WMIRS 2.0 Rollout Plan?

[bigfootpilot]

I heard from a friend in the TX wing that WMIRS 2 goes live on 1 July, yet we haven't even talked about it in our wing.  Who is starting to use it and is its use mandatory or optional for a period of time?  If there are any links or documents outlining the rollout plan, please share.  Thanks!

[bigfootpilot]

I saw this message on e-services this morning.  It mentions the new version of e-services, but does not mention WMIRS specifically.

Upon completion of the scheduled maintenance, a soft launch of the new version of eServices will be available for members to utilize the new and old versions of eServices. More information on the release will be available on Wednesday.

NHQ Information Technology Team

[Eclipse]

It'll rollout, there will be posted instructions, and there won't be much difference.

(Also a wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that's gonna happen, regardless.)

[Tim Medeiros]

WMIRS 2.0, last I heard, isn't slated for release until 1 Oct 2014.

[bigfootpilot]

For those that are interested, here are some "webinars" that show off the new WMIRS....

Webinar - https://vimeo.com/98155430
·         Default Screen – https://vimeo.com/98155292
·         Channel Plan Module – https://vimeo.com/97833479
·         Sign In/Sign Out Module – https://vimeo.com/97833480
·         Unit Log Module – https://vimeo.com/97833481
·         Comm. Log Module – https://vimeo.com/97833482
·         Ground Sorties Module – https://vimeo.com/98155293
·         Air Sorties Module – https://vimeo.com/98155294
·         Expense RONs Module – https://vimeo.com/98155296
·         E108s Module – https://vimeo.com/98155298

[bigfootpilot]

Can anyone confirm that WMIRS 2.0 goes live a week from today?  Any new training materials or communication to share?  Thanks!

[Tim Medeiros]

I haven't heard about any changes to that plan.

[JeffDG]

I haven't heard about any changes to that plan.

Neither have I.

The only change was that when the Beta went to all wings we were promised a list of features that weren't done yet that would be added to the Beta during the process.  Those have not occurred, so we'll have either a WMIRS that is short key features (like flight release) or one with a bunch of features that have not had wide testing.

Either way the probability for this is elevated:

[JeffDG]

So, the announced plan was to have WMIRS 2.0 up and running by 9am CDT today...who wants to wager on whether it was available at that time?

[Eclipse]

Well, since it's currently 1030 CDT, and it doesn't look any different...

[JeffDG]

Well, since it's currently 1030 CDT, and it doesn't look any different...

Try and add a sortie...hope your wing doesn't have customers who need you to fly something!

[Eclipse]

Can't do much anyway, shut down for EOY, so unless the SHTF there's nothing to do for the next week or so.

[JeffDG]

Can't do much anyway, shut down for EOY, so unless the SHTF there's nothing to do for the next week or so.

Customer-pay missions don't shut down for EOY, only AF paid.

[Eclipse]

I just meant my wing.  I think we might have some CD in the can already.

[vento]

1237 Pacific Time and wMIRS has a new look...

[Eclipse]

Well, whadya know?   

It's certainly "wide".

[vento]

It is my first time seeing it, it looks like a marriage between the old wMIRS and CAPStar. It appears to encourage mission base staff to use it to run missions.

[Eclipse]

It is my first time seeing it, it looks like a marriage between the old wMIRS and CAPStar. It appears to encourage mission base staff to use it to run missions.

Queue the music for all the people (myself included) who have spent countless hours developing homebrew
situation systems who now will see that time for nothing and have to start using this.

I'm all for standardization, so it is what it is, but the drama will being now.

There's no excuse not to...

[JeffDG]

Cept there are some bugs in the system so far.

For example, you can't upload mission files (like require OPlans for training missions).  Throws a directory not found.

No reports, so for all that, you click on the WMIRS 1.0 link

Flight release threw an error for me too.

Every single one of these were raised on the first call months ago in the Beta phase, and folks were assured "these things are coming, they'll be released in the Beta environment before we go live"  They weren't.

[Eclipse]

For example, you can't upload mission files (like require OPlans for training missions).  Throws a directory not found.

Directory smectory - your high falutin' words ain't got no meanin' round here.

Need a file?  Just put it on the desk over there and we'll fax it in just as soon as Kinko's opens...

[disamuel]

Where is the flight release module? I also don't see where in an air sortie the FRO can be selected.

[Spaceman3750]

I must be missing out on the party - I see no change.

[Eclipse]

Maybe hit refresh in your browser?

I can't say anything about the technical issues, but the interface matches eServices now and and
the mission list scales to your screen size.

Should be pretty obvious.

[JeffDG]

I must be missing out on the party - I see no change.

Might be using an old link.  Go in eServices under Operations there's a WMIRS 2.0 link.

[bigfootpilot]

Here's the link to go directly to the new system: https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.eServices.Web/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fwmirs%2fdefault.aspx

There's a link on the "Air Sortie Update" page to "Request Flight Release Officer(s)"

[Spaceman3750]

I must be missing out on the party - I see no change.

Might be using an old link.  Go in eServices under Operations there's a WMIRS 2.0 link.

