FAA-NIAC-NAS-USAF ALL DoD Systems deliberately setup to be False Flag Hacked

[Anti_Illuminati]

Executive Summary
The National Airspace System (NAS) Architecture was developed to provide a high level overview of the behavioral characteristics that will be intrinsic to the NAS in 2005.  It describes significant changes that must be made in and outside the FAA to meet the needs of airspace users, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness, while accommodating global growth of airspace.  A critical characteristic of the NAS is interoperability—the capability to exchange data and information between and among applications and platforms.

In January 1997 representatives of several FAA organizations which share understanding of the objectives described in the Architecture joined to form the NAS Information Architecture Committee (NIAC).  The NIAC’s purpose is to guide, direct and coordinate the establishment and future management of information-based processes and procedures that will accomplish interoperability of systems across the NAS via data standardization and data exchange.  NIAC co-chairs assembled a steering committee and obtained funding from other FAA organizations to design and conduct a conference to increase understanding of the implications of sharing NAS information.  The steering committee met weekly from December 1997 to April 1998 to plan a 2-day conference for the FAA, selected government agencies, and contractors who are supporting NAS operational systems.  The committee identified six important issues surrounding interoperability and prepared a list of NAS “stakeholders” who should be invited to participate in discussion of those issues.

The conference, “Achieving Interoperability with a NAS Common Data Architecture”, held April 21 and 22, 1998 is the first of several participatory symposia on issues of interoperability.  Support for the conference theme was presented in letters from the FAA Administrator, Ms. Jane Garvey and the Acting Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, Mr. Ron Morgan.  The conference theme was also underscored in the conference keynote address given by Dr. Anne Harlan, the Director of the W.J. Hughes Technical Center, as well as the other presentations made by key FAA staff, ATM experts from EuroControl, and the renowned Systems Architect, Dr. Eberhardt Rechtin.  Almost 200 FAA managers, systems engineers, analysts and contractor staff then participated in six parallel “Work Sessions” on the key issues, and presented recommended approaches to the full session at the end of the conference.  The primary goals of the two-day conference were not only met, but several were exceeded.

These goals include:  promoting awareness of the process for defining a data architecture, determining how the pieces of an integrated environment fit together, starting to develop a transition strategy, identifying areas needing further technical development, and beginning a collaborative process to change the culture.  The conference produced a series of individual Work Group Action Plans or “next steps” towards achieving interoperablity with a NAS Common Data Architecture.  The conference also produced a great number of participants who enthusiastically volunteered to participate in follow-activities with their respective conference work groups.  Other significant conference outcomes were the development of a draft FAA Policy on a Global Aviation Information Management System and tasking to identify interoperability opportunities within Free Flight Phase 1 (FFPI) and follow-on phases.  These activities will be further expanded at the next NIAC sponsored conference that will grow to include other NAS system users and providers from the Aviation Community.

In general, the plans of action include action items that are definitive, concrete, and measurable.  Some of the action items overlap among the work groups and some may overlap with existing or planned NAS initiatives.  Some plans identify specific individuals or groups to take action by a specified date, but most assume that the NIAC will take the lead and accomplish the action items within a reasonable time frame.
The first tier action items from each of the six work groups’ plans of action are as follows:

ES-3
GROUP 1: MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN
1.   Draft FAA policy on Global Aviation Information Management System (GAIMS).
2.   Initiate Free Flight Phase I (FFPI) under the “interoperability” concept:
2.1 Baseline FFP1: Data Model
2.2 Identify Data and Develop Tools to Support Metrics
2.3 Correct Site Adaptation Problems
2.4 Identify Interoperability Opportunities for Follow-On FF Phases and NAS-Wide System
Development Activities
GROUP 2. NAS DATA QUALITY ACTION PLAN
1. Develop a Matrix of National, Local, & System versus Policies, Standards, & Data Structures.
2. Create an Expanded Data Dictionary.
3. List goals for data quality.
4. Describe why requirements for DQ are necessary.
5. Describe why data should be accessible to needed party.
GROUP 3. NAS BUSINESS OBJECTS ACTION PLAN
1. Establish a work group to determine theScope, Outcome, and Metrics, Process(es).
2. Identify, address group learning needs.
3. Identify, gather what’s been done so far.
4. Determine what needs to be done, including coordination, integration, etc.  Look at sharing of data—ownership and management and make recommendations for NAS-wide implementation.

GROUP 4. NAS FLIGHT INFORMATION OBJECT (FIO) ACTION PLAN
1. Establish Dialog with Service Providers, Users and producers of major ATC DSS tools, e.g., CDM, CTAS, URET, and SMA.
2. Define and Produce Standards for the FIO.
3. Produce Operational Requirements for the FIO.
4. Define Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with Air Traffic Service Providers and Users to define Operational Requirements.
GROUP 5. TRANSITION TO INTEROPERABILITY ACTION PLAN
1. Establish coordinated Metadata Repository under CM.
2. Develop process for prioritizing/categorizing data to be shared.
3. Develop process for defining interface/integration standards for interoperability across stovepipes.
4. Get NIAC Charter signed at the Associate level.
5. Incorporate process & organization to proceed with development of the Data Architecture in sync with the next version of the NAS Architecture.
GROUP 6. NAS-wide INFORMATION SYSTEM (NIS) PERFORMANCE 1. Identify who the Users are.
2. Identify how many users have to be serviced.
3. Identify how to define metrics of each performance requirement; Identify design review and set intervals between acceptance testing; and Identify all approaches.
4. Identify how to prioritize when multiple users wish concurrent access.  5. Identify how to translate operational requirements into specific information architectural performance requirements.

ES-4
Based on a review of the work group plans of action, the major post-conference responsibility of the NIAC is to develop an overall action plan to achieve these conference outcomes through a well-planned, realistic and coordinated effort.  To this end, the NIAC will set up a core group made up of members of the Conference Planning Committee to oversee and follow through on the achievement of conference outcomes.  The NIAC will first identify common and unique action items among the six work groups’ plans of action.  The NIAC will also develop a listing of ongoing NAS initiatives in order to identify those action items that are already under way or in the planning stages.

Based on the results of these two parallel efforts, the NIAC will finalize an action plan that sets up subcommittees/work groups to carry out the above-cited plans of action.  These subcommittees/work groups will scope out the action items, specify specific individuals/groups to carryout those action items, and specify realistic timeframes.  In some cases, the subcommittees/work groups may reflect one or more of the conference work groups.  However, the NIAC will set up subcommittees/work groups that will incorporate the common action items among the six work groups as well as common action items with ongoing or planned NAS initiatives.

The full texts of all speeches, letters, presentations, and work group plans of actions are provided on the NIAC web page(http://www.faa.gov/niac).  Additionally, the NIAC will continue to track progress on the work groups’ plans of action.  Results and updates will be presented at the monthly NIAC meetings and posted periodically on the web page.  NIAC meetings are held on the last Thursday of each month; see the web page for time and place.

1
1.0
PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTIVE REPORT
The NAIC Data Architecture Conference Proceedings Executive Report presents a comprehensive overview of major speeches, presentations, and work group action plans from the NIAC Data Architecture Conference held on April 21-22, 1998 at the Mitretek conference facility.  The report is made up of three major sections. Section 1 presents the background and purpose of the conference, the conference goals and objectives and the Conference Agenda.  Section 2 contains highlights of the speeches/letters from the General Session and an overview of the purpose and scope of the work groups.  Section 3 presents a summary of conference outcomes and recommendations.  The full texts of all speeches, letters, presentations, and workgroup plans of actions are provided on the NIAC webpage (http://www.faa.gov/niac).

