Aerospace Testing InternationalAerospace Testing International
  • News
    • A-E
      • Acoustic & Vibration
      • Avionics
      • Data Acquisition
      • Defense
      • Drones & Air Taxis
      • Electric & Hybrid
      • EMC
      • Engine Testing
      • Environmental Testing
    • F-L
      • Fatigue Testing
      • Flight Testing
      • Helicopters & Rotorcraft
      • High Speed Imaging
      • Industry News
    • M-S
      • Materials Testing
      • NDT
      • Simulation & Training
      • Software
      • Space
      • Structural Testing
      • Supplier News
    • T-Z
      • Technology
      • Telemetry & Communications
      • Weapons Testing
      • Wind Tunnels
  • Features
  • Magazines
    • March 2025
    • Dec 2024/Jan 2025
    • Showcase 2025
    • September 2024
    • June 2024
    • Archive Issues
    • Subscribe Free!
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Events
    • All Events
    • Aerospace Test & Development Show
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Suppliers
    • Supplier Spotlights
    • Press Releases
    • Technical Papers
  • Jobs
    • Browse Jobs
    • Post a Job – It’s FREE!
    • Manage Jobs (Employers)
LinkedIn YouTube X (Twitter)
LinkedIn YouTube X (Twitter)
Subscribe to magazine Subscribe to email newsletter Media Pack
Aerospace Testing InternationalAerospace Testing International
  • News
      • Acoustic & Vibration
      • Avionics
      • Data Acquisition
      • Defense
      • Drones & Air Taxis
      • Electric & Hybrid
      • EMC
      • Engine Testing
      • Environmental Testing
      • Fatigue Testing
      • Flight Testing
      • Helicopters & Rotorcraft
      • High Speed Imaging
      • Industry News
      • Materials Testing
      • NDT
      • Simulation & Training
      • Software
      • Space
      • Structural Testing
      • Supplier News
      • Technology
      • Telemetry & Communications
      • Weapons Testing
      • Wind Tunnels
  • Features
  • Magazines
    1. March 2025
    2. Dec 2024/Jan 2025
    3. Showcase 2025
    4. September 2024
    5. June 2024
    6. March 2024
    7. Archive Issues
    8. Subscribe Free!
    Featured
    19th March 2025

    In this issue: March 2025

    Online Magazines By Ben Sampson
    Recent

    In this issue: March 2025

    19th March 2025
    contents and front cover of magazine

    In this issue: December / January 2025

    19th December 2024
    Showcase 2025

    In this issue – Showcase 2025

    6th November 2024
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Events
    • All Events
    • Aerospace Test & Development Show
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Suppliers
    • Supplier Spotlights
    • Press Releases
    • Technical Papers
  • Jobs
    • Browse Jobs
    • Post a Job – It’s FREE!
    • Manage Jobs (Employers)
LinkedIn YouTube X (Twitter)
Aerospace Testing InternationalAerospace Testing International
Opinion

Peer pressure

Opinion WritersBy Opinion Writers22nd January 20155 Mins Read
Share LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

Garnet Ridgway: Aerospace testing activities can be hugely complex and can feature large amounts of repetition. As such, they are likely to make poor entertainment for the casual viewer.

During any test program, the test team should be afforded a reasonable amount of independence from commercial or political pressures. This ensures that decisions, including those relating to test safety, can be based purely upon the cold, hard technical facts. The last thing test engineers need is a call from their program manager at an inopportune moment, or to be forced to change their plans to suit commercial activities. Such interference may be well intentioned or even subconscious, but can still have a negative impact on the safety of test activity. There may also be a reluctance to undertake the riskier or less palatable aspects of test activities, such as deliberate (and often valuable) testing to destruction due to the potential for bad publicity.

While encouraging public engagement in a product during the test phase can undoubtedly raise awareness, it also has the potential to invite unfair comparisons. For example, developmental items or vehicles are almost always not representative of the production version. Therefore, such items are unlikely to compare well to production versions of their competitors, or even their predecessors. Thus, an attempt to gain good publicity can in fact have completely the opposite effect; and any attempt to highlight the unfairness can be exploited. For example, the performance of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in an arguably unrepresentative combat simulation was jumped upon by its political opponents, with headlines reading “F35s clubbed like baby seals in combat”. Such sensational language sticks in the public memory much longer than any number of mundane but successful test flights.