Yup, I was logging in directly to https://missions.capnhq.gov

Weird, I selected a mission then hit the operations log, and when I hit ground sorties it threw an error. Then when I tried to select channel plan I had to re-select the mission, and then after that the ground sorties screen worked.

Overall I like it, but we're going to start discovering lots of bugs as it goes through the wringer and users should be prepared to report it and work around, not scream and b***** as is the CAP standard.

[disamuel]

Here's the link to go directly to the new system: https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.eServices.Web/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fwmirs%2fdefault.aspx

There's a link on the "Air Sortie Update" page to "Request Flight Release Officer(s)"

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Under "Operations" I select "Air Sorties" and once I select a mission symbol I get to the "Air Sortie Add/Edit" screen, but I don't see an FRO section, or even a crew list for that matter.

[Storm Chaser]

Apparently there's an issue with the flight release function in WMIRS 2.0. Our wing just instructed FROs to complete flight releases using a CAPF 99 until this issue is resolved.

[sparks]

Several features found in 1.0 are missing. The FRO page has been mentioned but the aircraft maintenance module, pilot and aircraft activity and utilization are a few itmes absent. 1.0 is still available but apparently missions aren't cross populating from 2.0. Anyone hear about what the plans are for 1.0 and the missing features?

[jayleswo]

If you open the Air sorties page there is a link at the bottom of the sortie list for Release Flights. I haven't actually released a flight using this feature but the functionality is there, just not in the menu on the left. IIRC you can release flights the same way in WMIRS 1.

What issue did you encounter trying to release a flight, curious?

[sparks]

I haven't tried to release a flight yet. WMIRS 1.0 has a menu for e-flight releases with a section for FROs. An FRO can check his open requests or all open request for his respective wing. I didn't see that feature in WMIRS 2.0 . That is why I asked if anyone kows where it might be in 2.0 if it is there at all.

Thanks

[Eclipse]

Considering we're at day-2 of the new FY, and no one has any money yet, there won't be a lot of releases to worry about.

A few, yes, but not enough to bring the universe to a halt.

[sparks]

Just tried to log in to release a C8 flight. The release log-in asked for my CAP number and a PIN. I don't know what the PIN could be. The last 4 numbers of the social used to be used so I tried that. The system burped and failed so I don't know if it was correct or their way of saying "go fish"!. I guess we are still going to do verbal release with paper back ups.

[PHall]

Considering we're at day-2 of the new FY, and no one has any money yet, there won't be a lot of releases to worry about.

A few, yes, but not enough to bring the universe to a halt.

What do you mean there's no money, Congress passed and the President signed a CR.

[Eclipse]

Yes, there's no appropriation issues this year, but until it's in the wing accounts, it might as well be fairy dust.

[JeffDG]

I checked yesterday and we have a small drop of A9 money, but that's it.  Nothing for A5s or A15s

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

CAWG has created a WMIRS 2.0 support site that you are welcome to peruse at http://wiki.cawgcap.org/viewforum.php?f=5

Any comments feel free to PM me.

[vento]

Just tried to log in to release a C8 flight. The release log-in asked for my CAP number and a PIN. I don't know what the PIN could be. The last 4 numbers of the social used to be used so I tried that. The system burped and failed so I don't know if it was correct or their way of saying "go fish"!. I guess we are still going to do verbal release with paper back ups.

Now it is officially the last 4 digits of the SSN. I just released a sortie without any major heartburn. But I hope that they will soon implement the system like it used to do in wMIRS 1.0, where the FRO gets an e-mail notification when there is a pending sortie for release. In my case I didn't know I was asked to release a flight until the pilot called me.

[RwyX]

WMIRS 2.0 is a disaster.  As a software engineer I would not have rolled this out for months.  It is very unreliable and unpredictable.  Entered data such as start/stop hobbs times are being switched.  Flight releases are issued and then disappear upon debrief data entry.  There is no legitimate software trouble reporting system to track and close out problems.  I know high school kids who code better than this.  Double booking of aircraft is allowed. No email notice to pilots on flight release.  Maintenance  and Ops officers I know have created their own tools such as spreadsheets to track maintenance hours and aircraft location.  O-flights are not being released because 2.0 says the Cadets are over 18 yo (when they are actually 13 or 14 yo).  2.0 has caused and will continue to cause much wasted time by members.  The release problems could become a serious issue in an accident for insurance coverage.  In my opinion the software should be pulled from use and worked on by professionals before further use.  Sorry to be so critical but I'm stunned to see this release and wonder who is the developer.  Is it being done in house or by a contractor? 

[JeffDG]

In house.

And, to hear NHQ tell it, it's such a critical system that they cannot allow any third party access to it.

Heck, give me some specs, and we could run a SourceForge project with volunteers across the country and knock out something better, more reliable, and easier to use in less time than they'll take to get reports turned on.

[Eclipse]

^ Seriously.

I've discussed this with some coders I know, estimates are something this simple could be knocked out
in a week or two of their spare time, probably for free if CAP asked nicely enough.

What happened to leveraging the resources of our "valued volunteers"?

[JeffDG]

^ Seriously.

I've discussed this with some coders I know, estimates are something this simple could be knocked out
in a week or two of their spare time, probably for free if CAP asked nicely enough.

