Need suggestions for new IMU features

[Short Field]

Don't forget that the major function of the IMU to handle the mission data so it can be uploaded into WMIRS.   I have had SARs that the IMU refused to load into WMIRS until I went back and corrected some blank/incorrect entries.  A pain, sure, but worth it when closing out a mission.  You just can't "fudge it" when using a computer.

[RiverAux]

And this is one of the reasons using WMIRS for tracking is winning in my area -- it is doing what I suggested and not worrying about who is doing the actual flying or driving.  You can enter in your WMIRS sortie data a whole lot faster than trying to go through the entire IMU process.  Its easy enough to look at a WMIRS screen and see blank spots where there should be data. 

[Short Field]

Sure you can use WMIRS for tracking.  You can put in a sortie to be flown, then update it when you have a ATD, followed by adding a ATA and completing the required information.  WMIRS is also showing all the sorties flown on the mission, so on day four, the first sortie of the day could easily be sortie #67.  I think it would be a lot easier to just use some paper or a wall board to track the missions.   

I don't understand your comment about "not worrying about who is doing the actual flying or driving".    If anything bad happens, that is one area that everyone is going to be extremely worried about.

[RiverAux]

Well, obviously that info is still tracked, but on paper.  Right now it is still much easier to maintain the info about who is on a crew or team on the tradiitonal paper forms that will continue to be used even if IMU is used than jumping through all the hoops in IMU to verify that every single member is current and qualified in that job.  If for some reason the IMU thinks your mission pilot isn't qualified you could spend quite a lot of time fixing all the things you need to do to correct that in the computer even if you could verify it with your own eyes in seconds based on what the pilot can show you on paper when he checks in. 

[Short Field]

If the IMU says the pilot is not qualified, I am not going to trust any paper the pilot gives me.  I will first verifiy his qualificatins in eServices Ops Quals and then proceed as required.   You can also have the IMU update the individual's quals via the WMU.  Once in a great while, the IMU database will be over 30 days old.  Most of the time it is less than a week old.  That means any updates to personal qualifications would have happened in the last week or so.   

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that I'm also factoring in all the connectivity and update issues discussed in previous pages of this thread.  If it were always as simple as you describe, it would be less of an issue. 

[Short Field]

Just assume that anytime you start to use the IMU, you are going to have a new update and need a updated database.    The updates are really fairly fast - a new database can take up to five minutes.   If I am updating all the computers at the local mission base (13 computers), then I download to a flash drive and then use it to update the computers.  Normally, I just update the ones we are using that day - since it is almost a given we will have a new update before we use the other computers again.

DON'T STOP THE UPDATES - but maybe schedule them out every two weeks.

[ammotrucker]

I would like to see if someone could incorparate multiple taskings in one sortie.  This is mainly focusing on DR work.  I would like to see aircraft tasking that will allow this feature.  Many of the taskings are short lived, it is a waste of time to have the A/C land so you can show a different tasking. 

[Short Field]

If it is the same customer (i.e. agency paying for the fuel), then you should have no problem putting all the taskings on the 104.  There is really nothing you can do on a paper 104 that you can't do on a IMU 104.   

Different customers would require multiple 104s.  I actually believe you can switch a mission between 104s while airborne - takes a bit of constructive work (i.e. pretending the acft landed and then took off again for the second sortie) but it should be doable.  The main issue is allocating the flight time (charges) between the multiple customers.

[RiverAux]

I think what he was suggesting was the capability of inputting the 50 specific targets we might get assigned each as a separate tasking and then have the ability to assign 3 or 4 of them to a particular sortie, yet keeping the tasking separate.

This would help immensely in making sure that all of these individual targets are actually assigned and flown and lessen the chances that some will be dropped.

Sure when you get that list of 50 targets you could go through right at the beginning and start lumping them together into individual sorties, but life happens and it isn't unusual for a sortie not to complete all assigned targets.  If that were the case, the target that wasn't completed could easily slip through the cracks. 

I'm not kidding about 50 targets either.  Had that happen in my state not all that long ago. 

[Short Field]

 That could be some tough programing!   A big reason to have a fully manned Planning Section.   

[RiverAux]

Love the planning section and am happy that my wing has really started using it in the last few years.  Don't see how we ever ran a big mission without one in the past.

[ammotrucker]

I agree with what you said Aux.  Those 50 taskings may have been recieved from the same agency, but what about having new tasking come in once the aircraft has departed, if there was a way that having radio contact you could add the tasking, then drop this into the mission that would be a great help also.

