Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance (MFOQA)

1. 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

2. 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).

3. Video

4. 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

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

6. Why MFOQA? Current Aviation Accident Trends

7. Why MFOQA? “MFOQA can enable leaders to make wiser, more informed decisions because of the ability to store, retrieve, analyze and translatedatainto understandableinformationthat will give them theknowledgederived from virtually thousands of flight hours of experience.”

8. 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 (DoD 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).

9. Joint MFOQA Cooperation • The US Department of Defense (DoD) 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.

10. 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.

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

12. DRAFT DoD MEMO • Services are waiting for release. • 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. MFOQA MEMO

13. DRAFT DoD Directive • Services are waiting for release.

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

15. 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).

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

17. G3 OPS Monitoring • OPS Ready Rates • OPS Effectiveness • Army-wide STATS • Funding Priorities • Readiness • Effectiveness • Funding Priorities • G4 Monitoring • CBM • Funding Requirements • Funding Priorities • Readiness • ASIST INFO • Risk Management • Developing Hazards • Controls Effectiveness • Proactive Safety Program HQ DA Higher-Level MFOQA Opportunities – All Levels Operations Training Maintenance Safety • 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 & • Extension/Reduction • Accident Reduction • Human Factors INFO • ASIST INFO • Trend Monitoring • Risk Management • Controls Effectiveness • Mission Planning • After Action Report (AAR) • Monitor Operations • Mission Effectiveness • Battlefield Visualization • 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 Unit

18. 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

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

20. 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.

21. MFOQA DEMO – Student Comments • AH-64D AQC Student, “I really get factual feedback on how I am performing. [I] can’t wait to get this in my unit. • AH-64D AQC Student, “If this thing had multi-aircraft capability, it would be great for evaluating our unit collective training. • AH-64D 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.”

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

23. 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.

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

25. MFOQA “Payback” OH-58D Practice Autorotation with Turn While conducting autorotation training in an OH-58D 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-58D Training Fleet Manager requested the Safety Center download and 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.

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

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

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

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

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

31. 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-64D 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

32. 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 2nd Year effort should transition to the PEO Minimize Unit Disruption - Leverage Experimental Environment

33. 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