QinetiQ to be sold off
Thread Starter
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
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.
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
Thread Starter
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
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 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!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
S-S,
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
If they are from the same organisation, why is there so much friction between them?
sw
Thread Starter
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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 which is still under the control of the Mod and the civil servants.
which is still under the control of the Mod and the civil servants.
Last edited by gijoe; 19th Jan 2006 at 12:25.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Telegraph article today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...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?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...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?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Half Way Up The Stairs
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silence was the loud reply
So, 5 days ago I asked Cont Tim
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
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?
What projects have been put back by QQ more than the enemy could do?
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, where in that are QinetiQ holding things up?
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???!!!???
)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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: twixt north & south pole
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51N
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CT,
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,
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
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.
That's where I have my beef.
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.
edited to respond to S_G
sw
Last edited by Safeware; 19th Jan 2006 at 20:44.
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.
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.
"......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?
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?
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"......
"The National Audit Office is considering an investigation into the IPO that will make a fortune for defence group bosses"......