1.1 Background and Purpose of the Conference

The NAS may be viewed as an information system of systems that collectively support all air operations in the US and certain oceanic areas.  Viewed in this light, the NAS can be divided conceptually into three parts:

1.   Sources of information necessary to perform air operations.
2.   Users, who use the information to perform air operations and who, in the course of performing them, produce additional information.
3.   Access and management of the information between sources and users.

The NAS Architecture is developed to provide a high level overview of the behavioral characteristics that will be intrinsic to the NAS in 2005.  It describes significant changes that are needed to meet the needs of users, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness, while accommodating global growth of airspace.  A critical characteristic is interoperability—the capability to exchange data and information between and among applications and platforms.

The NAS Architecture clearly recognizes that the exchange of NAS data and information cannot occur without standards-compliant data and information.  To achieve interoperability the NAS Architecture will rely on multiple standards, including networking, data modeling, data administration, data security, Data Base Management System (DBMS), and open systems environments.  The NAS Information Architecture Committee (NIAC) was formed in January 1997 to guide, direct and coordinate the establishment and future maintenance of information-based processes and procedures that will enable interoperability of systems across the NAS via data standardization and data exchange at the minimum cost consistent with high quality.  The Committee operates under the auspices of the Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions (ARA) and designates various Working Groups to provide advice, recommendations, research and studies.

In 1997, the NIAC authorized the Data Architecture Conference Planning Committee to begin planning for a Data Architecture Conference to be held in the third fiscal quarter of FY 1998. The Data Architecture Conference Planning Committee met on weekly basis from December 1997 through April 1998 to design, develop, and conduct the proposed conference.  A list of the conference planning committee is provided on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac) and can be downloaded.

This conference, entitled a Series of Participatory Symposia and Colloquia on Understanding the Implications of Sharing NAS 2 Information,”is intended for the FAA to lay the groundwork for continued planning to address the vital issues surrounding interoperability. The conference is jointly sponsored by the:

•   Office of Air Traffic Systems Development (ARA/AUA)
•   Office of System Architecture and Investment Analysis (ARA/ASD)
•   Office of Information Technology/Chief Scientist for Software Engineering (ARA/AIT)
•   Office of Telecommunication Support and International Communications (ATS/AOP)
The conference is the first of several forums to address other NAS Data Architecture issues as well as expand the participation throughout the aviation community.

1.2 Conference Goals and Objectives

The purpose of the conference is to pave the way for achieving a NAS common data architecture to accomplish interoperability as required by A Concept of Operations for the National Airspace System in 20051 and the NAS Architecture.

The conference is designed for NAS stakeholders to confer on the critical issues surrounding an integrated information architecture in order to achieve an infrastructure that will be created incrementally.  The underlying goals of the two-day conference are to:

1. Promote awareness and understanding of the process, structure, standards and requirements for defining a data architecture for an effective and affordable NAS information system infrastructure;
2. Begin to answer how all the pieces fit together in an integrated environment, concentrating on reducing the interfaces among systems;
3. Develop the process for accomplishing a NAS common data architecture and transition strategy;
4. Identify the areas that require technical development;
5. Develop a collaborative process to change the culture.
The conference is designed to meet the following specific objectives:
1. Strengthen consensus of the need to migrate toward a more modern system with one NAS Data Architecture;
2. Identify and cultivate NAS stake holder relationships;
3. Identify program requirements and issues for an integrated NAS Data Architecture;
4. Build alliances among participating organizations;
5.Leverage system developers’ know-how assets into more airspace and system efficiency;
6.Outline the requirements for a NAS Data Architecture Steering Committee;
7.Show leadership in the aviation community byidentifyingsteps to interoperability via one data architecture.

1.3 Conference Design and Agenda

The scope of the two-day conference is specifically designed for the FAA, government agencies and contractors who are supporting NAS operational systems, both existing and under development.  The conference is not designed to address information security, logistics, maintenance, and administrative 1A Concept of Operations for the National Airspace System in 2005, Air Traffic Services, September 1997; and Government/Industry Operational Concept for Free Flight, August 1997.  Together these documents form the basis of the NAS Architecture.

3 issues.  The conference was conducted over a two-day period with up to 200 invited participants made up of FAA and other Federal Agency managers, systems engineers, and their support contractors. A complete listing of all registered participants is provided on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac).  The conference provides an interactive, structured setting in which participants have the opportunity to identify key issues surrounding interoperability among the various NAS systems and developing group plans of action to begin resolving these issues.  In order for all participants to be able to communicate their specific and general systems’ concerns, conference participants were provided a set of basic pre-conference reading materials a month before the conference.  The materials included:

•   Conference Registration Confirmation Letter
•   Draft NAS Architecture 3.0, dated December, 1997
•   Draft Federal Information Architecture Initiatives, February, 1998
•   Draft NAS Information Architecture Evolution, January, 1998
•   Draft Preliminary TFM Information Architecture Steps, January, 1998 Only hard copy of the Draft NAS Architecture 3.0, dated December 1997, are available from the FAA’s Office of Systems Development (ASD-110).  The other three Draft documents are on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac) and can be downloaded.
 
4
2.0
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW
Section 2 provides an overview of the major events, speeches, and presentations from the 2-day conference.  Subsection 2.1 presents the major events and speeches from the general session.  Subsection 2.2 presents an overview of the key interoperability questions addressed in the six parallel work group sessions, the methodology used in the work groups, and an overview of the major outcomes of each of the six work groups.

2.1 General Session

Andy J. Taylor, AUA-500 and member of the NIAC and its Conference Planning Committee emceed the overall conference.  During the general session, a series of speakers/support letters provided the conference attendees with background information on the conference theme of “Achieving Interoperability with a NAS Common Data Architecture.”  The selected speakers who could not attend, due to other pressing commitments, sent letters of support which were included in the participant’s conference folders, and excerpts of the letters were read at the general session.

The series and sequence of speakers/support letters were as follows:
•   Felix Rausch, NIAC Co-Chair and NAS Information Architecture “Product Lead”
•   Letter from Jane Garvey, FAA Administrator
•   Letter from Ron Morgan, ATS-1, Acting Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services
•   Keynote address by Dr. Anne Harlan, ACT-1, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center
•   Dr. John Scardina, ASD-2
•   Speech by Stan Rivers, AAF-1 given by Thomas Gassert, AOP-1
•   Hartmut Koelman, EuroControl, Air Traffic Management (ATM) Expert
•   Marc Bourgois, EuroControl, Architecture Expert
•   Dr. Eberhardt Rechtin, Internationally Renowned Systems Architect
These general session speakers/support letters provided participants with common, basic information on the task of achieving a common data architecture.  Highlights of the themes stressed in each speech/support letter are presented on the following pages.  The full texts of the presentations/speeches/support letters are on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac) and can be downloaded.
5

