QinetiQ to be sold off
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safeware - thank's for your answer. I don't mean to knock the whole place - but it's not all working well.
Soiled Yourself - Failed the ETPS selection?
Blimey, with that speed of uptake, awareness and ability to remember what you've read in a whole 2 previous pages you are ideally suited to the blinkered world of 'aren't I doing well' with your motto of 'I don't like criticism'.
As for the idea that TPs have to plan for crews forgetting which aircraft they're flying - oh for heaven's sake
Looking forward to your answers on the C-17 intro to service though
Soiled Yourself - Failed the ETPS selection?
Blimey, with that speed of uptake, awareness and ability to remember what you've read in a whole 2 previous pages you are ideally suited to the blinkered world of 'aren't I doing well' with your motto of 'I don't like criticism'.
As for the idea that TPs have to plan for crews forgetting which aircraft they're flying - oh for heaven's sake
Looking forward to your answers on the C-17 intro to service though
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51N
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft
They have single-handedly put current mil projects back by more than any foreign power could dream of doing. They are in fact worse than the enemy. Get rid of them..... Or charge them with treason and shoot the b@st@rds.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearances that take 6 years to go through 'cos we're waiting for [some at] BD to figure out how to use the kit before they can say that a lowly sqn bloke could do it.
An opponents dream.
So what is your position on the C-17 introduction to service?
An opponents dream.
So what is your position on the C-17 introduction to service?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51N
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 - never been near one though did see one at an airshow once, so absolutely no idea about the entry into service. I would imagine that a fully certified aircraft flying passengers and cargo between A and B would be pretty easy to integrate into service flying. And given that they are leased we probably are required to run them along the lessors rules - after all, when you hire a car you have to answer to the rental company's terms and conditions when you give it back!
But not being a blinkered chap I (and all the other readers) am willing to be educated on the C-17 introduction into service and maybe someone reading from BD/IPTS etc will realise that they've been doing it wrong for the last 50 years.
SG
But not being a blinkered chap I (and all the other readers) am willing to be educated on the C-17 introduction into service and maybe someone reading from BD/IPTS etc will realise that they've been doing it wrong for the last 50 years.
SG
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple summary for you then. Introduced into service in weeks rather than years by bypassing the BD setup in total. Even use USAF flying suits as it would take TOO LONG for BD to approve RAF ones as suitable.
Nice to see you coming around. I hope so too. That's the only reason I hold out any hope from the sale. That and when it's civvy someone may be allowed to start up in competition.....
maybe someone reading from BD/IPTS etc will realise that they've been doing it wrong for the last 50 years.
Originally Posted by Controversial Tim
...someone may be allowed to start up in competition.....
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Introduced into service in weeks rather than years by bypassing the BD setup in total.
A simple statement that proves your lack of knowledge on the subject:
From 'flash to bang' (as an ex-boss would say,) the process from being given the go-ahead to first ac delivery was one year and one week, IIRC. (That's 53 weeks to you, if you wish to be pedantic.)
Bypassing the whole BD setup in total? No.
A document audit/trail was done well before the first ac arrived in UK, (to forewarn/foresee of any potential showstoppers,) and at least one frame visited BD for a short period of time for RF compatability testing IIRC.
Btw, it's "tp" and not "TP".....
A simple statement that proves your lack of knowledge on the subject:
From 'flash to bang' (as an ex-boss would say,) the process from being given the go-ahead to first ac delivery was one year and one week, IIRC. (That's 53 weeks to you, if you wish to be pedantic.)
Bypassing the whole BD setup in total? No.
A document audit/trail was done well before the first ac arrived in UK, (to forewarn/foresee of any potential showstoppers,) and at least one frame visited BD for a short period of time for RF compatability testing IIRC.
Btw, it's "tp" and not "TP".....
In amongst the interesting operational discussions...
Just had a chance to read the City A.M. article and this bit will make you weep as a tax payer to HMG...
‘A senior NAO insider said: “Any enquiry will focus on what QinetiQ’s head Sir John Chisholm and his team will get. They are set to make themselves very rich during this process.” He added: “the NAO will want to look at whether the public purse was protected when it came to the pricing of the company and the allotment of the shares to its employees.” Chisholm’s shares are expected to net him over £20m on his £129,000 investment.
Just had a chance to read the City A.M. article and this bit will make you weep as a tax payer to HMG...
