1 Ogden Air Logistics Center Innovation and Excellence TYBRIN©2003 Government Rights under Contract #F42600-01-D-0027 TYBRIN©2003 Government Rights under

1

Ogden Air Logistics CenterInnovation and Excellence

TYBRIN©2003Government Rights under Contract #F42600-01-D-0027TYBRIN©2003Government Rights under Contract #F42600-01-D-0027

Mission Planning System Support Facility GATM Error Reporting Process

Bruce WeaverOO-ALC/LHM (TYBRIN)DSN: 586-0947 COM: 801- 586-0947Email: [email protected] Oct 2004 / DWG 04-2

2



Briefing Objectives

• Where We Were Before Process Development

• The Process Vision

• Where We Are

• SSF Error Reporting To Date

• SSF Future Role

• Benefits and Drawbacks

3



Where We Were-Challenges

• The Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) Program would affect aviation movement and control world-wide

• Air Mobility Command (AMC) recognized GATM as having critical impact on the Command’s global mission– AMC was leading USAF with KC-135, KC-10, and C-17 compliance

efforts– First GATM Capable KC-135 Block 40 was planned “on the ramp”

July 2003• Air Combat Command (ACC) would also be impacted but didn’t

share the same operational urgency of the issue (Primarily because their aircraft accompany GATM equipped aircraft)

• GATM recognized the conceptual representation known as the “Aeronautical Data Chain” (Data Creation through to End Use) – Functional links in that Chain: Origination, Transmission, Preparation,

Application Integration, and End Use (RTCA/DO-200A)– Data used by GATM aircraft must adhere to Data Chain standards– End Use Required Error Reporting

Details

4



Where We Were-Challenges

• Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File (DAFIF) was/is the Department of Defense (DoD) standard aeronautical information database

• NGA was/is the Aeronautical Data Processor of DAFIF– Origination, Transmission, and Preparation links were straight forward– Application Integration was managed using the DAFIF Dictionary, the

Digital Working Group (DWG), etc.– End Use Error Reporting was the challenge

• End Use Error Reporting and Resolution was Complex– Is it really a DAFIF error…or…– Is it the Flight Planning System (PFPS, TAMPS, MPS)?– Is it the Aircraft Weapons & Electronics (A/W/E)?– Is it the aircraft’s Flight Management System (FMS)?– Is it the individual operator, aircraft, or hardware?– Who in addition to NGA should be notified? – Most of these issues were outside NGA’s area of expertise

Details

5



Where We Were-SSF Error Reporting

• DAFIF Error Reporting was “just another trouble call”. Before the DAFIF Error Reporting Process existed:– A Call may have been entered in “Track-It Database” or “Integrated

Database (IDB)”– A Call may have been reported to NGA via email or telephone– A Call may have become a “Breaking News” item on MPSSF Website– A Call may have been forwarded to Developers– A Call may have had a quicker resolution

• Contacting SSF was Only One of Many Possible User Actions– NGA, SSR, Unit Stan/Eval or Tactics, FAA, Host Nation, FMS

Vendor, MAJCOM MP office, etc.

• If the SSF had Fallen Short of a “Process” (i.e. Defined, documented, repeatable, etc.)

– It would not have met guidance for GATM Demonstration of Compliance

6



Where We Were-Approach

• We Didn’t Want To Re-Invent the Wheel– We looked at what, if anything, Civil Aviation Had Done to

Date– Utilized Existing Assets and Processes (SSF and others) – Simple is Better (Error can be Complex)

• Did Want To Integrate Key Agencies– “Buy In” was Essential for Success– Agencies Must Participate in Defining Roles/Responsibilities– Agencies Must Support Those Roles/Responsibilities

• Did Not Want To Underestimate Training– Aircrew– SSF Personnel– Key Agency Personnel

7



Agencies Entering DRs 1Yr Ago

Agencies Entering DRs 1 Yr Ago

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1

Agency

# D

Rs

Entered By SMEs at SSF (4)

Entered By SSRs (0)

Entered By NGA (0)

Entered By BAE(0)

Entered By AMC (MAJCOM) (0)

8



The Process Vision

• The SSF Managed A Coordinated and Collaborative Effort to:– Identify the “True” Error Using a Systematic Approach– Ensure Error is Reported to Responsible Agency– Assess the Impact to Safety and Operations– Notify Appropriate Agencies and Operators– Determine and Disseminate the Interim and Final

Resolution– Monitor and Improve the Overall Process– Make Use of Internal and External Reviews

9



The Process Vision (cont)

End User

Notification Agency

SSF NGA DAFIF

PFPS, JMPS, etc.

