The Future of MOD Flt Test
 

Been pondering this since I heard a couple of weeks ago. Thoughts abound on the move of JTEG (Joint Test and Evaluation Group - the military guys n gals working with QinetiQ) Flt Test Sqns from Boscombe out to where the OEUs (Operational Evaluation Unit) are. How do people think this will affect flt test, QinetiQ and most importantly, the real customer sitting in the cockpit?

Me, I think it should be the other way. Move OEUs to Boscombe to integrate all involved in T&E (Test & Evaluation) together. If the former route is taken, I think that the RTS (Release to Service) process will lose the benefits of tps (Test Pilots) and FTEs (Flight Test Engineers) etc working together at BCE (Boscombe Down).

sw

Obviously this is a professional question with 7 unexplained TLAs clearly intended to deter the uninitiated.

Unless you mean that evaluation of aircraft and avionics should be done at the same base as evaluation of operational tactics.

Maybe.

Yes, you can.

The majority of tasking that QQ spends months over doesnt need test pilots, it needs decisions and signatures accepting risk. Waiting for test pilots to be available will make the process even longer.

I beg to differ on a couple of points:

1. QQ doesn't accept risk, it advises on it.
2. It may not be apparent, but there is a lot of stuff that goes on that the engineers talk through with the pilots that doesn't get flt tested and for which the pilots are part of the review process. It is this aspect that I think will suffer if there is a few hundred miles in the way and no daily shuttle.

sw

Future of T&E...
 

Safeware, you are a star and clearly have a good understanding of what goes on in the T&E world :ok: .

Jungly and LunchMonitor, it seems you do not, so I suggest you pay a visit to the not so secret place in Wilts and speak to some of the people there, then you might be able to contribute more to this debate.

Here is my tuppence worth, based on service in the RAF and QQ, and working daily with some darn good TPs and Military colleagues on some pretty important stuff at the moment.

1. The TPs are not "free". When DERA was privatised, an enabling contract was created whereby the MOD and QQ would act as PARTNERS, with each making a contribution, sharing cost and risk. IMHO this arrangement works well and is good value for money for the taxpayer and the MOD.

2. Yes, the MOD could go elsewhere for T&E advice but they would get a worse product. Many of us are ex-Military, most of the pure civvies have a lot of specialist experience and, contrary to popular but ill-informed belief, we are not boffins with no idea of front-line ops :8 but are actually extremely focussed on front-line capability while maintaining operational efficiency and safety. Even if a piece of kit/software is marginal, we work bl**dy hard to give the best RTS recommendations we can, while managing risk in conjunction with the IPT, and providing carefully developed recommendations on how the IPT can fix or improve the kit/software in the most effective and efficient way. The major purpose of our job is to get the best capability we can to the front-line, often in the face of massive hurdles such as tight timescales, lack of aircraft, spares, supporting technical documents, etc. Speak to the IPTs and you will find that, with notably few exceptions, they are usually very pleased with the work we do for them, particulary UORs :D .

3. Co-location of the T&E organisation and OEUs would be beneficial in many ways, but if the MOD try to do this by de-centralising from BCE it will almost certainly cost them more, take longer and they will get a poorer service. The problem AIUI is that a combination of high-level organisational politics and cost-cutting at STC is driving this, and STC will probably not care much if the resultant additional costs pop up in the IPT budgets as a result. However, I am sure they will moan like hell if the T&E timescales grow larger as a result, which I think they probably will because there is no way the current synergy we have on one site can be maintained if we are all spread over half the country. One thing is for sure, if the Test Sqns are split away from BCE then the T&S budget will probably skyrocket and the efficiency will plummet because the TPs and technical staff will be on the road for much of the time. And I can promise you that more travel, hotels and hire-cars are variables we really do not need alongside the weather, moon-phase, pilot currency, aircraft availability, instrumentation, range slots, spares shortages, trials paperwork and all the other ducks we have to coerce in to line on a regular basis :sad: .

4. I have done a lot of work in conjunction with one of the OEUs, and generally this combined approach has been fruitful for all concerned. We benefit from OEU input in to the trials design and planning, they benefit from flying the kit much earlier than they otherwise would, often we can share assets, and as a result the kit potentially gets into service quicker.

