Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Further the idea of logistics support in army aviation

Let's ponder my vaguely descriptive post about my trials and tribulations in army aviation. The current program does work, but how to we get it to work better, with less time "looking" for stuff.

To answer a question from the comments of the original post, this program is more of an Aviation Logistics Support/Maintenance Help idea.

Take a problem with an aircraft, let's say the number 1 engine (if it's a multiengine airframe, that would be the farthest to the left when look from back to front) doesn't start. When the fault is entered, the program will "help" the maintainers by bringing up a troubleshooting tree in the manual, and then moving through the steps with the maintainer. Current programs out there (as current as 2012) allow for a Technical Manual to do this, but not the actual logbook that stores all aircraft information. It would work almost like a hyperlink.

Who could benefit?

1) Department of Defense- One program helps the defense budget cut down by allowing one program, written by one company, to do what 2 or more programs do now. While this may seem like a monopoly, it's only for one facet of the Department of Defense, and not for creating unfair business practices.

2) Maintainers- The one stop shop of a program creates less lost time "looking" between two or more programs to get a job fixed. Less lost time creates a better "operational readiness" outlook.

3) Commercial airlines- If the program works for the largest organization in the world, why wouldn't it work in the private sector as well? All companies are worried about profit, and a simple, or not so simple, program could create less spending on technology.

One day this idea will come to life, or maybe it's in the works. Either way, technology is taking over businesses at a fast rate, to help move things faster and faster.

1 comment:

  1. Very helpful elaboration. As a side note clearly commercial airlines are an interesting future client, but I probably wouldn't put them down as a stakeholder for the initial system. I'd be keen to focus on individuals or groups who'd have a strong stake in the initial development.