‘A senior NAO insider said: “Any enquiry will focus on what QinetiQ’s head Sir John Chisholm and his team will get. They are set to make themselves very rich during this process.” He added: “the NAO will want to look at whether the public purse was protected when it came to the pricing of the company and the allotment of the shares to its employees.” Chisholm’s shares are expected to net him over £20m on his £129,000 investment.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weeks rather than years. 
Did it take a plural number of years? No. Did it take 53 weeks instead of 15? Yes. Why? TPs had to be included. 53 weeks! The thing had had an RAF exchange officer on it since the early feckin 90s!!!!
I suppose you're one of the ones that call the introduction of C17 a success for BD rather than a success for missing them out?
Did it take a plural number of years? No. Did it take 53 weeks instead of 15? Yes. Why? TPs had to be included. 53 weeks! The thing had had an RAF exchange officer on it since the early feckin 90s!!!!
I suppose you're one of the ones that call the introduction of C17 a success for BD rather than a success for missing them out?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controversial (United Nations) Tim wrote:
"Why? TPs had to be included. 53 weeks! The thing had had an RAF exchange officer on it since the early feckin 90s!!!! I suppose you're one of the ones that call the introduction of C17 a success for BD rather than a success for missing them out?"
Yet again you display a breathtaking lack of knowledge of the case. Try ringing Boeing up and ask if they can give you 4 aircraft at 15 weeks notice - I think you will be surprised by the answer. So, an exchange officer to 'give it the nod' is all that's needed then - glad we've got that established
"Why? TPs had to be included. 53 weeks! The thing had had an RAF exchange officer on it since the early feckin 90s!!!! I suppose you're one of the ones that call the introduction of C17 a success for BD rather than a success for missing them out?"
Yet again you display a breathtaking lack of knowledge of the case. Try ringing Boeing up and ask if they can give you 4 aircraft at 15 weeks notice - I think you will be surprised by the answer. So, an exchange officer to 'give it the nod' is all that's needed then - glad we've got that established
Well, at least we're getting good input to the A400M programme from the outset, eh TT?
PS - The Glen Grant was excellent! Many thanks.
PS - The Glen Grant was excellent! Many thanks.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an exchange officer to 'give it the nod' is all that's needed then
You reckon you can "'phone Boeing" and get 4 C-17s at 53 weeks notice? Do you think perhaps some trials may already have been completed with the aircraft? Do you think there may have been someone with RAF invovment who could give an insight into whether the aircraft had major problems or is being on their STANEVAL not a good enough standard for you to recognise?
From when delivery was agreed the aircraft was completing ops v quickly as the inefficient intro to service by guys who don't understand the frame was bypassed. (Kept the movers off it as well for a while
). Or perhaps you know a different reason why it was so quick?When you can catch your breath again perhaps you could compose an informative answer like bosseyed and safeware have taken the time to do.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
You obviously have some fairly strong views on this subject. I am interested in how you think this could be done better - and I am actually interested in what you think rather than just wanting to bitch about what you write - so please check that 'rant mode' is deselected before replying.
As a starting point, I think that it is reasonable for you to assume that
a. Test pilots are not going to disappear.
b. Qinetiq is not going to be re-nationalised.
c. The aeroplanes we buy or the upgrades we commission for them are unlikely to be perfect first time round in future meaning that we still have to do some sort of aircraft test and evaluation before they reach the front line to make sure the kit does what we want - for example, the Block 4 software on the C130J didn't work and did get fixed because of the T&E process (but lets not get into another massive debate over the J)
d. Tony is unlikely to persuade Gordon to give us a stack of extra cash to implement your idea.
S-S
You obviously have some fairly strong views on this subject. I am interested in how you think this could be done better - and I am actually interested in what you think rather than just wanting to bitch about what you write - so please check that 'rant mode' is deselected before replying.
As a starting point, I think that it is reasonable for you to assume that
a. Test pilots are not going to disappear.
b. Qinetiq is not going to be re-nationalised.
c. The aeroplanes we buy or the upgrades we commission for them are unlikely to be perfect first time round in future meaning that we still have to do some sort of aircraft test and evaluation before they reach the front line to make sure the kit does what we want - for example, the Block 4 software on the C130J didn't work and did get fixed because of the T&E process (but lets not get into another massive debate over the J)
d. Tony is unlikely to persuade Gordon to give us a stack of extra cash to implement your idea.
S-S
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-S, well said.