What happened to leveraging the resources of our "valued volunteers"?

Yep...appoint a Project Manager, put out a call for volunteer coders, then just work the development methodology.

None of this is rocket surgery, and we have plenty of volunteers who are paid pretty good sums of cash on a daily basis to do this.  A polite request with proper leadership would get you all that labour and expertise just for the price of asking, and maybe a "National Commander's Commendation" at the end of the day for the team.

[scooter]

Bring back the Pilot Log in Reports please. Thank you 

[RwyX]

Heck, give me some specs.......

Specs?  That's funny......I'd pay to see the 'specs'!  What level clearance do we need?

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Bring back the Pilot Log in Reports please. Thank you 

Or you could use WMIRS 1.0 until it's built in WMIRS 2.0

[RiverAux]

FYI, we did receive some communication through Wing about a whole passel of fixes that have been accomplished or soon will be.  So, its not like they're just letting problems fester. 

[JeffDG]

FYI, we did receive some communication through Wing about a whole passel of fixes that have been accomplished or soon will be.  So, its not like they're just letting problems fester.

That's all well and good.

But they had a whole Beta process that was originally supposed to release June 1, then got pushed back to October 1.

On the initial call they said that there were all these features that would be rolled out during the beta for testing before going live.  Things like "Flight Release" and "Reports".

Never saw a single word on any of these ever again, and then Oct 1 rolls around, and voila.   Still no reports.  Flight release is buggy (never been subjected to significant testing). 

If you read things strictly, you still need to do paper forms for a lot of stuff, because ICS forms are required, yet there's no way to generate an ICS-211 for example of sign-ins.

[RwyX]

Bring back the Pilot Log in Reports please. Thank you 

Or you could use WMIRS 1.0 until it's built in WMIRS 2.0

From what I can tell in my Wing, WMIRS 1.0 Pilot Log is only showing flights through the end of Sept...or FY 14 I guess.  None of my Oct 2014 flights are showing in both the Pilot Log or the Pilot Summary on WMIRS 1.0

[Tim Medeiros]

In regards to a trouble reporting system, use the help desk, that is what it is there for.  Under category, select WMIRS 2.0.

[sparks]

The roll out plan doesn't exist. Basically it is a half baked effort that NHQ pushed out before it was completely tested. Just used it today for O-rides and had multiple problesm. I'd be kind to call it a POS!

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

The roll out plan doesn't exist. Basically it is a half baked effort that NHQ pushed out before it was completely tested. Just used it today for O-rides and had multiple problesm. I'd be kind to call it a POS!

Suggest being part of making it better.  Submit your bug request here: https://capnhq.crmdesk.com/ask.aspx

They can't fix what they may not know is wrong.

P.S. If you are in CAWG, we have a WMIRS Team that you should submit to.

[JeffDG]

Gee.  What a concept. 

Perhaps they should have released these features during the Beta period like they promised to do, and had people able to test them then.  Instead, they didn't do so, and instead decided to use real missions as their beta test.

[Eclipse]

[sparks]

I have sent in several  "bug" reports per the procedure. So I'm trying to help with the fix. So far all I have received was an automated reply. No comments on fixing the problems.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I have sent in several  "bug" reports per the procedure. So I'm trying to help with the fix. So far all I have received was an automated reply. No comments on fixing the problems.

We've sent in 40, and a number have been fixed and we have received a couple of replies.

[disamuel]

Is the "Status Board" option working for anyone? I just released a flight, but the status board is not showing the sortie. I can see the members signed into the mission on the right side, but the sortie list is blank, even though the mission has multiple sorties and I just released one of them.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

We put in this trouble ticket in the status board:

http://wiki.cawgcap.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=84

[disamuel]

Thanks for the reply. I discussed it with someone at NER, and I was told to enter the ATD in the air sortie screen. Once I did this it showed up on the status board. It's counter-intuitive since I would assume that one the release is entered the clock would start. I know there is a delay between entering the release and engine start, but this seems to be an unneeded step.

[rbrehm]

[...] I was told to enter the ATD in the air sortie screen. Once I did this it showed up on the status board. It's counter-intuitive since I would assume that one the release is entered the clock would start. [...]

I think this stems from IMU, where a flight would be listed as released until they reported wheels up. This would prevent any flights that experience some issue (mechanical, weather, ect.) requiring the sortie to be cancelled from showing up on the status board.

[Larry Mangum]

Is the "Status Board" option working for anyone? I just released a flight, but the status board is not showing the sortie. I can see the members signed into the mission on the right side, but the sortie list is blank, even though the mission has multiple sorties and I just released one of them.

Sorties will not show up on the status board until a comm log entry has been added showing the flights actual ATD. It is also necessary to add an ATA before it will be removed from the status board.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Is the "Status Board" option working for anyone? I just released a flight, but the status board is not showing the sortie. I can see the members signed into the mission on the right side, but the sortie list is blank, even though the mission has multiple sorties and I just released one of them.

Sorties will not show up on the status board until a comm log entry has been added showing the flights actual ATD. It is also necessary to add an ATA before it will be removed from the status board.

