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!

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

JG,

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

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!!!)

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

Ah, thank you!!!!

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. :)

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

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.

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.

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 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. 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.I know viz...I ask myself the same thing daily! ;)

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".

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.