GATM

FMS

AWE

SPO MAJCOM

Air Staff

Test Verify

Monitor

Alert

Investigate

Receive Report

Coordinate

Resolve

Notify

Audit

Measure

TrainInterim Fix

SSF = Facilitator/Clearinghouse for DAFIF Data Error ReportingPartner Agencies/Organizations = MGMT/Quality Control within their own

Organization

10



Where We Are

• The Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) Program still affects aviation movement and control world-wide

• Air Mobility Command (AMC) still recognizes GATM as having critical impact on the Command’s global mission– AMC leads the USAF with KC-135, C-5, and C-130

compliance efforts (Same Commitment, With Some Different Airframes)

– In Feb ’04 the KC-135 Block 40 became the first DoD fully GATM compliant aircraft

• Air Combat Command (ACC) is beginning to share the same operational urgency of the issue knowing their aircraft don’t always accompany GATM equipped aircraft during their missions

Details

11



Where We Are

– SSF Has Created a Documented Error Reporting Process• We Reviewed Current Civil Aviation Efforts Towards the Process• We Coordinated with appropriate agencies – NGA, FMS Vendors,

MAJCOMs, Developers, NOTAMS, Air Staff, ESC/GA, etc.– We have had ESC/GA and Other Agencies Evaluate the Process– The Error Reporting Process has been Certified by ESC/GA– Training of Personnel has been accomplished to ensure adherence

to Process• SSF Responsible for Training SSF Personnel and Trainers• Other Agencies Responsible for Training Their Personnel• End User (Aircrew) Training is Imperative – AFI Documented (In work)

– We Modified The Existing Calls DB and SSF CONOPS (Continues)• We Determined DB Access Requirements for Other Agencies• We Determined Response Requirements of Critical (Grounding) Items

– We Continually Demonstrate Compliance with The Process• We Follow Established Internal and External Audit Cycles

12



Where We Are

• SSF Provides End Users a Single Point of Contact– World Wide, 24/7/365 Access– Telephone, Email, Web

• SSF Takes Ownership of Reported Problem– Provides Preliminary Investigation and Troubleshooting– Alerts MAJCOM & Other Agencies as Required– Provides Centralized Tracking, Monitoring, Dissemination

• We Will Continue To “Grow” the Process Incrementally– KC-135 Block 40 is the “Newborn”– We Developed the Process in Support of Block 40– We Will Expand and Improve the Process as Other AMC

Aircraft Ramp Up

13



SSF Error Reporting to Date

• AMC has designated the SSF as the single Point of Contact for DAFIF Error Reporting

• DAFIF Error Reporting is not “just another trouble call”– Resolutions are determined, and action is taken to insure the

User/MAJCOM are notified– The Call is entered into the Integrated Database (IDB) as a DR– The Call may be added to the MPSSF Track-It database as

well– The Call is reported to NGA via email or telephone– The Call is forwarded to Developers, and action is taken where

it is needed

14



SSF Error Reporting to Date

• This Flow chart shows the Process of a Preliminary Investigation

• It may follow with a Flow Chart showing either a Software Investigation, a Workaround, or a Hardware/Avionics Investigation (Each one being an independent Flow Chart)

15



Agencies Entering DRs Now

Agencies Entering DRs Now

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1

Agency

# D

Rs

En

tere

d

Entered By SSRs (15)

Entered By SMEs at SSF (17)

Entered By NGA (1)

Entered By BAE (0)

Entered By AMC (MAJCOM) (3)

Entered By Navy (4)

