How bad is bocs

[mymatetcm]

This must be the most pointless introduction of technology that has ever existed. Total pandemonium dont know what is happening from one day to the next. Discuss!

[FormerFlake]

It was designed by aircrew, what do you expect?:ugh: :ugh:

[threepointonefour]

JG,

If only aircrew has "desing"ed it. Whatever it is.

[Olly O'Leg]

Sorry boys, I'm struggling - what on Earth is BOCS, apart from Boeing Operational Control System? (I'm sure the 707 wasn't fly-by-wire!!!)

[FormerFlake]

BOCS is the new Ops Management/planning system brought in by 2 Gp.

[Olly O'Leg]

Ah, thank you!!!!

[clicker]

albeit I comment as an outsider but would have thought someone in UK could have designed a package for you.

Bet its full of America'isms that are not good for us. ie, fly from usa to uk, gain a medal, fly back, get another. :)

[Specaircrew]

If the RAF wants a dog it buys a cat and tries to modify it!

[BEagle]

No mate - if the RAF wants a pedigree Labrador, it goes to the animal sanctuary for a cheap Heinz 57 mutt which looks Labrador-ish, then spends a fortune on trying to make it meet the breed standard with expensive surgery.....

Or if it needs to replace an old car*, it keeps the old heap going whilst trying to fool Hertz/Avis into leasing it a new one for the next 25 years rather than getting a bank loan for it - having been too stupid to budget for a replacement in the first place. Then thinks that the leasing deal will actually be cheaper......


















*or fleet of AT/AAR aircraft.

[opso]

I've talked recently to the guy working himself to death trying to make it work. So to clear some of the pointless claims here with info that came to me from the horse's mouth and then we get on with complaining about the software instead:

The specification was set by aircrew.
BOCS exceeds the specification originally set (alledgedly, the crewing module was specified by 13 bullet points!)
Each RAF ProjO (we are on the 3rd) has been aircrew.
The software is commercial and has been designed by the companies producing it. (Jeppesen is US and APM is Swiss).
The bloke working for the current ProjO and trying to solve the problems (ex aircrew) is surprisingly frank about the project.
We first looked seriously at receiving it this Jan, about 3 weeks before it arrived.

[FormerFlake]

Is was originally supposed to come in in April 2005. I went to a presentation by the project team in about October 2004 were they ignored the many valid points presented to them.

I feel sorry for all the hard working Ops staff at Brize and Lyneham who are going to be lumbered with yet another system to keep updated. Good luck to you all.

[opso]

Is was originally supposed to come in in April 2005.I wasn't getting at the ever sliding delivery date, rather our preparations for it. We didn't start any serious local training until Jan this year with the swap planned for Feb. Despite difficulties with manning etc, it's hard for us to argue convincingly that this wasn't at least partially our fault as our first trainers went on their courses a year ago and a stand-alone training system has sat idle here for more than 6 months. And the '1-man team' tells me that we were better prepared than most. I went to a presentation by the project team in about October 2004 were they ignored the many valid points presented to them.How do you know they were ignored? I thought you left the RAF and country in 2005? According to the current S/L with this on his plate (you know him, just like you know me), 3 applications have been dumped and replaced by something better since you raised your 'many valid points'. Or were you valid points as well informed then as now? If so, I can see that they would have been ignored....why are the Ops Support branch not in charge?I know viz...I ask myself the same thing daily! ;)

[ProfessionalStudent]

If it is an Ops management/ planning system, why are the Ops Support branch not in charge?

Because the branch is full of failures and half-wits.:E

Any requests from Aircrew would have been answered with "No", "No you can't" or "No it won't".

[BEagle]

So, I guess the Phone Answering Branch isn't quite the resounding success it was supposed to be?

Or should it be the "Computer says naow" Branch?

[C130 Techie]

It seems that no consideration was given to any requirment for Engineering input into this system (an integral part of flying operations you would think?). As a consequence the already maxed out Eng Ops Controllers are having to juggle BOCS and an additional database for Engineering input (without any prior training) instead of STARS which seemed perfectly adequate.

Much like the failed attempt to manage Eng Auths on JPA which has wasted 100s of manhours.

Poorly thought through and underfunded.

[FormerFlake]

OpsO,

I didn't claim I made valid points, just that valid points were made. And how do I know the points were ignored? This is 2 Gp we are talking about.

I'm sure the S/L (I though he was leaving?) who is trying to get it working is the best person for the job and will do his very best to get it sorted. I hope for his sanitiy and all those involved that BOCS can do the job.

