Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance MFOQA If you

Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance (MFOQA) If you do not observe it, you cannot measure it. If you do not measure it, you do not understand it. If you do not understand it, you cannot manage it. If you do not manage it, it will manage you! Information Briefing by Mr. Jody Creekmore US Army Aviation and Missile Command September 2005 1

What is MFOQA? Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance (MFOQA) is nothing more than the proactive and systematic collection and analysis of operational data from aircraft for use in the continuous improvement of flight operations and readiness, specifically in the areas of Operations, Training, Maintenance and Safety (OTMS). 2

Video 3

Current Perspective • Current Situation: Fragmented Army Aviation Information System – – • Multiple “like” DEMOs/Programs No Standard for Recording Devices Proprietary Data Conversion and Analysis Programs The Army is not fully using Available Aircraft Data Opportunity: Improve Army Aviation Information System – Eliminate Duplication of Multiple “Like” Programs – Standardize Requirements for Recording Devices – Joint Service Safety Chiefs (JSSC)-Developed Requirements – Develop Government-Owned Data Conversion and Analysis Programs – Use Aircraft Data to Improve Operations, Training, Maintenance, and Safety by Implementing an MFOQA Program 4

Cost of Army Aviation CBM $$ $ $ $ $ System $ $ Safety $ Repair Parts – $ $ Routine Maintenance $ Expensive. $ $ Potential $ $ Opportunity for $ $ $ Savings. $ $ $ $$ $ $ Lost Aircraft – $$ $ $ $ Material Failures $ $ $ $$ $ $ Lost Aircraft – Human Factors $ $ Success Story: $ $ $ $ Rare Occurrence $ $ $ Very Expensive!!! $ $ MFOQA But, little to No New Investment 5

Why MFOQA? Current Aviation Accident Trends 6

Why MFOQA? “MFOQA can enable leaders to make wiser, more informed decisions because of the ability to store, retrieve, analyze and translate data into understandable information that will give them the knowledge derived from virtually thousands of flight hours of experience. ” 7

Why Now? • In 2000, the Joint Safety Chiefs (JSSC) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) stating full support for MFOQA and recommended immediate funding of MFOQA programs in all services. • In 2002, the Secretary of Defense directed that initiatives be taken to reduce the military aircraft mishap rate by 50%. • In 2004, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Readiness listed MFOQA as one of his four (4) key initiatives to achieve the SECDEF’s mishap reduction goal. • In 2004, both the USAF and Army initiated DEMOs (Do. D Redirection of Funding). • In 2004, the US Navy initiated a DEMO (Funded within the US Navy). • In 2006, the US Navy will begin an MFOQA Program (Navy Decision). • In 2006, both the USAF and Army will begin MFOQA Programs (Program Budget Decision 705). 8

Joint MFOQA Cooperation • The US Department of Defense (Do. D) has recently and enthusiastically embraced MFOQA, a program based on the Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) program conceived and birthed years ago in civil aviation. • All the US military departments are actively pursuing MFOQA programs to impact the safe operation of their fleets of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft and have begun forging relationships and cooperative ventures to share lessons learned and best business practices. • Defense Safety Oversight Committee (DSOC) Safety Technology Working Group. • JSSC Safety Technology Working Group (STWG). • JSSC MFOQA Conference in Las Vegas – JUN 05. • JSSC DRAFT MOU – TBD. 9

Joint MFOQA Cooperation • The USAF has taken lead on developing MFOQA Program for Fixed-Wing Cargo aircraft. • The USN has taken lead on developing MFOQA Program for Fixed-Wing Fighter aircraft and Crew Debrief Tool. • The USA has taken lead on developing MFOQA Program for Rotary-Wing aircraft. 10

International MFOQA Cooperation • The US Department of Defense (Do. D) is participating with several other national militaries, including the UK Ministry of Defense (Mo. D), in the cooperative sharing of information for the purpose of furthering military rotary-wing safety, including Flight Data Monitoring or MFOQA. 11

DRAFT Do. D MEMO • Services are waiting for release. MFOQA MEMO • Will define MFOQA. • Will direct the services to incorporate “enabling technologies” where technically and fiscally feasible. • Will serve as advance notice of MFOQA Directive – to be published. 12