I just hope that the decision, if/when it is made, considers wider and more important issues than how many 1* posts are involved, balances ALL of the cost and efficiency implications (not just those within STC budgets), fully accounts for the operational and technical issues and pays due attention to the opinions of those who have years of T&E experience....:rolleyes:

....aerobatic farm animals anyone? :(

OR you could move the OEU to be located with the manufacturer and cut out the middle man. Don't forget all the test work that the manufacturers do (I know, I was there for 20years).
That might be a bit too drastic though.

If I remember correctly, TPs were always provided for free. They also had a quick exit guaranteed if moving to civil aerospace.

Starting with Typhoon perhaps?

If you take that route, some cost-saving zealot will try and merge the OEU task onto the contractor and I do not think that is a good idea. Moreover, the military evaluation unit must maintain independence, a physical distance from the platform contractor goes a long way to achieving this situation.

lm

Charge out rates for serving officers
 

Don't think that's true Mike. When I was at RAE in the late eighties/early nineties as a sqn ldr nav in a non-flying appointment, I was charged out at a six figure sum per annum. I seem to remember that the rate for a TP was about two and a half times my rate. (I'm sure the actual figures must be commercial in confidence.)

sv

I've been involved in OT&E at the OEU, DERA (as it was for a few months) and the mighty BAE. In my opinion the end users' interest is best served by keeping the manufacturer's role as is, keeping the OEU's independent from the makers and by moving the QQ bit away from BD and to the OEU. The advantages in support and currency are huge, but there are others, not least getting away from the airspace around BD.

It's just my opinion, but it's based on a lot of years doing the job.

Max, I'll half buy one and quiz you on another. Firstly on currency: co-location (where-ever) on an in-service fleet should make more airframes available, if the correct priorities are given, so yes 'type' currency could be improved, but I think the tps would all argue that the are current wrt flt test.
What advantages in support would there be? I see none. The engineering support in-service isn't the same as the support needed to run a flt test organisation. This is going to be more noticable on development aircraft - how much flt test goes on before a uniformed engineer / sqn pilot gets their hands on the aircraft?

sw

tps were not provided for free. tps log their working hours for each and every project they assist on, even for a 15 minute conversation with a project they may never fly. At the end of such discussions the project code is usually asked for. Before the partnership with QQ came along tps were being billed for at astronomical rates such that some projects would avoid using them. However, since the partnership, the billing rate is now a nominal fee which is less than for the QQ trials officers themselves.

As for the quick exit option, regretfully that has been taken away after one tp exercised his right a few years ago.

You could well be right of course .....my memory isn't as new as yours.

They did have a quick get out clause, nonetheless, c/o DCIs.

Maybe slightly off beam as not directly tp related - but seem to remember an ex-CE at Fleetlands (ex RAF 1*) who tried to offload all the pilots on his strength as an excessive overhead. His suggestion was to "hire" aircrew at hourly rates when an a/c check ride was required after majors.

Does this have the potential to adversely affect QQ? If there is no flt test at Boscombe, is Boscombe needed? If Boscombe isn't needed, what happens to all the engineers? If the work moves elsewhere, how does the income continue?

5206

5206,

I would hazard a guess that ETPS will still be at Boscombe plus of course the mighty Open Skies Andover. Something that puzzles me though is that if all the current HATS, FJTS and RWTS aircrew are sent to OEUs then who will do all the R&D flying on aircraft such as the VAAC, the 1-11s etc.

Seems half baked to me.:ugh:

But what if this scenario evolved:

The test sqns leave Boscombe to be 'integrated' with the OEUs. More time on the OEUs is spent doing OT&E vs DT&E. The 'need' for tps is seen to be less so less go to ETPS. With less going to ETPS, there is a reduced need for the services to provide tp tutors. Thereafter there is less demand for ETPS and things continue to spiral.

Could QQ support ETPS on its own? Would it retain its reputation?

Or am I being to simplistic?

5206

Boscombe Down isn't only about the TPs. There is a whole load of other clever stuff there including, to name but few, environmental chambers, EMC testing facilities, Night Vision Systems Test House, and other specialist testing facilities. Are you suggesting that you move one of each of these to the various locations where the OEUs reside or shall we move the OEUs to where the specialists are.

Boscombe could and should be a one stop shop for everything that requires to be tested for the military, and that should include the Operational expertise available on the OEUs, although to be fair, all the tps that I work with have recently come from a front-line background, it's practically compulsory to even make it to interview.

Those of you who slag the place off as slow and irrelevant should come along and see for yourself what actually gets done to ensure the stuff that gets to the frontline does what it says on the tin.