However,

In all fairness, ops planning/management systems are a complete nightmare. It does not matter how well designed they are, how clever they are how much they automate functions. At the end of the day they are only as good as the information entered into them. This either has to come from companies like Jepessen or manual entry. In most cases it is manual entry that is used for most data and this is were most systems fall down. The system I use in my civy job is not too bad (would suite 2 Gps needs very well actually) and is used to plan and manage more flights in 1 month than 2 Gp fly in a year. We also have more aircraft types and fly to more different airfields in a month than 2 Gp would fly to in a year. Yet still, when it really comes down to it you need manpower to make it all work. Some one has to physically enter data, check automated warnings and so on. Manpower is something 2 Gp and the Stns sadly do not have (and we don't really have either). Plus 2 Gp also have the added issues of COMSEC and I would be suprised (and pleased) if those issues have been fully sorted out with BOCS.

[London Mil]

Is BOCS part of MFMIS? If so, the whole thing is a crock.

[plans123]

No, its not. MFMIS is yet another system that has promised so much, but yet to materialise.

I am going to hold my tongue about my feelings towards BOCs and the basics that it currently fails to do.

[Baskitt Kase]

...would suite 2 Gps needs very well actually...That's the sort of thinking that got us in to this mess! Would it cover all the Tac AT sorties, dropping and landing at places that aren't on a civvy database? Would it cope with AAR sorties, planning towline trade? Would it handle all of our BTRs - far more than any civvy airline uses? Would it handle all the robbing, extensions and frigging about that has to be done by the engineers to keep the RAF Historic (AT) Fleet airborne? Would it survive life on a cruddy network that goes down more times than my first wife did even when we were dating? The answer is probably no to all of those. Recommending something that works for a civvy taxi service or bucket and spades airline and insisting that it should work for us too is what has landed us with BOCS. We should have software designed for the job, even if it means having it built to order!

[FormerFlake]

I am not reccomending the system I use, but it might have been a good starting point. You have to be realstic, you are not going to get software exactly desigined for the job. Even the civies don't get exactly what they want, so what chance does the RAF have? What 2 Gp needs is manpower and there is not enough money for that, or a custom made system.

What 2 Gp can do is bring what it does more in line with what the civies do. Im not talking about tow lines, TAC etc, but they should be able to close the gulf between the 2 Gp's way and the civy way. I have seen both sides of the fence Ops wise and the gulf can be closed. If BOCS in some ways can help it has to be a good things, as long as COMSEC/OPSEC is not comprimised.

Im not an engineer so will leave it to those in the know to comment on that side of things.

[Hardly Worth it]

Never heard of it ! Will it be on the same timescale as MFMIS ???

[plans123]

Unless your working in 2Gp, you won't see it. MFMIS is 'meant' to be RAF wide..........................

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

BOCS is some sort of code for pants, trying to work with it but it's truly awful :(

[plans123]

Isn't it an abbreviation for BOll0CkS :E

[CounterSunk]

This must be the most pointless introduction of technology that has ever existed. Total pandemonium dont know what is happening from one day to the next.


Pandemonium indeed. The technology may be in it's infancy, but how can it be expected to succeed when the bearer network (ie, the station LAN) is possibly the most unreliable, poorly ran system in the MOD? How many more times is it going to be allowed to 'crash' before someone takes note and either puts a hand in their pocket or employs accomplished support staff?

[1000CC'soffun]

Best get the boards out again. One or two Sqns at Brize have done just that. It's causing no amount of grief, I am not a BOCS planner, so don't have the privilages, but if the planner aint there I can't get my flying program off the PC by A.N other if I phone up. (From home on a well earned day off)

Aha, its a cunning plan to get everyone in to work every day to check their (2) weekly program. A program that's almost certainly changed 4 times over the last 25 minutes anyway.:ugh:

[BEagle]

BOCS?

Better Off with a Chinagraph, Surely?

Well, that's what it sounds like!

The sqn planners used to do a pretty good job in the days before computer-hindered planning (the appallingly slow and cumbersome 'STARS' :mad: ) was inflicted upon them. All we needed to do as trainers was give them our requests and availabilities for the week and they would integrate them seamlessly into the main programme as they had the big picture of aircraft availability, crew availability, tasking.....and which trips the wheels wanted to steal, of course.

When the VC10C1K first appeared and 10 started doing AAR, a certain 101 Sqn OC whinged like hell when he saw the week's programme - 101 had picked up several Nimrod and Herc borexes which he resented, since 10 had been allocated quite a few decent FJ towlines..... He ranted at the planners (who were well used to dealing with d*ckheads) for accepting such an unbalanced programme.

Finally, an experienced Spec Aircrew planner turned to him and said "Well, sir - I'm sure if you paid for a centreline hose on the C1K, then they'd be quite happy to do a few Herc trips for you....."

Micro-managing idiot! Let planners do their jobs, have a say in how they do so - and about the tools they need to do so. Presumably they had a say in this BOCS thing? Not another EDS product, is it?

Mind you, planning up to 50 trips a day on ULAS was much more fun with several delightful young ladies assisting with the process. Sure beat the hell out of keyboards and screens!!

