see where some of it is coming from without increasing taxes!

"Why PPP anyway?" is a worthwhile question. My own view is that it removes 9000 civil servants from the books, with the associated easing of the pensions burden, but what do I know?

Hey Ho. As I say, the Boscombe staff will do the best they can wherever AT&E ends up, but it's no fun to have so little information and not to be given straight answers to straight questions - even if you are a member of the Select Comittee on Defence, which I'm not! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif


------------------
BossEyed 8-)

Yes - one thing is very clear to me; the Government is going to drive through the DERA P plan come what may. The puplic image of Defence Procurment is at an all time low with rifles that don't work and aircraft that can't fly and many projects are reported as over budget and very late arriving. Against this background, the privatisaion of the UK T&E facilities is an easy target for the accountants and can be picked off without any significant public debate or recourse.

We all realise that the old AA&EE/RAE set up of years gone by needed a real shake up and DERAS has gone a very long way to improve in many areas over the past decade. But the question is; should privatisation fail who will pick up the mess in 5-10 years time? Me thinks all of us - the taxpayer.

Crack on!

------------------

Greetings, John. And the same spirit at Aero Flight continued on into the early 70s, with gradual lessening of the cutting edge stuff until it all changed in mid-75 to Flight Systems orientated projects. Some exciting work was still going on but it had to become much more specific. Most broad research was over because costs could not be justified.

We were so wrapped up in the work that in one two-year period I had a total of three weeks leave. And in one of those weeks, I had to come back for a day for the Annual Formal Inspection! There were others who were similarly pressed. I really felt that to do that kind of work under a military umbrella no longer made sense. I’ll bet the same passionate curiosity can still be found amongst today’s Flight Test community. Those holding the purse strings must never be allowed to think that we know all that it is necessary to know.

But Flight Testing is a horrendously expensive activity. During my time we began the Cost Coding of all our working time with each day divided into four two-hour periods. I never figured out how to cost thinking time, brainstorming, background reading etc. After a few months, a boffin applied to have us carry a self-contained, internal battery operated, radar transponder in our Auster AOP 9 (WZ 672). This was used to keep our hands in for the Light Aircraft Handling Assessment programme as well as being a photo “hack” and general run about. It was also a great leveller as it was quite a challenge to fly well. The boffin was told that it would cost him £400 per hour (in 1974) for the crew alone! Guess what; he went off to the local flying club with another boffin who had a PPL and hired a Cessna.

I don’t even know what PPP means. I hope “Profit” isn’t one of those Ps.
Plus ça change…

Ian

Ian – Hi, good to see you pop up – Twister, Boseyed and Genghis.

I don’t have any problem with any of your points. However, I do think that the only things common between my time and today is how aeroplanes fly and good boffins want to work.....

Sadly, that is not what lies behind Si’s thread so I don’t feel able to add anything more at this point.

Good luck.

JF


[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 21 August 2000).]