In spite of the issues described above, it is possible to reap some of the benefits of public testing without surrendering control of the situation. Specific, targeted stakeholder engagement can play a key role in generating public and customer confidence. Indeed, limiting the amount of public access to a developmental product can enhance its appeal through the well-documented effects of artificial scarcity.

In summary, while shutting all aerospace testing activities away behind a closed door may not be appropriate, there should at least be a door (and a person who knows when to close it!).

Garnet Ridgway has a PhD from the University of Liverpool. He has designed cockpit instruments for Airbus and currently works for a leading UK-based aircraft test and evaluation organization

Sophie Robinson: After SpaceShipTwo’s recent tragic crash in the Mojave Desert, flight test activities have been thrust fully into the glare of the media spotlight.

SpaceShipTwo’s test program has been criticized for being overly ambitious, and Branson himself accused of showing “too much hucksterism and too much hubris” in pursuit of making his space tourism dream a reality. Faced with a virulent media backlash, many companies are re-examining the way they conduct flight test activities, particularly when they are in the public eye. It becomes increasingly tempting to shut all aerospace testing away from prying eyes, but there are still many benefits to publicizing our successes.

Testing in a manner that displays candor and openness may have its risks, but there are many positive sides to testing in this manner. It can foster a close relationship with customers and investors; they want to know that their cash is being spent wisely and it can help in de-risking future activities. Customers

are also becoming increasingly knowledgeable and are less likely to be ‘turned off’ by unexpected results in testing too; they expect bumps in the road.

Publicizing the results of test activities can also have commercial benefits; building interest in new platforms and creating confidence among the intended users of your new product. Openness can also prevent negative rumors arising – these will cause financial and reputational damage if left to spread. While the idea that ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’ may be a thing of the past in the current media climate, good publicity is still valuable.

Embracing publicity as part of your testing program can also open up opportunities for engagement with the wider community. Take, for example, the Bloodhound SSC project; billed as a ‘global engineering adventure’, this quest to build a car capable of achieving 1,000mph has actively embraced publicity in over 220 different countries in order to inspire and motivate the next generation of scientists, mathematicians and engineers.

The European Space Agency took a similar route by live-streaming the landing of Philae on a comet 317 million miles from Earth, and NASA regularly broadcasts spacewalks and launches live online; all are certainly high-risk activities, but with large reward. Sharing what we do can have a real impact on shaping the future of our industry by informing, educating and inspiring the next generation of engineers and testers, and we should endeavor to keep doing it wherever possible.

Sophie Robinson is currently finishing her PhD as part of the Flight Science and Technology Research Group within the Centre for Engineering Dynamics at Liverpool University. In the course of her research, Sophie regularly works

with test pilots

Share. Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email
Previous ArticleJoint biofuel center opens in Brazil
Next Article Keeping standards: Twin engine certification
Opinion Writers

Related Posts

Materials Testing

Giving green thrusters a boost

15th April 20256 Mins Read
Gerard Van Es, Principal Advisor of Flight Safety and Operations at NLR
Opinion

Academic Insight: Testing to help stop runway overruns

1st April 20254 Mins Read
NDT

Q&A: Daniel Richard, Solutions Development Expert, Eddyfi Technologies

3rd March 202514 Mins Read
Latest Posts

Industry Adoption of 3D Optical Surface Gauges

21st May 2025

NDT: Robotics and software spur innovation

21st May 2025

Wisk and NASA to partner on US autonomous flight operations and standards

20th May 2025
Supplier Spotlights
Our Social Channels
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Getting in Touch
  • Subscribe To Magazine
  • Contact Us
  • Meet the Team
  • Media Pack
Related Topics
  • Aircraft Interiors
  • Business Jet Interiors
FREE WEEKLY NEWS EMAIL!

Get the 'best of the week' from this website direct to your inbox every Wednesday

© 2023 Mark Allen Group Ltd | All Rights Reserved
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.