Introduction
Felix Rausch, NIAC Co-Chair and NAS Information Architecture “Product Lead” Themes:
•   We are all in this together and must synergize energies.
•   Every manager briefed agreed that this is a good idea.
•   We live in the age of information, hardware became a commodity and there are new rules of operating in a knowledge society.
•   No one can do an excellent, cost-effective job by themselves, dependency is universal.
•   Optimizing each system sub-optimizes the whole NAS.
•   Sharing information globally will be the basis for Free Flight.
•   Sharing information presupposes common interpretation of information otherwise too much is lost in translation ($, meaning, time, and safety).
•   We don’t have $ and time to waste on duplications to ensure safety.
•   TheNAS Information Architecture is...
•   The integration factor within the overall NAS Architecture FOR ITS
INTERFACES.
•   The way to address and solve the basic NAS information exchange
problem.
•   The common denominator that can fundamentally integrate the flow of information across NAS interfaces.
•   The vehicle that allows us to stop mortgaging our future as we change the NAS into an Information System.
•   Participants at this conference can contribute by actively engaging in the sessions with your knowledge and ideas and asking questions such as:
•   How do we break the cycle of creating new data, database, translator and LAN fiefdoms?
•   How do we assure better sharing of data within the FAA and with our NAS users?
•   Can we change the way we do business by defining the problem better up front?
•   How can we reduce information management costs in the future so we can
reapply the savings to keeping the NAS state-of-the-art.
FAA Letter 1
Jane Garvey, FAA Administrator
Themes:
•   The air traffic control system is a massive communications and information system designed to help pilots fly safely and efficiently in the NAS.
•   This communications network is made up of a myriad of systems and equipment, many of which “speak” different languages.
•   We need to mange the data and information in such a way that all of them can communicate with one another.
 
6
FAA Letter 2
Ron Morgan, ATS-1, Acting Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services Themes:
•   User needs will increasingly cut across many components of the NAS requiring seamless data exchange.
•   The NAS will also grow in complexity as new technology advances are incorporated.
•   We in the Air Traffic community will depend on timely and consistent sharing of data to assist the decision makers, service providers, and aviation system users.
•   There must be a seamless flow of information among facilities and aircraft to allow necessary information management advances to assist in collaborative decision making for future Free Flight.
Keynote Address:
Dr. Anne Harlan, ACT-1, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center Themes:
•   Creating...interoperability is a real challenge to all of us.  It is infinitely important to the future of the National Airspace System, and all of air travel.
•   The different systems that comprise the NAS have been developed and enhanced over many years.  There is no question that these systems are safe and they work well.
•   All too often, they acquire their data independently of each other, resulting in a “stovepiping” approach...(that) do not exchange this information as efficiently as they could, and in turn don’t serve their maximum potential.
•   As more and more systems become automated, it becomes even more important that they share information with each other.
•   It is the goal of the FAA to evolve the NAS into a more integrated set of systems with enhanced information standardization and functionality.
•   A key step toward this end is commonality among the NAS Architecture components.  NAS Architecture must assure that this commonality is achieved.
•   At the William J. Hughes Technical Center, we are actively participating in these efforts toward a more collaborative NAS environment.  Our NAS System Engineering Branch is now at work developing the Collaborative Data Integration Management System  -- the CDIMS.
 
7
FAA Presentation 1Dr. John Scardina, ASD-2
Theme:

•   The NAS Architecture is one of three essential elements of the overall NAS Modernization Plan.  The other two are:
•   Detailed Concept of Operation
•   Certification Plan
•   Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) initially a Core Capability Limited Deployment at selected facilities for early user benefits
•   Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) - Build 1
•   Initial Conflict Probe (ICP)
•   Traffic Management Advisor  Single Center
•   Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST)
•   Collaborative Decision Making (CDM)
•   CDM at Airports (Limited SMA)
•   Goals:
•   Operationally evaluate FFP1 Capabilities by 12/2002
•   Begin national implementation approximately 2004
FAA Presentation 2Stan Rivers, AAF-1 Theme:
•   The success of AF’s development and implementation of its NAS Operations Concept hinges on the ability of its information systems to communicate (exchange information and interoperate).
•   The necessity to address information exchange and interoperability is now crossing the boundaries of more than one single organization and more than one line of business.
•   This concept and the compelling need of information exchange will encompass the entire FAA as well as our external customers.
•   We need to build a collaborative process that emphasizes teamwork - the solution and success are not so much dependent on technology, but in collaboration.
•   We want to draw requirements from our stakeholders and involve them in every step of the process.
•   AF is already addressing their needs through several current initiatives:
•   The NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS);
•   The ATS Corporate Information Management System (CIMS);
•   The NAS Interoperability and Information Standards (NIIS); and
•   The Telecommunications Information Management System (TIMS).
 
8
EuroControl
Hartmut Koelman, EuroControl, Air Traffic Management (ATM) Expert Marc Bourgois, EuroControl, Architecture Expert Themes:
•   We know that vast amounts of information will be circulating in the future
ATM system
•   The realization of Europe’s future ATM concept is dependent on improved information sharing:
Access to information where & when you need it will be vital.
•   The high level principles of SystemWide Information Management (SWIM) will be addressed in upcoming editions of the ATM 2000+ Strategy and the EATMS Operational Concept Document
•   Detailed SWIM concepts & strategy will need to be worked out in the near future
•   Meanwhile, a number of common development & implementation projects are starting to streamline the European information architecture
•   The EUROCONTROL Agency is undertaking Information Architecture studies Information ArchitectDr. Eberhardt Rechtin, Internationally Renowned Systems Architect Themes:
Introduction
•   The National Airspace (NAS) System is one of the most difficult architectural tasks ever attempted by the United States Government for several reasons:
-
Its agency, the FAA, has very little control over its suppliers, its users, other government agency and, most serious of all, of the airplanes it serves and the equipments they carry.
-
The system is, in reality, a “system of systems” by which is meant a group of semi-autonomous, self-standing, self-managing systems which collectively are supposed to produce results which exceed the sum of their individual results.
-
They are coupled not only together but with international
organizations and all three branches of the Federal Government;

especially, the Department of Defense, NASA, NOAA, the Department of State, the Treasury, a variety of State and local agencies, the public, the media…and I’ve probably left some comparably important ones.

•   This NAS…is mandated to produce safe, efficient, cost-effective air travel in the interests of all the stakeholders.  Note that none of the individual systems individually can do so.
-
They must work together, in close to real time, to do so.
-
The mechanism they use is information.
-
The structure of information generation, processing, transfer, storage,
display, understanding, use and response is called an information
architecture.
-
Its technologies are communications, computers, displays, satellites
and software.
-
Some of us understand this architecture by the term Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I).
 
9
Information ArchitectDr. Eberhardt Rechtin, Internationally Renowned Systems Architect
Themes:
-
By whatever the name, it is the key to the behavior of any system of
systems.  It is the centerpiece of any and all smart systems of which the NAS is certainly one.

