Flight Log -- any good experiences?

[BugOutWest]

Flight Log is a right royal pain. The projected flying programme works OK, but the input system takes ages, whether you are putting together a flying programme, adjusting your input, walking for a flight or trying to sign back in after a trip.
It reminds me of the ghastly maintenance log system that we had to use when signing in GR1s at Laarbruch years ago -- not good.
But that's just me whinging; has anyone got something good to say. Bear in mind that this system will be RAF-wide soon ...
BOW

[Roland Pulfrew]

Yes Thanks. Lots of good ones. Give it a chance - you might actually quite like it - once you get used to it. It isn't that difficult!!

If you think it's too difficult try contacting the company - they are eminently flexible and can look at any concerns you may have. Don't forget though that some units have been using this programme for quite a few years and it was developed for flying training units so might take a bit of time to meet OCU needs. Trust me it's a LOT more user friendly than some of the competition!!

What news on Bear in mind that this system will be RAF-wide soon ? I understood it was FT units and 1 Gp OCUs only at the moment.

[R 21]

Is this the same as STARs that is appearing on SH units? STARs is useful if not time consuming to use.

[rudekid]

Bear in mind that this system will be RAF-wide soon ...

Err, no it won't...

I also though that FL was pretty good at L-O-O when I was there, it didn't crash, was quick enough and a useful management tool to boot. I've seen plenty of worse attempts at this sort of software. Most of the issues are with station network capablities and not the programme.

STARS likewise is a solid bet. Lyneham's had it for a while and after a few teething issues, it's turned into a useful bit of kit. I believe Odiham feel the same way, but standby to be corrected!

[Roland Pulfrew]

R21

Is this the same as STARs that is appearing on SH units?

No. STARS and Flight Log are very different. Personally I hated STARS when it first arrived on my unit. IMHO, STARS was computerisation for compterisation sake and certainly nowhere near as useful or user friendly as Magiboards and Magnetic tape. - has it improved?

[BugOutWest]

I've tried it for over a year now, and I am afraid that the company is taking the RAF for a ride. The interface is awfully clunky, and the recent upgrade seems to have made that worse. I am a great one for gadgets, but they have to be useful and this isn't ...

... the latest upgrade is based on what the Typhoon sqns want, apparently.

[McDuff]

I don't believe so. Flight Log is basically a database on an Oracle server. You plan your flying programme and input it via any networked PC that has the application installed. The fg prog is then available for anyone to view on that network, using a standard browser. Each sortie is "walked" by the captain in eng ops, that's easy enough; but putting the sortie times and details in when signing in is tedious.
In addition, it takes ages to input the fg prog mainly because of the ponderous interface. Inputting in retrospect (if you fly when the system has crashed) is very ponderous and takes an age. Changing details on each sortie is slow, perhaps because of the server response, but perhaps because it is bloated code. The latest update has produced a pretty decent flying programme for projection on the Smart Board (this is an expensive setup overall), but the interface is unwieldy.
It will make chaps in a rush mightily pi**ed off. It will be a bit like the times we used to be out-briefing in Germany when a BIRDTAM would come in and take out the majority of our L-L route ...
Oh, and have I mentioned how unwieldy the interface is? :-)
McDuff

[vecvechookattack]

Sounds as though this isn't a good system. Whats wrong with writing the flying programme on a piece of paper? or using a spreadsheet? or magnetic tallys on a board?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Is Flight Log the same as Flight Pro?

Perhaps not surprisingly Flight LOG is not the same as Flight PRO!!! Equally Flight LOG and Flight PRO are not the same as STARS. Strangely they have different names, perhaps to denote that they are different!!! Flight Pro is, IIRC, provided by Ocean Software and is f***ing expensive. Flight Log is provided, IIRC, by Jet Data and is (in IT terms) a bargain, and STARS is provided by......

Much as I hate to agree with VVHA (:{) none of them are as good as a perspex and chinagraph or magiboard and magnetic tile display (except you cant network either of them).

[RobinXe]

Flightlog actually has some pretty cool and useful features to it, when implemented properly, but its biggest downfall seems to be it's interface; it is not particularly intuitive, and even once you've learnt it, its still not as easy as it could be.

Worth it? Depends on the application.

[BEagle]

Roland - I couldn't agree more. STARS was an utter crock when it came in - and it was forced on us by the truckies who didn't undertsand our needs..... It wasn't even possible to move trips vetically to another FI, for example.

It used to waste hours of my time waiting for every small change to rattle over to the server and back and it could never optimise - and it was also visible to everybody during the creation phase. Thye had no idea which plans were definite and which were still under construction. It was merely electric paper and I loathed it with a vengeance.

In days of yore, providing the sqn planners with a list of assets and training tasks for the following week and allowing them to optimise a plan based on the overall sqn needs worked far better. Let the experts do their jobs! Although the one good point about STARS was that it wasn't as easy for the Boss to steal trips.

Planning a UAS programme was more fun though. How many ac, how many QFIs (don't forget to allow longer for one miserable old git's excessive briefs and demand for an hour off at lunchtime), how many students. Sit at the desk at 1600 whilst one of the girls wrote out the next day's magnetic plaques, then get another to move them to the right part of the board. You could visualise the day's overall plan very easily - amongst other things....:E

[BugOutWest]

It used to waste hours of my time waiting for every small change to rattle over to the server and back and it could never optimise - and it was also visible to everybody during the creation phase. Thye had no idea which plans were definite and which were still under construction. It was merely electric paper and I loathed it with a vengeance.

Flight Log suffers from server lag as well, that's not my main gripe with it. The interface is ghastly and counter-intuitive. It takes ages, because of the poor interface, to change things; and logging the trip when you walk back in is truly frustrating. More to the point, no one seems to be monitoring the contract, no one's in charge except for the local OICs ...

BOW

[Baskitt Kase]

Strangely they have different names, perhaps to denote that they are different!!!Doesn't always work like that though. There was STARS and STARS, despite them being different programs. (Until we got our hands on them at LYE and made them in to AMS, that is).
It takes ages, because of the poor interface, to change things; and logging the trip when you walk back in is truly frustrating. More to the point, no one seems to be monitoring the contract, no one's in charge except for the local OICs ...
Not seen it, but it really can't be worse than BOCS which falls in to the trap of trying to be all things for all men and so become nothing for everyone!

[cockanelli]

Sorry, Roland. I couldn't disagree more. Flightlog is s**t. Slow and with an unbelievable amount of glitches that are unfixable unless support bloke (Mike someone-or-other) happens to be in the country at the time. The amount of times I have seen a full line of a/c unable to move because Flightlog has crashed and someone hasn't had the foresight to keep a magnetic board. It is a typical RAF solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It is computerising for the sake of computerising.

[332mistress]

Sounds like these systems will be up for awards soon - just like JPA:yuk:

332M

[Jobza Guddun]

Emgineering has had these issues for years. It's called LITS and we often spend longer trying to input data than it took to do the job, or even writing out paper job cards. Progress eh?

Why does the RAF insist on as much as possible being computerised when we just don't have the spec required of our PC's to run the software? When deployed the problems are enormous - for instance the latest maintenance manuals have been moved onto a system called Trilogiview and when we have to move onto laptops (i.e every detachment), the thing is almost (but not quite) unusable it's so slow. Only works OK from a server i.e at the MOB!

Call me a dinosaur but my job was simpler/quicker/more efficient/therefore more productive with hard copy AP's, magiboards and minimal IT. Seems to me aircrew are now finding the same thing - IT is not always the best way. Is this another system for you to input sorties as well as LITS and RASDA?

JG