But 50 taskings would not be out of the realm of what would be on each 104.  Also who is to say that all the taskings were recieved at the same time.  You enter each tasking as it is recieved.

[KyCAP]

hrm. Wouldn't that more likely to be 50 targets in one tasking for a sortie?

[Short Field]

Just looking at it from a database background, each task (target?) would need to be entered into a task field.  That task field would then have to be linked to the TASK field for the CAPF 104.  The TASK (caps used to ID the CAPF 104 task filed) would need to accept multiple task fields and display (up to fifty??).   Each small task would have to have a separate debrief field - at least a field to show "sucessful or unsucessful".    It could get very complex quickly - plus the user would need to enter, move, update, etc, each task (target?).   

Sometimes paper can be faster. 

[lordmonar]

I agree with what you said Aux.  Those 50 taskings may have been recieved from the same agency, but what about having new tasking come in once the aircraft has departed, if there was a way that having radio contact you could add the tasking, then drop this into the mission that would be a great help also.

But 50 taskings would not be out of the realm of what would be on each 104.  Also who is to say that all the taskings were recieved at the same time.  You enter each tasking as it is recieved.

IMU allows you to retask a 104 sortie that has already departed.  There is a tab for it an everything so long as the new task is still assocated with the orignial requirment/customer.

[Short Field]

They are talking about getting a customer request for something like photos of 50 key sites.  They want each of the 50 sites to be identified as a task and then the PSC would group the tasks together into something they can fly - resulting in something like 3 or 4 sorties.  Currently that would be 3 or 4  CAPF 104s with matching tasks.   They want this so that if sortie 2 only photographed 8 of the 12 sites they were suppose to phtograph, then 8 mini-tasks would be closed and the 4 mini-tasks not photographed would remain active and could be reassigned to another sortie.

[Short Field]

Recommended Change:  Shorten the automatic verbage on the comm log.  I.E.  instead of automatically inserting "Operations Normal at 10:35" into the remarks section, use "Ops Nrml: 10:35".   Same for the other automatic insertions.  That would at least show some of the additional remarks that may be added on a mission.  This might not be an issue if the comm log screen is adjustable. 

[Fubar]

3) I have heard this a lot, and I don't think it is really true.

I doubt you are suggesting your end-users are lying to you, but why not believe them? If they say it takes them longer to use your system than it does to use paper, it is. You identified the problems:

I believe the issue is one of training.  When you first start with IMU it is bewildering, there are fields everywhere, a lot of data and a lot of buttons.  Particularly in the flight area where there is a lot of information that makes up a 104.  It does take longer to type everything in and figure out that you have to create taskings in the tasking tab and crews in the resources unit and then put them together in the 104.

As the software developer, you can resolve many of these issues. Streamline the process. Improve the GUI. Conduct usability studies. Watch brand new end users operate the software without prompting.

I suspect (but by no means know) that you are volunteering your time to maintain this software and you should receive thanks for doing so. At the same time, you've accepted the awesome responsibility of answering to the people throughout the country who are enormously dependent upon the software working correctly during mission critical situations. So when your users share their experiences with your software, you may want to believe them.

This is not something we can really control without adding a lot of overhead.  We have to trust all the M$ bits like JET and .net to do their jobs.  If it had failed on the host we would have seen it.  Silent failures are something that we will always have a problem with.  I am working on background process updating of the db but it is a major change and it will be a while before it is ready to be tested.

Sounds like who ever originally started this project chose the wrong development tools or platform. Failures should never be accepted as a cost of doing business.

[Short Field]

I can run a mission (with building crews, taskings, briefings, flight releases, 104s, debriefings, comm log, IC log, etc) faster with the IMU than on paper.  The only exception is if I just fudge the paperwork and hope to catch up on the paper after the mission is over.

The IMU requires good initial training training for the positions a person will be working.  Then it requires currency training.  Too much of the training I have seen invovles a two hour class - of which the first hour is spent trying to get everyone's laptop up and running with the IMU.  Then they check-in five people, build one task, build one aircrew, maybe do the briefing for one crew and go home.  It takes a lot of practice (20 plus aircrews, taskings, etc) to get a feel for the IMU.  You also need to read the Help files.   Once you get up and really running with the IMU, it takes very little to stay current.

Again - it depends on your mission base function.  As a IC, I have had to learn all the funcitons.  But I started out just knowing the positions I was qualified for at the time.   That was just the AOBD functions for a long time - then I progressed to PSC, etc. 


No one can run a mission without a computer anymore.  Someone associated with the mission is going to have to enter the data into WMIRS - that is not an option.