•   C3I is now the top priority of the DoD
-
It is the crucial combatant in the Information War.
-
…it won its part of the Gulf War overwhelmingly, greatly reducing
the cost and casualties in the other systems.
•   But…information systems became joint operators and combatants…
-
They became life-threatening, vulnerable, destructive and error-prone.
-
In procurement, particularly of software, they have blown costs and
schedules.
-
In behavior, they have created mathematical chaos.
-
In smart systems, they have become too smart for their own good.
-
These systems have all too often provided examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences.  After all, they are designed and operated by 1 % error-rate human beings.
•   The technical reason that information systems create such difficulties is because the individual elements must communicate with each other about very important, often urgent operational matters.
-
…and this communication must be accomplishedeasily, securely,
accurately, and certifiably, all on demand.
-
If the information systems interfere with the essential tasks of the
elements, they will be resisted, to the damage of all parties.
I.The difficulties with everything everywhere, all-the-time, for everybody
•   The first thought in resolving such problems is to have all the systems open to each other through the use of common equipment and procedures.
-
It isn’t practical for near-autonomous, separately owned, systems
doing essential functions for others at their own time and pace;
-
In effect, there is no single date at which all “old” systems can be
taken out and “new ones” installed without very high cost and
considerable disruption.
-
Worse yet, it is rare that any one system can be completely changed
without affecting the systems to which it is connected.
-
I know, we tried it for military satellite systems.  We tried it with the
NATO nations.
•   More important, commonality runs into security, proprietary, and
specialization obstacles.
-
In security-sensitive situations, too many people have access to too
much information.
-
In proprietary ones, too many competitors will use the system for
what is euphemistically called “business intelligence.”
-
In areas of specialization, the education necessary to use much of the information in each technically different system is so extensive that few others can begin to understand it.
•   But the most important obstacle of all…is that of privacy.
 
10
Information ArchitectDr. Eberhardt Rechtin, Internationally Renowned Systems Architect
Themes:
-
In a completely open environment, everyone can know anything
desired without the knowledge or control of the “owner.”
-
That is, “Everything you know, I can know.  All the information you
-
In a system in which the Congress, the media, other agencies, and your enemies have full access…even if you have the time, resources and the patience to answer every damn fool inquiry.  NO!

•   Each system, in self defense, procures equipments that can’t talk to others, like Army, Navy, and Air Force avionics.  II.  The real needs when one gets down to it.

•…in the end, unless these “systems within a system” work together, all will
fail together.  They must communicate.  BUT, …”easily, securely, accurately,
-
There is an enormous difference between … “all the time” and “on
-
“Full interoperability” demands are not only unnecessary, they are
undesireable and destructive technically and psychologically.
III.  Scope. Scope. Scope and other related heuristics.
•   These real needs can be satisfied not by “commonality” or “interoperability” but by what might be called “selective interoperbility.” To the systems architect, this suggests:Scope! Scope! Scope!
•   In other words, first try to reduce the size of the problem by deciding, with the other stakeholders, just which, and to what degree, needs can be met in a practical manner,and which can not.
-
Do all parties understand and agree with the essential needs of the
other stakeholders and why?
-
Are all agreed on who will be responsible for maintaining which data
base, replying to queries to it, and how that reply will be presented to
each inquirer?
-
It is astonishing how much these agreements can reduce the
“requirements” list.
•   Then, the next step: Simplify. Simplify. Simplify.
-
Is the information in its simplest, most direct, most easily understood
form?
-
Is there a simple way of inquiring further in case more is desired?
-
Are meanings of words standardized and is there a glossary that
states those meanings?
-
Are there simple rules about message lengths to avoid link saturation
or to provide system resiliency?
-
Is there a much simpler, but perhaps less capable, system that can
provide almost as much information sooner, or instead?
-
Can any machine process the message in a locally-acceptable format
(ASCII comes to mind?).
•   When the needs seem well scoped and about as simple as possible, then:
 
11
Information Architect Dr. Eberhardt Rechtin, Internationally Renowned Systems Architect

Themes:

Group elements that are strongly related to each other.

Separate elements that are unrelated.

Choose a configuration that needs minimal communications between
subsystems.

Never aggregate systems that have a conflict of interest.
•   At this time there should be a well aggregated, well partitioned architecture designed to work.  However such architectures can be brittle; that is, they are not designed to fail (properly).
-
Failing properly means failing catastrophically,
-
failing in a way that can not be diagnosed promptly,
-
failing when most needed, etc.
For this contingency,
Provide dissimilar redundancy for all critical functions.
(The Navy Ship Design equivalent: All spaces will have two exits.)
•   This heuristic means that whenever possible, be able to perform all critical functions in at least two different ways; e.g.,
-
by data or voice,
-
by GPS or radar,
-
by satellite or microwave relay,
-
by different protocols,
-
by alternate weather sources,
-
by different airports,
-
by different computer programs…
•   In any case, as is characteristic of all airliner design
There must never be a single point failure of the NAS as a whole, its
information system included!

IV.Thoughts on applicability to the NAS and its legacy systems, in
particular.

If you don’t understand the existing system,

You can’t be sure you are architecting a better one.

Unless constrained, rearchitecting has a natural tendency to proceed
unchecked until it results in a substantial transformation of the system.
Given a change, if the anticipated actions don’t occur,

Then there is probably an invisible barrier to be identified and
 
12
Information Architect Dr. Eberhardt Rechtin, Internationally Renowned Systems Architect

Themes:

overcome.
Don’t try to do everything, much less all at once!

13

2.2 Work Group Sessions

During the 2-day conference, participants were worked in a series of parallel “working” sessions to actively contribute their knowledge and expertise to identify issues surrounding data architecture interoperability and develop strategies to overcome the identified issues.  Each work group session was tasked to: a.Decide on the boundaries of discussion and state them; b. Produce a statement of the issues to be tackled and suggestions for how to address the issues; c.Report on their preliminary work to the full session; d.Produce a final session report (i.e., plan of action).

Six work groups addressed the following key interoperability questions:
1. MANAGEMENT: Dimensions and Challenges for Change
What changes are required in the way the FAA does business in the 21st century’s global information environment?  How do we manage these changes?  How do we manage expectations?

2. NAS DATA QUALITY
What are the technical issues that must be resolved to ensure information quality—data management, structure, access, measures of effectiveness, etc.?  How will we establish a process for defining, assessing and verifying the levels of data quality needed for safe operation in the NAS?

3. NAS BUSINESS OBJECTS
What data (business objects) are required by a NAS-wide information system?  How do we identify and prioritize them?

4. NAS FLIGHT INFORMATION OBJECT
How can dynamic flight information be structured and organized into an information object that meets the needs of NAS users and service providers?  How do we identify and coordinate the work of various groups now doing Flight Object design and modeling?

5. TRANSITION TO NAS INTEROPERABILITY
How do we standardize common-use NAS data and the business logic for interoperability? How do we manage standard information? How can we introduce commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) information technologies and data standards in a cost- effective way?  How do we capitalize on existing systems while transitioning to Free Flight?

6. NAS-wide INFORMATION SYSTEM (NIS) PERFORMANCE
How do we ensure that NAS-wide information services will meet performance requirements for data availability, timeliness, latency, backup and recovery, and redundancy?  A comprehensive plan of action identifying interoperability issues and strategies to overcome these issues was produced by each of the six work groups.  The full, unedited PowerPoint Slide presentations of each work group are provided on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac) and can be downloaded.  Session Leaders, familiar with the subject matter, let each of the work group sessions. FAA Facilitators assisted the Session Leaders in assuring that work group session discussions remained focused, mechanics ran smoothly, and that “the rules” of proper conference procedure were followed.
14

2.3 Closing General Session

After each of the six work groups made their presentation to the full conference, Felix Rausch, Co-Chair of the NIAC summarized the achievements of the two-day conference as follows:
•   Let’s not lose the momentum.
•   We have harnessed positive energy, how do we retain it for the near future to accomplish the actionable items?
•   How do we get the Administrator to take notice about what we have done, so as to make our job easier have a greater chance for success?