Col Mangum, have you run an actual mission in WMIRS 2.0 and seen the status board working correctly? I ask this because a bunch of us IC's in CAWG cannot get the status board to display properly.

[Larry Mangum]

I have, we used WMIRS 2 to run GreenFlag East 2 weeks ago.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I have, we used WMIRS 2 to run GreenFlag East 2 weeks ago.

Great and just to confirm, adding ATD in the Comm Log relating to a sortie changes the sortie from Planned to Started?

What allows a sortie to show as Planned?

Does ATA in the Comm log for a particular sortie change the sortie to Closed?

What is the criteria for an overdue aircraft?

[Larry Mangum]

I have, we used WMIRS 2 to run GreenFlag East 2 weeks ago.

Great and just to confirm, adding ATD in the Comm Log relating to a sortie changes the sortie from Planned to Started?

What allows a sortie to show as Planned?

Does ATA in the Comm log for a particular sortie change the sortie to Closed?

What is the criteria for an overdue aircraft?

An ATA in the Comm log, will show the sorties as being completed on the status board. You must still complete the debrief, entering the Hobbs and Tach times before a sorties will be shown as being closed and completed.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

The issue is we can't see the sorties in Planned.  Would you know how to activate them as Planned?

[Eclipse]

On the initial call they said that there were all these features that would be rolled out during the beta for testing before going live.  Things like "Flight Release" and "Reports".

Nice to see FR is still broken.

Check the boxes and click approve, the system throws a red error "Invalid Information. You have two tries remaining." even though the pin is correct.
You can click and re-click and it just shows the same thing, exit the screen and come back to the sorties and you'll find the flights are released.

[JeffDG]

On the initial call they said that there were all these features that would be rolled out during the beta for testing before going live.  Things like "Flight Release" and "Reports".

Nice to see FR is still broken.

Check the boxes and click approve, the system throws a red error "Invalid Information. You have two tries remaining." even though the pin is correct.
You can click and re-click and it just shows the same thing, exit the screen and come back to the sorties and you'll find the flights are released.

The simple fact was:  They released a system that was neither complete nor tested.  It's still neither.

They activated the "Mission Expense Report" this week, and it makes no distinction between "actual" and "estimated" costs.  So if we fly two sorties on one plane, and don't gas up between them, the first sortie has "estimated" fuel use for it's time, and the second sortie has "actual" use for both sorties.  It's worse than useless.

[Eclipse]

To be fair, they had somewhere between "the entire summer" and "however long they felt like"
to release the update, so there was a lot of pressure to roll it out untested.

[JeffDG]

To be fair, they had somewhere between "the entire summer" and "however long they felt like"
to release the update, so there was a lot of pressure to roll it out untested.

To be clear, it's not just "untested", it's "unfinished"

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

They are working hard to fix the issues. Hopefully, you are sending in issues as trouble tickets so they have a heads up on things to fix.

It's not going away so let's be part of the solution.

[Fubar]

It's not going away so let's be part of the solution.

I understand your sentiment and even agree (to a degree) with it. The issue is wasting a volunteer's time is the greatest sin an organization can do. They've wasted a lot of our time by forcing us to use an unfinished product on a daily basis. Now we have to waste more time trying to document the bugs, processes issues, and perform data integrity checks since you can't trust your data is being stored properly.

Perhaps there was pressure from the volunteer leadership or maybe even the Air Force to transition away from the old WMIRS, I dunno. Regardless, someone failed the membership and the membership has a right not to be pleased about it.

[JeffDG]

Perhaps there was pressure from the volunteer leadership or maybe even the Air Force to transition away from the old WMIRS, I dunno. Regardless, someone failed the membership and the membership has a right not to be pleased about it.

From what I've heard, AFRCC still hasnt transitioned, and enters all their missions in WMIRS 1.0, so it wasnt the af pushing.

[JeffDG]

They are working hard to fix the issues. Hopefully, you are sending in issues as trouble tickets so they have a heads up on things to fix.

It's not going away so let's be part of the solution.

Basically, I think just enter the bare minimum mandatory information, and use your own mission management system.

NHQ won't get the information they want, but at this point, if they're going to insist on wasting my time on an unfinished and untested system, I don't much care what their preference is.

The thing is, there's enough volunteer talent in the organization to build WMIRS 3.0 from the ground up in no time flat, but the not-invented-here syndrome is strong in NHQ and they would have purposefully blocked member-created systems mid-mission in the past, so that will never happen.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

It's not going away so let's be part of the solution.

I understand your sentiment and even agree (to a degree) with it. The issue is wasting a volunteer's time is the greatest sin an organization can do. They've wasted a lot of our time by forcing us to use an unfinished product on a daily basis. Now we have to waste more time trying to document the bugs, processes issues, and perform data integrity checks since you can't trust your data is being stored properly.

Perhaps there was pressure from the volunteer leadership or maybe even the Air Force to transition away from the old WMIRS, I dunno. Regardless, someone failed the membership and the membership has a right not to be pleased about it.

I agree 100%, but if we can't affect the problem then let's be part of the solution.

[JeffDG]

It's not going away so let's be part of the solution.