DRAFT Do. D Directive • Services are waiting for release. 13

Relationship Between DSC and MFOQA DSC MFOQA AED Recording Device • Solid-Sate Crashworthy Flight Data and Voice Recorder • VMEP • HUMS Data Flow SOFTWARE • In Recording Device • In Unit Workstation HARDWARE • Recording Device • Downloading Device, or Transfer Media • Workstation to Process Data Unit Workstation • Process Data • Unit Debrief Tool • Package Report • Package Data Central Server PMO DSC is NOT MFOQA DSC is Enabling Technology for MFOQA is Primarily Process and Software Others USACRC SOFTWARE • In Unit Workstation • In Central Server HARDWARE • Unit Wokstation (shared with the DSC) • Central Server 14

MFOQA Imperatives • Must record Voice, and on the same media as Flight Data. • Voice and Flight Data stored on a “walk away” media with no actions required other than “eject; ” example is PCMCIA Card. • Flight Data automatically synchronized with Voice. • Automatic creation of Visualization File; i. e. Desktop Icon that is opened with a “double click. ” • Visualization File automatically overlayed on actual Terrain Data. • Crew/Unit Safety Officer/Commander have access to file. • Simple manipulation of mouse to get “Cockpit View” or “Outside View. ” • At unit – Store entire file (w/voice) only for short period. • Higher Level – Except as required, provided Exception Data only (no voice). 15

Cost MFOQA ROI HQ DA Opportunities Challenges: Non-Bussed A/C, DSC-Joint Requirements, NRE, Infrastructure (People & Equipment), Sustainment, Privacy Rights, Mindset (“Big Brother”) Higher-Level Opportunities Unit Opportunities Time 16

MFOQA Opportunities – All Levels Unit Higher-Level HQ DA Operations Training Maintenance Safety • G 3 OPS Monitoring • OPS Ready Rates • OPS Effectiveness • Army-wide STATS • Funding Priorities • Readiness • Effectiveness • Funding Priorities • G 4 Monitoring • CBM • Funding Requirements • Funding Priorities • Readiness • ASIST INFO • Risk Management • Developing Hazards • Controls Effectiveness • Proactive Safety Program • Monitor • Battalion OPS • Brigade OPS • Division OPS • Training Effectiveness • Army-wide Standardization • ATM Effectiveness • CMTC Rotations • Documented Standards • Crew Coordination TNG • A/C Status for PEO & PMs • Data for AMRDEC • ASIST INFO • Developing Problems • TBO Verification & • Accident Reduction • Human Factors INFO • ASIST INFO • Trend Monitoring • Risk Management • Controls Effectiveness • Mission Replay • Home Station TNG • Simulator Replay • Documented Standards • Aircrew Self Evaluation • Instructor Pilot Standardization • Diagnostics • A/C Status • Exceedence Monitoring • HUMS • HIT Checks • IETMs • Accident Reduction • Risk Management • Share “Close Calls” • Safety Standowns • Mission Planning • After Action Report (AAR) • Monitor Operations • Mission Effectiveness • Battlefield Visualization Extension/Reduction 17

MFOQA Opportunities – Near Term Operations (“O”) – Mission Debrief Tool Training (“T”) – Web-Based Standardized ATM Maneuvers • “Gold Standard” Maneuver Library • “Common Student Errors” Maneuver Library – Aircrew Self-Performance Tool – Visualization – Aircrew Coordination Training and Evaluation Tool – Collective Training Tool – Visualization Maintenance (“M”) – Aircraft System and Sub-System Performance Trending Tool – Near Exceedance Event Detector (“Close Calls”) – Exceedance Event Detector – Predictive Maintenance Tool Safety (“S”) – “Composite Risk Management” Tool 18

MFOQA DEMO – Structure USAAVNC CMD GROUP MFOQA Program Development Team (DCD Lead) USACRC RDECOM MFOQA DEMO Steering Committee AMCOM Demonstration Westar PEO-AVN 19

MFOQA DEMO – Status • Phase I. • Period of Performance: JAN 05 – JAN 06. • Objective: Develop Requirements. • Contractor: Westar Aerospace. • Contract Vehicle: Government Services Administration (GSA). • Funding: Funded. • Managed by: Steering Committee. • Accomplishments: User Survey, Debrief Tool, Infrastructure Req. (25% Complete). • Phase II. • Period of Performance: JAN 06 – JUL 07. • Objective: Demonstrate MFOQA in an Operational Unit. • Contractor: Westar Aerospace. • Contract Vehicle: GSA. • Funding: Funded. • Managed by: Steering Committee. 20