Mr. Rausch invited all participants to continue to contribute the NIAC effort by attending NIAC monthly meetings and actively participating in NIAC subcommittees.  All conference registrants, whether or not they were able to attend the conference, will be e-mailed the Conference Proceedings Executive Report in May 1998.  Mr. Rausch also mentioned that all speeches, support letters, and slide presentations from the general session and the work group presentations will be posted on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac).

Mr. Rausch thanked the entire group for their active participation and gave a special recognition to the FAA Facilitators who did an excellent job of making the work groups extremely productive in such a short time.
15

[lordssyndicate]

Awesome Job Anti Illuminati!

This is extremely damning evidence without  this there would be no way for them to have covered up their false flag.

It also shows that the entire FAA brass and many DOD top brass were involved in insuring this could happen. Most of these top guys had to know exactly what they were doing.

This shows they had direct knowledge of what they were doing. Making them guilty of high treason>

[Dig]

must read

make sure it gets cross posted on 911 blogger and Architects

[donnay]

Excellent info!!

[lordssyndicate]

General Breakdown for the masses:

This whole council's purpose is to link all of the FAA's systems to the DOD Global Information grid - commonly referred to as NORAD or COMSAT.

Prior to the implementation of NIAC  - the FAA used separate systems that merely fed data to NORAD.

NIAC's specific purpose was to introduce 2 way communications and PTECH's C4iSR back door framework into ALL OF THE FAA's SYSTEMS.

ALL systems. SO THAT THE DOD COULD FEED THE FAA ANY DATA THEY WANTED AND THE FAA WOULD HAVE NO WAY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REAL PLANES AND PHANTOM INPUTS.


Ok you guys get it ?

good.

We need this exposed and criminal charges filed asap.
This is the real deal.
This document links MITRE and heads of PTECH to the DOD and FAA top brass and because of the very nature of this project would require all of them to have exact foreknowledge of the precise purpose of this project.

Meaning they knew this sytem was designed specifically to feed fake phantom inputs to the FAA by any one in the DOD with proper access to DARPA.


Meaning most 4 star generals and especially donald rumsfeld and  dick chenney had full access to this system.

This system was designed specifically to cover the tracks of the people involved in 9/11 and any other aircraft related false flag.

The only reason to have specifically ensured that ALL systems even backup systems the FAA owned prior to NIAC - were placed under government control is so the people responsible for false flag attacks - could erase all records of their crimes.


You guys get it?

This is why this document is so damning and people have ben killed for talking aout it.

[lordssyndicate]

Let me add to this the company that supplied the hardware for NIAC interoperability with FAA systems - as per their own bio:
http://www.ustechnologies.com/industry_focus/military.cfm

"Making Obsolescence a Thing of the Past

With a unique specialization in older, legacy electronics, UST provides a valuable resource as products become more obsolete with each passing year...especially for products no longer supported by the OEM.

As Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) or obsolescence concerns rise, UST's reverse engineering and manufacturing services along with component sourcing provides critical support by significantly extending the product life cycle.
   
UST is a member of Government Approved and recognized Programs/Standards
  ISO 9001:2000 Certified
  CAGE code 1D8S5
  Member of FAST Program
  NIACS authorized
  Member of A.F.A.
  DSP Program
  Cheyenne Mountain Program
  Global Awareness Program"

[Anti_Illuminati]

[Anti_Illuminati]

[Anti_Illuminati]

[Anti_Illuminati]

[Anti_Illuminati]

[lordssyndicate]

This is where Murtha signs into budget authorization for the DOD to upgrade the Cheyenne mountain's computer systems  to work hand in hand with FAA systems.

While it appears that they duped Murtha into believing this was for the good of the nation. So a VP or President could manage everything from Cheyenne mountain - in per say time of foreign attack.

The problem arises when you realize what they actually did with it and it's creator's exact purposes.
Especially when it was used expressly to cover up the tracks of who flew what planes where on 9/11.

This is followed by a budget of the project blatantly showing they stole millions of dollars not listed in other budgets...

So, we not only have them getting budgeted funds to do this but stealing even more money from the taxpayer in un-accounted spending.

[lordssyndicate]

Ok, so I have noticed barely any one is even bothering to read this thread.

Please people this hard evidence capable of being sumited as court evidence in indicting those responsible for 9/11.


This thread alone could be used to indict every one from the last administation as well as that of the clinton administration under charges of high treason!

This the real deal here people this is the smoking gun they can't deny....

[lordssyndicate]

So, I called in today and broke the story about this.

Alex himself had some very interesting comments about this.

I am the very last caller on today's show...
I will post a transcript and the audio from the podcast later when it is  published to the server.

[voodo0]

ah cool, what was that video alex was talking about? bush saying something about remote controlled?

[stymo1]

Ok, so I have noticed barely any one is even bothering to read this thread.

Please people this hard evidence capable of being sumited as court evidence in indicting those responsible for 9/11.


This thread alone could be used to indict every one from the last administation as well as that of the clinton administration under charges of high treason!

This the real deal here people this is the smoking gun they can't deny....

I have read everything you and AI post on this, and to be honest most of it (99.9%) is over my head. I am not as knowledgeable about the networks as you both seem to be. I would dare to say most of the rest of us are in the same boat. I appreciate the way you break it down for us LS, it makes it so much easier to grasp and understand. we really need to be told this in easy to understand terms. For example, the last die hard movie.... they can do everything shown in the movie and then some. yea, I'm not too bright on this stuff.

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://www.adsystech.com/text/clients/federal/FAA/faa.htm

Adsystech has supported the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) since 1987. Our Principal Location is co-located with FAA offices in the Portals Building in Washington, DC. We also have employees and projects in twelve locations throughout the continental United States, and support the FAA in ten of these twelve locations.

Adsystech has had 24 aviation-related engagements since 1987 and has provided excellent technical support on all of them. In recognition of this outstanding technical work over the past decade, the Air Traffic Control Association (ATCA) recently selected Adsystech, Inc. as the Small Business of the Year award winner. Adsystech provides technical support services to the FAA in the areas of systems engineering, information engineering, budget formulation, process reengineering requirements management, financial management, system acquisition support, safety risk assessments, cost benefit analyses, RE&D Plan development, Capital Investment Program development and long range resource allocation planning. Through this experience, Adsystech has gained an in-depth understanding of FAA's support needs and FAA organizational culture.

We are a National Qualified Vendor (NQVL) under the Aeronautical Center's RESULTS Contract Basic Ordering Agreement, providing corporate consulting and analysis; engineering, design and production; transition and installation; and operational engineering and technical support.

Adsystech supports DKW Communications, Inc. with a complete spectrum of IT-related services under the Broad Information Technology Support (BITS-II) contract in the following areas: program management; telecommunications and IT systems support; data analysis and data management; system engineering and design; software development; systems procurement; systems development, IT training and information systems security (ISS); emerging technologies; risk assessment; disaster recovery; and contingency planning.

Adsystech is providing technical support services to the Office of NAS Program and Financial Management (ASD-300). We provide the following services: technical and program management support (systems planning, needs analysis, operational impact assessments, engineering and operational systems design, technology assessments, safety risk assessment, hazard control analysis and cost benefit studies); acquisition management (conduct cost, schedule and technical assessments of FAA capital investment projects); cost management and estimating (maintain the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) baseline tracking database, parameter sheets, budget justification sheets, financial and schedule details and the resource datasheets used in the FAA's prioritization process); financial management (consult on the FAA's federal budget process with particular emphasis on the formulation and execution phases); and automated management and analysis tools using Oracle and Developer tools.