I understand your sentiment and even agree (to a degree) with it. The issue is wasting a volunteer's time is the greatest sin an organization can do. They've wasted a lot of our time by forcing us to use an unfinished product on a daily basis. Now we have to waste more time trying to document the bugs, processes issues, and perform data integrity checks since you can't trust your data is being stored properly.

Perhaps there was pressure from the volunteer leadership or maybe even the Air Force to transition away from the old WMIRS, I dunno. Regardless, someone failed the membership and the membership has a right not to be pleased about it.

I agree 100%, but if we can't affect the problem then let's be part of the solution.

Put the absolute base minimum amount of information in WMIRS, and run your missions some better way.

Whenever NHQ gets their heads out of their posteriors and provides a system that is complete and tested, re-evaluate.  Meanwhile, don't provide any extra info in WMIRS, if NHQ wants the information badly enough, they'll provide an effective way for us in the field to give it to them.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Do what you want but in CAWG we will continue to use WMIRS 2.0.  We'll figure out workarounds, track and send bugs to NHQ, and suggest ways to make it better.

Today you can sign in Resources and People, keep a Unit log, keep a running Comm Log. Some say that status board is usable but we are still testing it.

We have opened up around 50 tickets and feature requests. Do we wish that NHQ IT would respond to our requests, sure but we understand that they are resource constrained.

[Eclipse]

they are resource constrained.

Maybe, but there's no excuse for that whatsoever.

If outside contractors are doing this, then it's arguably FWA.  This should be an in-house project with members
from all over the country, and when resources are "constrained", bring in more.

[RiverAux]

This should be an in-house project with members
from all over the country, and when resources are "constrained", bring in more.

This is something a bit more complicated that fixing a broken form or finding errors in a proposed regulation.  This is a complicated major project and I just don't see it as something that a scattered group of volunteers could do with a few hours here and there each week. 

Granted, it doesn't appear to be going swimmingly the way they're doing it, but who here hasn't seem some volunteer-made web page or even mission management system that falls apart because of dependency on a volunteer that wasn't as reliable as you thought. 

Now, maybe there could have been a group of volunteer advisers working with the programmers to get things in better shape before release. 

[JeffDG]

This should be an in-house project with members
from all over the country, and when resources are "constrained", bring in more.

This is something a bit more complicated that fixing a broken form or finding errors in a proposed regulation.  This is a complicated major project and I just don't see it as something that a scattered group of volunteers could do with a few hours here and there each week. 

Granted, it doesn't appear to be going swimmingly the way they're doing it, but who here hasn't seem some volunteer-made web page or even mission management system that falls apart because of dependency on a volunteer that wasn't as reliable as you thought. 

Now, maybe there could have been a group of volunteer advisers working with the programmers to get things in better shape before release.

Actually, yes it could be.  Distributed software development is a well-developed discipline, and we have experts in managing such projects in house who would, if merely asked, would happily donate their time and efforts, rather than wasting their time with a half-finished, untested PoS.

At a recent meeting, one of our older members referred to it as "WMIRS No. 2", which based on the colloquial definition of Number 2 taught to toddlers, is a fantastic description.

The problem with a distributed member-developed system is that NHQ is deeply invested in "not-invented-here" syndrome.

[JeffDG]

Do what you want but in CAWG we will continue to use WMIRS 2.0.  We'll figure out workarounds, track and send bugs to NHQ, and suggest ways to make it better.

Today you can sign in Resources and People, keep a Unit log, keep a running Comm Log. Some say that status board is usable but we are still testing it.

We have opened up around 50 tickets and feature requests. Do we wish that NHQ IT would respond to our requests, sure but we understand that they are resource constrained.

I'm working my way up to that number just myself, and would be there if I stopped every time I hit a problem and filled out a bug-report form that is filed in the circular file.

All of this could have been done far more securely and efficiently by simply providing an API to transfer data to WMIRS.  Existing systems are out there that do all of that and light-years more, but NHQ didn't invent them so they must be crushed.

[Fubar]

All of this could have been done far more securely and efficiently by simply providing an API to transfer data to WMIRS.  Existing systems are out there that do all of that and light-years more, but NHQ didn't invent them so they must be crushed.

I'm not sure each wing having their own system is a better way.

[JeffDG]

All of this could have been done far more securely and efficiently by simply providing an API to transfer data to WMIRS.  Existing systems are out there that do all of that and light-years more, but NHQ didn't invent them so they must be crushed.

I'm not sure each wing having their own system is a better way.

A few points:
1)  There are 3 or 4 systems right now out there, not one for each wing
2)  The good systems will spread, the poor ones will die, the good ones will likely merge organically as some will do some things really well, while others will do other things really well
3)  They all have significantly more capability than WMIRS No. 2
4)  Each system has spent more volunteer time chasing ever changing, and I submit intentional changes for the purpose of disrupting, interfaces with WMIRS, than they have on actual performance improvement over the last several years

If that time sunk down the black hole in #4 above had been free to improve systemes, we'd have some great capabilities that were widely distributed already.

The simple fact is, one-size does not necessarily fit all.  IMU is fantastic, for example, when you have a big mission with a lot of staff working on different things that needs to be integrated into a larger picture.  On smaller missions, however, the overhead consumes the benefits and it becomes a net-hindrance.