I too would be interested to know how CT would do things differently, given that the T&E world does its work in response to customers requests - no request, no work, its that simple. Clearly it was recognised that as the C17 had been in service for several years then a lot of repetitive work did not need to be done, but his assertion that BD was bypassed in total is simply wrong - they did some work, actually quite a bit, (albeit none of it flying) in response to the customers requests.
As to the exchange officer thing - despite being a good egg - it doesn't matter what lofty position he may have held with the USAF, he almost certainly would have been asked for his opinion but in the overall scheme of things it would not have held that much sway.
How would you have introduced the J (for example) into service any differently CT? Are you asserting that you would rather give it straight to the frontline and let them learn as they go along, with no formal training on testing procedures?
I too would be interested to know how CT would do things differently, given that the T&E world does its work in response to customers requests - no request, no work, its that simple. Clearly it was recognised that as the C17 had been in service for several years then a lot of repetitive work did not need to be done, but his assertion that BD was bypassed in total is simply wrong - they did some work, actually quite a bit, (albeit none of it flying) in response to the customers requests.
As to the exchange officer thing - despite being a good egg - it doesn't matter what lofty position he may have held with the USAF, he almost certainly would have been asked for his opinion but in the overall scheme of things it would not have held that much sway.
How would you have introduced the J (for example) into service any differently CT? Are you asserting that you would rather give it straight to the frontline and let them learn as they go along, with no formal training on testing procedures?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to do it? I don’t believe it! I was convinced at least one of you was from BD, but if you’re asking for someone else’s opinion……. (oops, must try harder ss )
With a new aircraft I don’t think we should introduce it trusting blindly the manufacturers claims. However the Italians did just that with the J, and after taking delivery on Friday of their first aircraft launched it on Sunday full of relatives on their families day. It also came with factory clearance for freight and all fitted systems including DAS. Seeing as they haven’t been throwing aircraft away and were doing the job immediately which intro was better – that or the protracted intro to service bo!!ox we got lumbered with?
What would I do different?
How about not repeating full trials that have already been done – but haven’t been charged for by QinetiQ? eg CDS. Like it’s a new delivery system .………....
How about listening to experience when it’s available instead of thinking you’re a skygod? Eg initial MOS strip length required
How about chasing the important stuff instead of the niff naff – eg control column position vs trim warning system
How about coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t – eg carrying low grade DAC in a vibration zone
In other words, how about saying yes to something other guys are already doing instead of demanding ANOTHER trial - or having a gross error check of your ‘discoveries’ with experienced operators?
Was the C-17 a success for the BD way? Don't think so.
)
Are you asserting that you would rather give it straight to the frontline and let them learn as they go along, with no formal training on testing procedures?
What would I do different?
How about not repeating full trials that have already been done – but haven’t been charged for by QinetiQ? eg CDS. Like it’s a new delivery system .………....
How about listening to experience when it’s available instead of thinking you’re a skygod? Eg initial MOS strip length required
How about chasing the important stuff instead of the niff naff – eg control column position vs trim warning system
How about coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t – eg carrying low grade DAC in a vibration zone
In other words, how about saying yes to something other guys are already doing instead of demanding ANOTHER trial - or having a gross error check of your ‘discoveries’ with experienced operators?
Was the C-17 a success for the BD way? Don't think so.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CT,
Earlier I thought I had you back on track. However, I'm not sure now. What I think T-T was effectively saying is that it isn't as easy as you may think, and not because of any 'rules' that you think BD set. We don't set the rules, we assess against a set of criteria (JSP 553 etc) given to us by the customer.
The test sqns fly against established methods in achieving this, everyone else has their part to play. One of the 'rules' imposed on us is about having an audit trail to show where every piece of advice we give comes from, ie going back to the evidence (flt test, modelling, assessment, manufacturers documentation etc etc). While this may seem tedious to you, your view of 'How about coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t' doesn't work in this model of our world. Hindsight is a wonderful think, but you don't want the 'ah, you can't do that then' to be sparked by the loss of an aircraft, crew, passengers, civvies on the ground.
Some questions that I think (hope for the last one) the answer from you should be 'Yes':
1) You're a J bloke?
2) You're unhappy about how you feel BD fits in to your perspective of the real world?
3) You don't fully understand what goes on at BD?
4) You'll come down and visit, with some of your equally sceptical mates, to learn a bit about what goes on?