[CounterSunk]

Further to my last, I tried to log a fault with my PC, which I duly reported to the recently well advertised 'SPOC'

I was eventually transferred to an unspecified helpdesk (it wasn't my parent Station) by a Whitehall operator.

Wonderful. Is the lack of IT support at station level (particularly BOCs at my Station) a sign of things to come?

[Baskitt Kase]

I see that sense has won the day for once and BOCS is being dumped! :) The project team were over hear today and told that we are going back to AMS. They probably don't care because they're being disbanded along with the project shut down.

Now to get rid of JPA, capped actuals and receipts!

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

I see that sense has won the day for once and BOCS is being dumped! :) The project team were over hear today and told that we are going back to AMS. They probably don't care because they're being disbanded along with the project shut down.


I don't think it can be fully shut down as the mission planning / transops still need to be done somewhere.
Probably just the crewing aspect will get done on AMS.

[XFTroop]

Erm, this is getting spookily like the Generic thread???
XFT

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

To save face and justify the 5 million plus spent on it it will no doubt continue to exist in some shape or format but thank god for those Sqn Cdr's who had the fore sight to bin it early..........................:rolleyes:

[Sinjmajeep]

Its a shame the other lot along the corridor are sticking with it.

[TheInquisitor]

You have to be realstic, you are not going to get software exactly desigined for the job.

Wrong. This is PRECISELY what we had with STARS. Once it had evolved into AMS, it was a complete solution that was perfectly suited to our requirements. The 'slow' factor was down to network bandwidth, a problem that largely went away once the network infrastructure was upgraded.

STARS / AMS gave you EXACTLY the information you required, instantly, in an easily understood format. It didn't have a million-and-one other functions that we simply don't need slowing it down. It would, on startup, take you straight to a graphical display of your section's programme. With one click, you got all the info required about a task. It didn't have crew's names reduced to an indecipherable 4-letter code. It didn't contain masses of pointless civvy terminology. In short, it was PERFECTLY suited to our needs and worked very well for several years before they effectively turned it off. We too have been forced to go back to boards for programming.

Oh, and it didn't have a complete nobber as a ProjO......:}

What 2 Gp can do is bring what it does more in line with what the civies do
So we should change the way we do things just to suit an unsuitable piece of software?

"Dog from Tail....wag, over"......

I hope rumours of it's demise are true - if Gp want to keep it as an IATS replacement, then hey - go nuts, guys! Just don't try to make us use it for programming. Give us our AMS back!

[c130jbloke]

Oh, and it didn't have a complete nobber as a ProjO......

Not quite true there....

The man in question has put as insane amount of time and effort into trying to make BOCS work - for YOUR benifit !!

For him 14+ hr days are the norm and despite the current limitations of the system its not down to a lack of effort on his part.

As for the rest of the wingeing about BOCS posted thus far, if the system had the proper support it requires it would be fully task ready now, and giving everybody from DTMA down to the junior bod on the Sqn the synergy of information it CAN provide ( once the bugs are sorted :ugh: )

Hope this helps !

[Pontius Navigator]

And MFMIS? Is it about to change deferred success to current use? Got my SMU off on a course this week.:)

[TheInquisitor]

Quote:
Oh, and it didn't have a complete nobber as a ProjO......
Not quite true there....
The man in question has put as insane amount of time and effort into trying to make BOCS work - for YOUR benifit !!
For him 14+ hr days are the norm and despite the current limitations of the system its not down to a lack of effort on his part.
At no point did I suggest he wasn't working hard enough.
As for the rest of the wingeing about BOCS posted thus far, if the system had the proper support it requires it would be fully task ready now, and giving everybody from DTMA down to the junior bod on the Sqn the synergy of information it CAN provide ( once the bugs are sorted )
It doesn't have any 'bugs' - it works just as it is supposed to! The problem is that it is entirely unsuitable for our purposes. We do not NEED a "complete synergy of information" (careful - my bingo card is filling up!) - as a section programmer, you need to know, at a glance, what each task is and how you are required to fill it. BOCS does not provide this, and only provides any useful information after wading through a plethora of menus and options and stripping out all the useless info (95% of it). It has been taking around 10 times longer to programme your section with BOCS than it did previously. It is quicker and more reliable to do it on chinagraph boards - which is what everybody has gone back to. That is a step backwards in anybody's book, and no amout of w@nk-word spouting is going to alter that fact.

As a concept, it's fine (one database tracking ALL of 2 Gp activities). It's just that each end user has greatly varying requirements - section desks do not need the same info as DTMA programmers who do not need the same info as HFHQ programmers who do not need.........etc, etc.
We had a system that was perfect for the coal-face - it was called AMS and did everything we needed. Put a new front end on BOCS that replicates exactly what AMS did, and all will be well. Until then, back to chinagraph boards it is.