The point of an API to transfer data is that you could build a "Light" version of IMU that dealt with the "small" missions pretty quickly and easily.  We've got a guy on here who does iOS stuff, and he could probably crank out a mission management package that would run on an iPad in no-time if he had the interface to upload the data to WMIRS securely.  Me, I'd love to take the time to adapt the "Search Manager" application that you go through in the Inland SAR Planner's Course into a mission management platform...

However, NHQ will spend their contrained resources on blocking any attempt at that because they didn't invent it.

A couple of years ago I worked up a spec for an API, and all it really needs is 7 functions:

• Authenticate User
• Read Sortie Data
• Read Report Data*
• Create Sortie
• Delete Sortie*
• Modify Sortie Data
• Release Sortie**

* Optional but nice to have
** They may want to retain "Flight Release" as in-interface only, in which case this would not be needed.

Those functions, along with an XML data schema (so a field name for "Starting Tach" for example), and building an app to do things would be childs-play.

[JeffDG]

they are resource constrained.

Maybe, but there's no excuse for that whatsoever.

If outside contractors are doing this, then it's arguably FWA.  This should be an in-house project with members
from all over the country, and when resources are "constrained", bring in more.

At some point, it may come to the point that a submission to CAP-USAF/IG to that effect may be necessary.  I'm coming to the opinion that we need to include volunteer man-hours in the definition of "waste" for the purpose of FWA.

[RiverAux]

they are resource constrained.

Maybe, but there's no excuse for that whatsoever.

If outside contractors are doing this, then it's arguably FWA.  This should be an in-house project with members
from all over the country, and when resources are "constrained", bring in more.

At some point, it may come to the point that a submission to CAP-USAF/IG to that effect may be necessary.  I'm coming to the opinion that we need to include volunteer man-hours in the definition of "waste" for the purpose of FWA.

Are you kidding?  The military would probably consider this a fine example of a well managed inexpensive software rollout.  FWA is ludicrous. 

[JeffDG]

they are resource constrained.

Maybe, but there's no excuse for that whatsoever.

If outside contractors are doing this, then it's arguably FWA.  This should be an in-house project with members
from all over the country, and when resources are "constrained", bring in more.

At some point, it may come to the point that a submission to CAP-USAF/IG to that effect may be necessary.  I'm coming to the opinion that we need to include volunteer man-hours in the definition of "waste" for the purpose of FWA.

Are you kidding?  The military would probably consider this a fine example of a well managed inexpensive software rollout.  FWA is ludicrous.

If wasting volunteer time is considered a good thing, then NHQ should be swimming in medals.

[Eclipse]

Are you kidding?  The military would probably consider this a fine example of a well managed inexpensive software rollout.  FWA is ludicrous.

It's really not.  Just because the military is comfortable buying a new car when there is a flat tire, doesn't mean
CAP can afford the same attitude.

CAP purports 60,000 members, approximately 1/2 of which are adults (another area reality is somewhat "challenged".

Of those 30k, a significant number are IT professionals with direct and relevent experience and skill regarding these
types of systems, yet do you know of any public call for assistance in this regard?  Or is all being farmed out to
contractors (I don't know, but it should not be a secret).

If you do these kinds of things in-house for "free" and they have warts, no harm, it's free.

If you do these kinds of things using paid contractors and they work as promised, no harm, you
get what you pay for.

But when you use paid contractors and service providers, and what comes out is amateur in both UI design
and functionality, that is unacceptable and arguably FWA.

Seriously, the UI design alone is enough to be so embarrassing as to never release it, but the
click-though logic, such that it is, clearly shows that little to no user testing was ever done, and the
system is being created by either someone who is not a member, or has no idea how CAP actually works.
That or by someone who is taking a canned system and trying to squeeze CAP processes into the OOBE
instead of something that suits CAP's workflow.

In the grande scheme, eServices is both simple and "small", there are probably 10 off the shelf systems that could do it
with only a few weeks of setup, so if the insistence is "home-grown" with a helping of "not invented here"
as icing, it needs to be working on day one, and that goes double for a situation like this, where a fair number
of the bugs were, according to posters here, previously reported and yet apparently ignored.

This is no different then 39-1, where you had early arguing whining moaning collaboration and then in
the eleventh hour it sat on someone's desk, unaddressed, and then was published at the last minute with
plenty of issues, typos, and incorrect or improperly styled graphics.

CAP's ROI is based on leveraging the skills and abilities of the volunteers, and using what they bring to the table.
If everything is double-secret, and last-minute, then the ROI is broken from the get-go and ongoing.

[Fubar]

1)  There are 3 or 4 systems right now out there, not one for each wing

I would love to see a list. I'm aware of CAPSTAR and IMU, what are the others? Can other wings use them?

A couple of years ago I worked up a spec for an API, and all it really needs is 7 functions:

• Authenticate User
• Read Sortie Data
• Read Report Data*
• Create Sortie
• Delete Sortie*
• Modify Sortie Data
• Release Sortie**

* Optional but nice to have
** They may want to retain "Flight Release" as in-interface only, in which case this would not be needed.