We are also performing Operational Safety Assessments intended to determine relative safety of implementing or not implementing new technologies for the NAS to the period 2015-2020. Recently the company presented a major System Study, titled "A Strategy for Integrating Remotely Operated Aircraft (ROA) into the National Airspace System", to the Department of Defense and the FAA.

Adsystech provides through its GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, on-site coordination, project management and operational support for the Center TRACON Automation System (CTAS) and the User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) automation programs within FAA’s Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) Office.

Through its subcontract with Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. (LMSI), Adsystech is providing technical engineering expertise and assistance to implement, integrate and transition the FAA’s Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) systems, equipment and services to the to FAA’s Operational Support Directorate (AOS-800) at each of the FAA regional offices and SMOs, PMOs and other field locations.

Adsystech is one of the core partners of the winning team on the ten-year FAA SETA II contract awarded to BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc. Adsystech is the largest subcontractor on the team for all aspects of technical support on SETA II. Adsystech supports the FAA under its subcontract in the functional areas of National Airspace System (NAS) system engineering; NAS program management; operations, research, and evaluation; configuration management; system engineering and optimization; NAS technical information support; program management system tools enhancement; and information systems engineering.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.adsystech.com/text/news/20000822.htm

Washington, DC  August 22, 2000 - Adsystech is one of eight core subcontractors under BAE Systems Applied Technologies that has been awarded a 10 year, $454.4 million contract from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Under this System Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA-II) contract, Adsystech and the BAE Systems team will support selected programs contained in the US National Airspace System (NAS) Architecture and Capital Investment Plan (CIP).

The SETA-II contract is broad in scope and covers facilities and equipment; operations and maintenance; and research, engineering, and development requirements. Direct and indirect assistance will be provided to a wide range of FAA organizations. Adsystech will be providing personnel, services, and data to support FAA initiatives in systems engineering, acquisition management, system architecture, technical documentation development, and program management support services.

Adsystech is a systems integrator for federal, state and local governments, and commercial clients. Adsystech provides technical support services to the FAA in the areas of system engineering, information engineering, budget formulation, process reengineering, requirements management, financial management, system acquisition support, safety risk assessments, cost benefit analyses, and long range resource allocation planning.

BAE Systems is the 2nd largest Defense contractor, the 3rd largest Aerospace and Defense company, and the 3rd largest Aerospace Electronics company in the World.
__________________________________________________________
http://felixrausch.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.28/prod.398



Enterprise Architecture and Government Transformation By Beryl Bellman and Felix Rausch.
Published by The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management

A study of mandated Enterprise Architectures change communication within government and defence agencies, and the resulting implications for how knowledge is managed, organizational business structures are realigned and cultures transformed.

Keywords:    Enterprise Architecture, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Department of Defence Architecture Framework, Government Transformation, Organizational Culture and Technology, Information Technology, Knowledge Management, Learning Organization

International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Volume 5, Issue 9, pp.147-156. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Article: Electronic (PDF File; 1.977MB).
Dr. Beryl Bellman

Dr Beryl Bellman is a tenured full Professor of Communications at California State University at Los Angeles and is the co-founder of the FEAC Institute in Washington DC, which provides education and certification in the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework and the Department of Defence Architectural Framework.

Dr Bellman has over twenty-five years consulting experience in communications and enterprise architecture related projects consulting to the Executive Office of the President of the United States, Forest Service, Department of Energy, Immigration and Naturalization Service, US Postal Service, US Department of State and other federal agencies; as well as was a contract consultant for Ptech, NCR, AT&T, ASK and the Digital Equipment Corporation on projects both for their internal and external customers.. He also was the Research Director of the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla and helped manage its School of Management and Strategic Studies.

He also served on the faculties of the University of California at San Diego, State University of New York at Stonybrook and California Institute of the Arts and was a consultant in the Institute for Information Revolution Analysis at RAND where he organized the World Design Forum. Dr Bellman received his doctorate from the University of California at Irvine in 1971 in Social Science and has published three books and numerous articles in both academic journals and edited volumes, and also in industry related professional publications. He has extensive international research and consulting experience in Africa, Latin America, China, Korea and Europe.


Mr. Felix Rausch

Felix A. A. Rausch is the Executive Director of the FEAC Institute for the past 3 years. He is developing the programs for training and certification of Enterprise Architecture practitioners in the Federal and Commercial space. Felix started his career in aerospace developing a quantitative aviation safety model for the C-5A at Lockheed. He was a consultant for Booz Allen Applied Research and Westinghouse doing work for the Navy and DOT. In 1972, he joined the FCC and became an expert in managing large projects in software conversion and systems reengineering that included the first ever successful fixed price large application software conversion at the FCC.

In 1979, he was responsible for transitioning ten acres of computing infrastructure, software, and people at the Social Security Administration to a new Data Center, the largest logistics and systems engineering project ever undertaken at the SSA without interruption of service and completed under budget. Back in Washington, Felix became Assistant Commissioner for Systems Integration at INS. He was the CIO at Interpol and became Deputy CIO at the White House (EOP) for four years.

In 1990 he began development of the FAA National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (NASDAC), the first Data Warehouse in Government, before moving to Systems Engineering and taking over the missionary task of developing a National Airspace Space Information Architecture. After retiring from government, Felix was appointed as Director for Government Services at Ptech in August 1999 where he was responsible for managing and expanding the Government Solutions EA Consulting market for the Federal Government and State Government. During 2001 and 2002 he was also the Business Development Manager. Felix has an Applied Math degree from the University of Alabama and an MS in Information Science from Georgia Tech and has done graduate business courses at Loyola in Baltimore.

[Mike Philbin]

so, I just used the Rausch keywords in a Google search and here's where a page one, item two link took me:

http://usercentricea.blogspot.com/

You Can Lead a Horse to Water
When we architect change, we have to build in the transition plan for how to get from point A to point B. The problem with most enterprise architectures though is that they begin and end with the equivalent of “Thou Shalt” and never does the architecture deal with the behavioral elements of how to actually motivate people and organizations to change the way we plan/want them to.
Maybe that’s one reason why architectures so often remain shelfware and never actually get implemented.

This is reminiscent of the adage, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” or can you?

With the Obama administration elected on a platform of change and major problems facing our nation in terms of the economy, healthcare, the environment, and so on, we are seeing the government confront the dilemma of how do we get the change we promised?

Time Magazine, 2 April 2009 has an interesting article “How Obama is using the Science of Change.”

The administration is using it [behavioral science] to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.”

Similarly, this knowledge can help enterprise architects effect change in their organizations. It’s not enough to just put a plan to paper—that’s a long way from effecting meaningful and lasting change.

So here are some tips that I adapted from the article:


Bottom-up or Top Down:
We can mandate change from the top or we can grow change from grass-roots. If we can do both, the change is swifter and more likely to succeed.

Carrot and Stick:
Change is not easy and usually will not happen without a nudge—we need help. We need to motivate desired change and disincentive obstinate clinging to failed status quo behaviors that are hurting the mission and long term success of the organization.