16



DRs In IKC – 1yr Ago VS Now

DRs In The IKC - 1yr Ago VS Now

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1

DR Status

# D

Rs

# DRs 1 Yr Ago (4)

Total # DRs Now (40)

# Open DRs Now (29)

# Closed DRs Now (11)

17



Days Until Recommended Closure

Days Until Recomended Closure

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

DRs

# D

ays

Days Open

Average # Days Open (89)

18



DR Entry To Fix Found

DR Entry To Fix Found

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

DR

# o

f D

ays

Days to Fix Found

Do Not Fix (Duplicated) (3)

No Fix Found Yet (6)

Average # Days to Fix (23)

19



SSF Future Role

• SSF Could Become The Single Point of Contact for the Other MAJCOMS When DAFIF End-Users Report Errors

• Other MAJCOMS are already expressing interest in the Process (Navy)

– We Provide Central Database Tracking– We Provide Preliminary Investigation– We Assign Error Category and Priority (Ex: Priority 1 Handling)– We Act as a Routing Hub to Developers, Vendors, NGA, etc.– We Provide Oversight During the Resolution Effort (possible time-

sensitive monitoring for Level 1 – Critical or Level 2 - Essential)– We Act as a Dissemination or Coordination Vehicle for Notifying

Other End-users either through the MAJCOM or directly– We Act as a Dissemination or Coordination Vehicle for the Solution– We Retrieve and Analyze Metrics for Process Improvement

20



Benefits and Drawbacks

• BENEFITS– End User (Operator) Gets a Single Point of Contact

– End User (MAJCOMS) Get Fleet Access to GATM Airspace world-wide

– Data Processor (NGA) Reduction in Number of Reported “Errors”

– Expanded and Improved Customer Support Through the SSF

– SSF is Currently Funded for this Effort

• DRAWBACKS– End User (Operator) Requires Additional Training

– End User (MAJCOMS) Incur Additional Expense for Training and Process

– Data Processor (NGA) Requires Additional Training / Process Maintenance

• What are the Funding Impacts? – Sustainment/Growth will Require Additional Evaluation (Dollars / Manning)

21



Mr. Ed Rosado – AMC A58S

• I will now turn the remainder of my time over to Mr. Ed Rosado from AMC for his portion of the briefing.

22



Questions

Bruce WeaverOO-ALC/LHM (TYBRIN)DSN: 586-0947 COM: 801- 586-0947Email: [email protected]

Help Desk: 1-800-SSF-SSFX

COM 800-773-7739 / DSN 777-6538

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.mpssf.hill.af.mil

23



Backup Slides

24



Software Investigation

• This is a Flow Chart depicting a Software Investigation

25



Workaround

• This is a Flow Chart depicting a Workaround

26



Hardware/Avionics Investigation

• This is a Flow Chart depicting a Hardware/Avionics Investigation

27



RTCA/DO-200A Assurance Levels

28



IKC DR Criticality Codes

29



GATM “Standards”

• Documents Produced by Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA, Inc.) provide Guidance

– DO-200A “…represents a consensus…does not, in itself, have any authority over organizations…” (1.2)

– DO-200A “The ultimate responsibility of ensuring that data meets the quality for its intended application rests with the end-user of that data.” (1.4)

– DO-200A “Aeronautical data end-users are typically aircraft operators, airline planning departments, air traffic service providers, flight simulation providers, airframe manufacturers, systems integrators, and regulatory authorities.” (1.5.4.6) Back

© 1998, RTCA, Inc.

30




• Where the SSF “Fits” in the Process– Typical Flow of Aeronautical Navigation Data Figure 1-1, DO-200A

NGA

Honeywell, Collins, etc.

Developers - PFPS, A/W/E, etc.

Aircrew

Planner

Back© 1998, RTCA, Inc.

31




• Requirements– 2.3 Defining Data Quality Requirements

• 2.3.3 User

• 2.3.4 Supplier/Processor


32




• Requirements– 2.5 Quality Management


33




• 3 Compliance– 3.1 Demonstration


34




• 3 Compliance– 3.2 Audit Objectives

BackE© 1998, RTCA, Inc.