Heck, just start read-only and prove the concept works.

[JeffDG]

1)  There are 3 or 4 systems right now out there, not one for each wing

I would love to see a list. I'm aware of CAPSTAR and IMU, what are the others? Can other wings use them?

Those two I'm familiar with...I guessed that there might be one or two I've not been exposed to, and erred on not excluding them.

A couple of years ago I worked up a spec for an API, and all it really needs is 7 functions:

• Authenticate User
• Read Sortie Data
• Read Report Data*
• Create Sortie
• Delete Sortie*
• Modify Sortie Data
• Release Sortie**

* Optional but nice to have
** They may want to retain "Flight Release" as in-interface only, in which case this would not be needed.

Heck, just start read-only and prove the concept works.

I'm missing two...there needs to be a "List Missions" (although without it you'd simply have to enter a "Mission Number" field rather than select one...not a huge issue) and a "List Sorties" function to work reasonably, but just drop the "Delete Sortie" (you can "Modify" it to "Cancelled"), and the"Release Sortie", and you're still at 7 functions for a fully-functional API.

Authentication could be done by one of the well-documented things like OAuth with tokens that expire periodically (so the application can't simply cache the user's credentials).

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Is the "Status Board" option working for anyone? I just released a flight, but the status board is not showing the sortie. I can see the members signed into the mission on the right side, but the sortie list is blank, even though the mission has multiple sorties and I just released one of them.

Sorties will not show up on the status board until a comm log entry has been added showing the flights actual ATD. It is also necessary to add an ATA before it will be removed from the status board.

Sorties will not show up as planned!

Spoke to NHQ, the status board is broken but will be fixed in the future.

However, if anyone knows the secret of getting the flights to showup on the status board as planned, I'm all ears   Note, the answer is not release them.

[Tim Medeiros]

If everyone here can do a better job than the devs at NHQ, why did you all not apply for the opening over the summer?  They even posted it a second time when the first round yielded no candidates who met the requirements (BS Degree in CS or related field, experience with C# or VB.NET, ASP.NET, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, AJAX).

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

If everyone here can do a better job than the devs at NHQ, why did you all not apply for the opening over the summer?  They even posted it a second time when the first round yielded no candidates who met the requirements (BS Degree in CS or related field, experience with C# or VB.NET, ASP.NET, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, AJAX).

Perhaps because some of us with that skill set could or would not

• Take a pay cut to work for CAP
• Move to AL
• Any other reason why one would keep their CAP service as a volunteer

As has  been mentioned many times here, there are CAP members skilled in IT Development that are already volunteering for CAP. Some would be willing to volunteer their professional services to CAP. With the proper development / QA / Production setup, some NDA on the PII these volunteers would run across and maybe some other small adjustments you could force multiply the IT development capability of NHQ by an order of magnitude or 2

The recent integration of the paid and volunteer NHQ staff apparently stopped dead at the door to IT

[Eclipse]

If everyone here can do a better job than the devs at NHQ, why did you all not apply for the opening over the summer?  They even posted it a second time when the first round yielded no candidates who met the requirements (BS Degree in CS or related field, experience with C# or VB.NET, ASP.NET, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, AJAX).

I don't honestly recall seeing a job posting - not saying it wasn't there, might have been one of those phantoms
that hits the RSS and disappears before you can click through.

As Phil implies, why is this a paid gig?

This should be on the volunteer side.  Isn't there a National ITO?  Why aren't web devs just part of that staff?
The current CMS may be complex, but that's by design and not necessary.  What we see publicly could be
replicated pretty closely with Google sites or Wordpress, and if it's standardized, then anyone with 1/2 a clue
could maintain it.

[JeffDG]

If everyone here can do a better job than the devs at NHQ, why did you all not apply for the opening over the summer?  They even posted it a second time when the first round yielded no candidates who met the requirements (BS Degree in CS or related field, experience with C# or VB.NET, ASP.NET, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, AJAX).

I don't honestly recall seeing a job posting - not saying it wasn't there, might have been one of those phantoms
that hits the RSS and disappears before you can click through.

As Phil implies, why is this a paid gig?

This should be on the volunteer side.  Isn't there a National ITO?  Why aren't web devs just part of that staff?
The current CMS may be complex, but that's by design and not necessary.  What we see publicly could be
replicated pretty closely with Google sites or Wordpress, and if it's standardized, then anyone with 1/2 a clue
could maintain it.

Instead of spending time trying to develop a mission management system, then releasing something that is about 1/4 done, instead just build a secure authenticated API and publish the specs for it.

Then you'll have some folks who want everything but (or perhaps including) the kitchen sink in a mission management package and you'll get IMU 4.0 (with the developers freed from chasing down every little UI change in WMIRS and posting data via the API, now able to make the thing work better), someone else will come up with a nice simple "SAREX on a Stick" that'll fit on a bootable USB key, another enterprising soul will come up with the Saskatchewan Wing Cadet Oride Management System (used a province instead of a real state to prevent parochialism) that will run Orides incredibly effectively within their wing's constraints.  The point being, they all feed NHQ the information NHQ needs for reporting (which is what the "R" in WMIRS stands for) back to them in a timely and accurate way.