Make change clear and simple:
Explain to people why a change is important and necessary. “In general, we’re ignorant, shortsighted, and biased toward the status quo…we procrastinate. Our impulsive ids overwhelm our logical superegos.” So change has got to be clearly articulated, easy to understand, and simple for people to act on. “Cheap is alluring; easy can be irresistible.”

Accept that change is painful:
We need to keep our eye on the goal, and then accept that we have to work hard to achieve it. President Obama “urges us to snap out of denial, to accept that we’re in for some prolonged discomfort but not to wallow in it, to focus on our values.”

The way of the herd:
When implementing change initiatives, we need to build community “creating a sense that we’re all in this together.” “We’re a herdlike species….when we think we’re out of step with our peers, the part of our brain that registers pain shifts into overdrive.”

Keep the focus on long-term success:
Weight the benefits of long-term planning and change to short term status quo and gratification; constantly remind people that most worthwhile organizational goals are a marathon and not a sprint. But together, we can support each other and achieve anything.

With behavioral science principles like these, we can make enterprise architecture transition plans truly actionable by the organization.

View Andy Blumenthal's complete profile
http://www.blogger.com/profile/15596996878697985867


* * * * *

YUP, CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN ... BY DESIGN (ed)   Now, if they were talking about a Eugenics issue or a plague issue or a 9/11 issue, then the article's far more ominous. No?

[Anti_Illuminati]

The MITRE Corp.
MITRE Corp awarded a $1,221,533,321 contract for fiscal year 1999 to 2003 systems engineering and integration support for Air Force and Foreign Military Programs.

Department of Defense News Release: 01 October 1998
[What follows is the full text of the article.]

The MITRE Corp., Bedford, Mass., is being awarded a $1,221,533,321 cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide for FY 1999-2003 systems engineering and integration support for Air Force and Foreign Military Programs. Less than 1% of this effort supports foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Expected contract completion date is Sept. 30, 2003. Solicitation issue date was Aug. 18, 1998. Negotiation completion date was Sept. 29, 1998. Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom AFB, Mass., is the contracting activity (F19628-99-C-0001).

Copyright 1998 United Communications-Periscope svc.

Topics
Defense spending         Companies
Mitre Corp         SIC Code Descriptions
7373 - Computer integrated systems design
8711 - Engineering services

Copyright 1998, Responsive Database Services, Inc. Published by OneSource Information Services, Inc.

Eurocontrol Mandates TCAS/7.0 Software Installation

All aircraft designed to carry 30 or more passengers & all cargo planes over 15,000 kg must be outfitted with Mitre Corp's airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS) 7.0 beginning 1/1/2000, says Eurocontrol
Aviation Week & Space Technology: 27 April 1998
[What follows is an abstract the original article.]

All aircraft designed to carry thirty or more passengers, and all cargo planes with takeoff weight of over 15,000 kg must be outfitted with Mitre Corp's airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS) 7.0 beginning 1/1/2000, according to a ruling by Eurocontrol. (The system is called traffic alert and collision avoidance system [TCAS] in the US.) FAA has not yet decided whether it will require the new software, which would require removal of existing 6.04 TCAS software and transponders for modification. FAA will require new aircraft to use TCAS with version 7.0 software. TCAS hardware is supplied by AlliedSignal, Honeywell and Rockwell Collins. They will offer upgrade kits beginning in fall 1998.

Topics
New laws         Companies
Mitre Corp         SIC Code Descriptions
3721 - Aircraft
3812 - Search and navigation equipment
4510 - Air transportation, scheduled
7372 - Prepackaged software

Copyright 1998, Responsive Database Services, Inc. Published by OneSource Information Services, Inc.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.mitrecaasd.org/work/project_details.cfm?item_id=153

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System



The Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS, is an instrument integrated into other systems in an aircraft cockpit. It consists of hardware and software that together provide a set of electronic eyes so the pilot can "see" the traffic situation in the vicinity of the aircraft. Part of the TCAS capability is a display showing the pilot the relative positions of aircraft up to 40 miles away. The instrument sounds an alarm and issues a Resolution Advisory when it determines that another aircraft will pass too closely to the subject aircraft. TCAS provides a backup to the air traffic control system’s regular separation processes.

The MITRE Corporation conducted early research into collision avoidance technologies under the sponsorship of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). TCAS is a direct descendant of technologies invented at MITRE and elsewhere.

Background

Since the early 1960s, MITRE's Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) has provided the FAA with Air Traffic Control (ATC) system engineering support. As part of this longstanding partnership, CAASD helped the FAA implement a collision avoidance system for aircraft. The resulting Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS, has become a standard for safety in the United States and abroad. Its value is clear: no airline mid-air collisions have occurred in the United States since 1990, when the airlines began equipping their planes with TCAS.

From its inception, TCAS has dramatically improved pilots' chances of successfully averting the threat of a mid-air collision. Pilots have come to rely on TCAS to give them the crucial data to avoid collisions. As their last line of defense, TCAS gives pilots the edge needed to ensure that their crew and passengers have the safest flight possible.

The project benefited from the cooperative efforts of the FAA, airlines, and several other companies. CAASD designed and developed the collision avoidance logic at the heart of the system. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory developed air-to-air surveillance. The FAA Technical Center and a team of contractors, including The Analytical Sciences Corporation, Coleman Research Corporation, and Rannoch Corporation, were responsible for software verification and validation. The FAA Technical Center and ARINC Research handled operational evaluations.

Historical Perspective



On June 30, 1956, two planes collided over the Grand Canyon. In the wake of this and other such airborne disasters, the industry realized they needed a system that could help prevent similar incidents. Companies soon began designing collision avoidance systems, but two problems hampered their efforts. First, adoption of the proposed systems would require the airlines to equip their fleets with expensive new hardware. Second, there was still a lot of development left to do before an adequate system would be ready.

In 1974, MITRE proposed an alternative. Using the transponders already installed in many aircraft for communication with the FAA's ground-based Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System (ATCRBS), developers took advantage of existing technologies to significantly hasten the design and implementation process. The Beacon-Based Collision Avoidance System (BCAS) was the predecessor of today's TCAS. This system sent interrogation signals to nearby aircraft similar to the FAA's radar system. The transponders then sent back response signals. The system interpreted these signals to determine the location, speed, and course of each plane and used the data to avoid a potential collision.

BCAS test results were promising. On the ground, MITRE equipped a trailer to receive transponder signals as if it were an aircraft. BCAS lived up to expectations, prompting the FAA Technical Center to test the system on one of its aircraft. On the basis of these two tests, the FAA moved forward with further development of BCAS.

A Collision Avoidance System Is Born

In 1981, the FAA chose to pursue the onboard design approach used in BCAS rather than a ground-based collision avoidance system which was also under consideration. At that point, BCAS was renamed TCAS.

There are two different versions of TCAS, for use on different classes of aircraft. The first, TCAS I, indicates the bearing and relative altitude of all aircraft within a selected range (generally 10 to 20 miles). With color-coded symbols, the display indicates which aircraft pose potential threats. This constitutes the Traffic Advisory (TA) portion of the system. When pilots receive a TA, they must visually identify the intruding aircraft and may alter their plane's altitude by up to 300 feet. TCAS I does not offer solutions, but does supply pilots with important data so that they can determine the best course of action. An illustration of TCAS range and altitude criteria shows the horizontal and vertical distances to monitor traffic and issue advisories to maintain safe separation of aircraft.