MFOQA DEMO – Student Comments • AH-64 D AQC Student, “I really get factual feedback on how I am performing. [I] can’t wait to get this in my unit. • AH-64 D AQC Student, “If this thing had multi-aircraft capability, it would be great for evaluating our unit collective training. • AH-64 D AQC Student, “[This is] much better than using the video from the aircraft because you can go directly to the part of the flight you need to review. I look forward every morning to review [my] previous day’s performance. ” 21

MFOQA Program Status • Funded by Do. D Program Budget Decision. • Program Manager: PM Aviation Systems (PEO AVN). • Difficult Decisions Will be Made; i. e. Which DSC? , Which Platforms? , etc. PBD 705 22

Value of MFOQA We seek warriors, persons willing to project themselves and their aircraft and their weapon systems into a hostile environment with the purpose of engaging and destroying the enemy. The people we seek are required to train and operate in a flight envelope that comes right up to the border of hazardous flight. We are obligated to ensure our warriors know exactly where that border is located. . . MFOQA will help us find that border. 23

Point of Contact Mr. Jody Creekmore US Army Aviation and Missile Command (256) 842 -8630, DSN 788 -8630 joseph. creekmore@redstone. army. mil 24

MFOQA “Payback” OH-58 D Practice Autorotation with Turn While conducting autorotation training in an OH-58 D aircraft, the pilots observed an Engine NP Overspeed. The Multifunction Display (MFD) confirmed the pilot’s observations. To confirm the data recorded on the aircraft’s engine history page, the OH-58 D Training Fleet Manager requested the Safety Center download analyze both the aircraft’s Digital Source Collector and the aircraft’s Digital Transfer Cartridge (DTC). The DTC failed in the download process and provided no information. Analysis of the DSC data confirmed the pilot’s statements relative to the incident, specifically, that the aircraft had experienced an Engine NP Overspeed. The DSC data permitted the maintainer to conclude that the Engine Module was still serviceable and that the Engine Module did not require replacement.

MFOQA “Payback” Engine History Page Does Not Display Engine Torque At Time Of NP Overspeed

MFOQA “Payback” Without Torque Information, TM Says “Replace”

MFOQA “Payback” DSC Data Provides Torque At Time Of NP Overspeed

MFOQA “Payback” With DSC Data, TM Says Engine Module “OK”

Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance (MFOQA) Demonstration Update 9 Aug 2005 ARMY AVIATION WARFIGHTING CENTER 30

Background Contract: • Contract Awarded July 2004 (General Services Administration contract is 1 Year with 4 Option Years) • Westar is contractor approved via Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) • Statement of work developed for Phase I expected to require 18 months • Funding Received for Option Year (June 2005). Phase I Demonstration Objectives: • Identify Operations, Training, Maintenance, Safety (OTMS) user needs at Ft. Rucker, AL • Develop a prototype or “brassboard” MFOQA process • Begin the regular flow of information to the users • Quantify the results Phase I Accomplishments: • Downloaded data from over 200 AH-64 D flights • Animation of maneuvering flight using downloaded data • Developed ‘poor’ and ‘good’ crew coordination models • Developed analysis tools to check for tech manual exceedences • Developed near-exceedences filter for safety and standardization • Developed/animated ‘gold standard maneuvers’ as maintenance Instructor Pilot (IP) course training aid • Developed and instituted tools to assist and assess ‘mentor IP’ process for use in post mission debrief of new IPs 31

Demonstration Strategy • Demonstration will not be taken to an operational unit until MFOQA is ready (MOVE EFFORT TO SYNTHETIC/EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT) • Year 2 effort should end NLT August 2006 • DCD will be the lead for the MFOQA demonstration and will manage funding with input from the Steering Committee • The role of the Steering Committee is not to be diminished. LTC Knapp will chair • DCD will work with the Program Executive Office- Aviation (PEO-Aviation) to increase their participation. Follow-on MFOQA initiatives, demonstrations, etc beyond the 2 nd Year effort should transition to the PEO Minimize Unit Disruption - Leverage Experimental Environment 32

Key Areas for Investigation • Ability of Unit Manpower to Execute Prototype MFOQA Process • Day-to-Day MFOQA Operations (i. e. , Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) from Aircraft to Higher Echelon • Perceived Value of MFOQA Process to Unit Personnel and Higher Echelon Users • Recommended Modifications to Unit or Higher Echelon Equipment to Implement the MFOQA Process • Recommended Changes to the MFOQA Prototype Process to meet operational unit requirements Minimize Unit Disruption - Leverage Experimental Environment 33