[Eclipse]

APIs and similar standards are what is driving the current App economy, however the one thing
they are >not< is "invented here".

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I guess I did imply why a paid gig.

I do think we need some full time paid developers at NHQ. When the SHTF and somethings got to be fixed now! you need someone responsible for that.

In my mind the volunteers would do work on a non-production system with a good portion of "real data" (hence the NDA) as I believe made up test data will never be as messy as the real McCoy.  QA testing could be either paid staff or a combination with production deployment handled by the paid guys.

I do agree with the API idea One size does not fit all missions and there are times I'd much rather be able to work offline and upload as the situation allows. We might actually lose power / internet at an ICP and not be able to get online.

[Eclipse]

I guess I did imply why a paid gig.

I do think we need some full time paid developers at NHQ. When the SHTF and somethings got to be fixed now! you need someone responsible for that.

In my mind the volunteers would do work on a non-production system with a good portion of "real data" (hence the NDA) as I believe made up test data will never be as messy as the real McCoy.  QA testing could be either paid staff or a combination with production deployment handled by the paid guys.

I don't necessarily disagree, but by the same token, CAP expects members to drop everything and run out the door for missions, so that's
not much different then fixing a broken web server, plus between time zones and members with creative work schedules, odds are
a properly scaled team could handle whatever comes up - the days of an IT guy sitting in the same room / building / state as the servers
are already behind us - more and more people, including myself, telecommute as their primary job, some never touching the gear they support,
especially if it's in a data center.

There are also two scales to this, the public-facing website and WMIRS / eServices.

You can argue the latter is mission critical and needs professional support, but the former isn't.  It
doesn't generate revenue, isn't a news stream, and the resources there are not life or property critical.
The main website could absolutely be handled by volunteer staff, and in the unlikely event there was an outage
of even a day or two, who cares?

And we've already seen the glowing work the paid staff are doing with WMIRS / eServices. Even with
teams of volunteer testers and prolonged Beta cycles, things are still rolled out last-minute, missing features,
and in some cases simply broken, so the bar isn't exactly set at "Google" in terms of QOS.

[Larry Mangum]

I am putting together a top 5 / 10 list of things that should be a priority to fox or add to WMIRS 2.0. If you would like me to add your concerns to the list, please PM me.  I am asking you to PM me versus posing your request here because I want to compile the list and send it by Wednesday morning, so I don't have time to wade through all of the arguments and silliness, that arises at times here.

My first items, will be:

1. Usable status boards.
2. Printable ICS forms.
3. Mission / Budget expenditures.

[JeffDG]

Too bad they didn't have a WMIRS 2.0 "Working Committee" before they rolled it out.

One thing on my list:
1.  Authenticated API for querying and updating data in WMIRS.

The rest we can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I am putting together a top 5 / 10 list of things that should be a priority to fox or add to WMIRS 2.0. If you would like me to add your concerns to the list, please PM me.  I am asking you to PM me versus posing your request here because I want to compile the list and send it by Wednesday morning, so I don't have time to wade through all of the arguments and silliness, that arises at times here.

My first items, will be:

1. Usable status boards.
2. Printable ICS forms.
3. Mission / Budget expenditures.

PM'd you and adding here for discussion by others:

Thanks for doing this Larry.  Here are some suggestions from the CAWG WIMRS Support team.

1. Major changes to the Air and Ground Sortie Grids as follows:
a. Change Approval/Status field as follows:
i. Change "Approved" to a non confusing name such as "Accepted"
ii. Add "e108 Submitted"
iii. Add "e108 Wing Approved" or "e108 Approved"

b. Add the following columns to the Air Grid
i.RELEASED
ii.Call Sign,
iii.Mission Symbol,
iv.Estimated Hours,
v.Actual Hours
vi.Gallons
vii.Fuel Cost
viii.Area of Operations - Quick view of where aircraft
ix.WMIRS Sortie Purpose (objective) (Not in WMIRS 2.0)- For SAREX and RWM - Quick view of Assignment in grid and Status Board is vital

c. Add the following columns to the Ground Grid:
CAPID/License
Make/Model
Call Sign
Miles Driven
Fuel
Gallons

d. Change the Grids to allow for column choosing so each user can customize based upon their needs.

e. Combine the Edit, Brief, and Debrief links into the left most column, possibly use icons to reduce the column height.

2. Add the ability to print ICS 211, 214, 218, 309 Reports in case of a power failure

3. CAP104a:
a. Incorporate F104a information into Debrief, including auto calculation of POD
b. Add ability to enter clues for use by PSC

4. Incorporate F104b information into Debrief with the ability to save the photos, associated shot data, and the metadata. I know we have CAP Uploader and FEMA but there are some missions where public FEMA storage may not be appropriate.

5. Ability to run a single WMIRS 2.0 mission at a base without internet and then merge after the exercise.

6. Disable "Enter New Mission" unless you are an IC or are in an Ops or ES Duty Assignment (or are specifically given this access by someone in a Wing Ops/ES role). Way too many individual pilots mistakenly using this when all they meant to do was Add Sortie for a proficiency flight.