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