It's not that far and phoning BD to arrange this is a breeze - it still has its own operator, so when you phone up and ask for HATS, they'll know who you mean.
sw
Earlier I thought I had you back on track. However, I'm not sure now. What I think T-T was effectively saying is that it isn't as easy as you may think, and not because of any 'rules' that you think BD set. We don't set the rules, we assess against a set of criteria (JSP 553 etc) given to us by the customer.
The test sqns fly against established methods in achieving this, everyone else has their part to play. One of the 'rules' imposed on us is about having an audit trail to show where every piece of advice we give comes from, ie going back to the evidence (flt test, modelling, assessment, manufacturers documentation etc etc). While this may seem tedious to you, your view of 'How about coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t' doesn't work in this model of our world. Hindsight is a wonderful think, but you don't want the 'ah, you can't do that then' to be sparked by the loss of an aircraft, crew, passengers, civvies on the ground.
Some questions that I think (hope for the last one) the answer from you should be 'Yes':
1) You're a J bloke?
2) You're unhappy about how you feel BD fits in to your perspective of the real world?
3) You don't fully understand what goes on at BD?
4) You'll come down and visit, with some of your equally sceptical mates, to learn a bit about what goes on?
It's not that far and phoning BD to arrange this is a breeze - it still has its own operator, so when you phone up and ask for HATS, they'll know who you mean.
sw
When the FJ proximity trials with the Boeing 767 were conducted for the FSTA programme, Queera's estimate for the work was so expensive that it was cheaper for a BA 767-300 to fly across to Pax river and do the trials with the USN instead.
Another BD triumph!
Another BD triumph!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am interested in how you think this could be done better
The service is dire, antiquated and SLOW. I'm sure it's expensive as well but I don't pay the bill from my budget.
I feel we're going in circles now. Time to quit. If I do try and visit I'll let you know who's asking. And I won't bring my own car
CT
“I'm all for keeping aircraft safe. I am not for using that as an excuse to repeat trials already completed by other countries, especially when those 'new' trials are flown by guys who don't know the aircraft. That repetition is slow, expensive, unnecessary (unless you're a QinetiQ accountant) and worst of all it's hurting our effectiveness on ops”.
I couldn’t agree with you more. There are many methods of verification, among them Read Across, Technical Assessment, Subjective Assessment, Rig Test, Flight Trials. (The cost of these ranges from zero to £25,000 plus per hour). The evidence is recorded in the Verification Cross Reference Index, or similar. A purpose of this process is to avoid the repetition you mention. However, when inviting proposals from industry and QQ, both will inevitably recommend their own trials. It has long been recognised that this is a complete waste of money and, if the DPA/DLO project manager is on the ball, he will simply direct that Joint Trials take place. This can save many millions and it is a simple job to establish boundaries of responsibility to determine liability. The trouble is that the personnel I refer to seldom have the necessary experience and just go along with the company/QQ recommendations. I find that if you demand joint trials, they both give a wry smile and get on with it. Clearly, the answer is that joint should be the MoD default position. But that would require common sense. And you don’t get promoted in DPA by applying common sense or saving money! (Or “keeping aircraft safe” for that matter).
“I'm all for keeping aircraft safe. I am not for using that as an excuse to repeat trials already completed by other countries, especially when those 'new' trials are flown by guys who don't know the aircraft. That repetition is slow, expensive, unnecessary (unless you're a QinetiQ accountant) and worst of all it's hurting our effectiveness on ops”.
I couldn’t agree with you more. There are many methods of verification, among them Read Across, Technical Assessment, Subjective Assessment, Rig Test, Flight Trials. (The cost of these ranges from zero to £25,000 plus per hour). The evidence is recorded in the Verification Cross Reference Index, or similar. A purpose of this process is to avoid the repetition you mention. However, when inviting proposals from industry and QQ, both will inevitably recommend their own trials. It has long been recognised that this is a complete waste of money and, if the DPA/DLO project manager is on the ball, he will simply direct that Joint Trials take place. This can save many millions and it is a simple job to establish boundaries of responsibility to determine liability. The trouble is that the personnel I refer to seldom have the necessary experience and just go along with the company/QQ recommendations. I find that if you demand joint trials, they both give a wry smile and get on with it. Clearly, the answer is that joint should be the MoD default position. But that would require common sense. And you don’t get promoted in DPA by applying common sense or saving money! (Or “keeping aircraft safe” for that matter).