How bad is bocs
Thread Starter
How bad is bocs
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!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
...why are the Ops Support branch not in charge?
Last edited by opso; 17th Feb 2007 at 22:07.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is an Ops management/ planning system, why are the Ops Support branch not in charge?
Any requests from Aircrew would have been answered with "No", "No you can't" or "No it won't".
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?
Or should it be the "Computer says naow" Branch?
Fat Albert
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wilts, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Much like the failed attempt to manage Eng Auths on JPA which has wasted 100s of manhours.
Poorly thought through and underfunded.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by FormerFlake; 17th Feb 2007 at 17:42.
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.
I am going to hold my tongue about my feelings towards BOCs and the basics that it currently fails to do.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...would suite 2 Gps needs very well actually...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.