In addition to a traffic display, the more comprehensive TCAS II also provides pilots with resolution advisories (RA’s) when needed. The system determines the course of each aircraft; climbing, descending, or flying straight and level. TCAS II then issues an RA advising the pilots to execute an evasive maneuver necessary to avoid the other aircraft, such as "Climb" or "Descend." If both planes are equipped with TCAS II, then the two computers offer compatible  RA’s. In other words, the pilots are protected from maneuvers advice that would effectively cancel each other out, resulting in a continued threat.


TCAS queries other aircraft, receives information, displays traffic and reacts by warning pilots when there is a potential threat.

MITRE's key contribution to the development of TCAS was its work on the collision avoidance logic for TCAS II. The software uses the collected data on the flight patterns of other aircraft and determines if there is a potential collision threat. The system doesn't just show the other planes on a display like a radar screen, but offers warnings and solutions in the form of traffic advisories (TA’s) and resolution advisories (RA’s).

As CAASD's Dr. Andrew Zeitlin points out, "Because of the pilots' normal workload, we don't expect them to spend all of their time looking at the screen. It's there when needed, but more important, it speaks up and advises them as they need to make a maneuver to avoid a collision."

Aside from the logic design, much of MITRE's work on TCAS involved creating and running computer simulations to test the system. "Because it's expensive to fly test encounters," says Dr. Zeitlin, "we have developed some very powerful tools where we can generate millions of encounters on the computer and evaluate the logic exhaustively. We can also play back radar data from ordinary traffic and get a feel for how the system works and how much disruption you get day to day or at different locations with ordinary traffic." On occasion, MITRE has also assisted the FAA and other organizations in evaluating special encounters. "For example, if somebody has a near-miss and they want to know what TCAS's role was or what would TCAS have done in the encounter, we can simulate the encounter and give advice," says Zeitlin.

Taking to the Skies: The Congressional Mandate

On August 31, 1986, while TCAS was still in development, a collision occurred over Cerritos, California, involving an Aeromexico DC-9 and a small Piper aircraft carrying a family of three. The DC-9 was descending toward Los Angeles International Airport in clear skies, flying at 6,500 feet. The Piper hit the DC-9's tail, causing both aircraft to plummet from the sky.

The accident resulted in the deaths of all 67 people aboard the two planes, as well as 15 people on the ground. In the aftermath of this accident, Congress passed a law requiring the FAA to mandate the use of TCAS. By 1993, all carrier aircraft operating within U.S. airspace with more than 30 passenger seats were equipped with TCAS II. Aircraft with 10 to 30 seats were required to employ TCAS I.

Evolving to Meet Safety Needs


When the airlines were using the more advanced version 6.01 of the TCAS logic, ti became clear that some improvements still needed to be made. The system was issuing RA’s in some situations, such as final approach, when traffic may be close but is safely under control. Many pilots saw these RA’s as a nuisance. The system was basically too sensitive, with unnecessary TA’s and RA’s even being triggered by transponders on bridges and ships.

According to Dr. Zeitlin, "There was a growing tendency among pilots to ignore the advisory, even when they didn't necessarily have full knowledge of the situation. Everyone was concerned that one day they would ignore one that was necessary."

In 1992, CAASD developed logic version 6.04 to alleviate these problems. Delta Airlines, the first carrier to voluntarily use the new logic, reported an 80 percent reduction in RA’s. The following year, CAASD developed an additional improvement to the logic, version 6.04A. Airlines began equipping their fleets with this version in 1994.
The Final Generation

In 1997, CAASD finished work on one final major change to the TCAS logic, version 7. It was approved by the RTCA standards committee and the FAA, and is the version installed on all new aircraft. It has also been adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as the international standard. Version 7 is required for aircraft throughout European and most other countries. American carriers who fly to these countries have had to upgrade from 6.04A to 7 on their international planes, and can voluntarily upgrade the equipment already on their U.S. fleets. Version 7 also will be required in the U.S. for operation in Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) airspace beginning in 2005.



Version 7 logic yields at least a 20 percent reduction in RA’s over the previous version. CAASD ran simulations using radar data from Europe, where they encounter more high-altitude en route conflicts. The 7.0 software resulted in a 40 percent reduction in unnecessary RA’s. The new logic also significantly improves TCAS performance in several other important areas.

CAASD personnel conducted safety studies to evaluate the performance of each successive version of the TCAS logic. In a 1997 report on version 7, CAASD's Dr. Michael McLaughlin examined the reduced risk of collision in aircraft equipped with TCAS II versus the risk in aircraft without TCAS. Based on the likelihood of incursions into a protected zone around aircraft with a radius of 500 feet and a height of 200 feet--defined as Critical Near Mid-Air Collisions (NMACs)--McLaughlin concluded that "TCAS should reduce NMAC probability by at least 90 to 98 percent," depending on whether one or both aircraft in an encounter are equipped with TCAS.

Though NMACs, especially those involving commercial, passenger aircraft are already extremely rare, McLaughlin notes that "TCAS is intended to reduce their probability even further."

Although the FAA has said that version 7 will be the final logic for TCAS, the monitoring of Version 7 usage in Europe has illuminated several technical and operational issues.   CAASD is participating in a new RTCA effort to evaluate a change proposal.  Other work within RTCA and ICAO is considering issues regarding the interoperability of TCAS with other technologies, such as ADS-B.  CAASD's expertise undoubtedly will ensure and ongoing role in the evolution of the airborne collision avoidance function.

[Dig]

The MITRE Corp.
MITRE Corp awarded a $1,221,533,321 contract for fiscal year 1999 to 2003 systems engineering and integration support for Air Force and Foreign Military Programs.

$1.2 Billion to build a system that will guarantee false flag plane crashes...anytime, anywhere.  Oh yeah but 9/11 had nothing to do with technology...they used boxcutters.

W T F ?

How can anyone still say that with a straight face?

[luckee1]

   I have this copied.  except for the images. 

[Anti_Illuminati]

Here's a bio on one of the most significant criminals in world history:

http://esd.mit.edu/symposium/bios/levis.htm


Engineering Systems Symposium
March 29-31, 2004
Tang Center - Wong Auditorium, MIT

Alexander H. Levis, Sc.D.
Chief Scientist U.S. Air Force, Professor, George Mason University

Dr. Alexander H. Levis is the Chief Scientist of the Air Force, on leave from George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, where he is University Professor of Electrical, Computer, and Systems Engineering and where he heads the System Architectures Laboratory of the C3I Center.

Dr. Levis was educated at MIT where he received the BS (1965), MS (1965), ME (1967), and Sc.D.(1968) degrees in Mechanical Engineering with control systems as his area of specialization. He also attended Ripon College where he received the AB degree (1963) in Mathematics and Physics.

Dr. Levis is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and past president of the IEEE Control Systems Society; a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA); and a member of INCOSE and AFCEA. He has received twice the Exceptional Civilian Service medal from the Air Force (1994, 2001) for contributions as a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and the Third Millennium medal from IEEE.

Dr. Levis has taught at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (1968-1973), headed the Systems Research Department at Systems Control, Inc. in Palo Alto, CA (1973-1979), was a senior research scientist at the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems at MIT (1979-1990), and moved to George Mason University in 1990 where he headed twice the Systems Engineering department. For the last fifteen years, his areas of research have been information architecture design and evaluation, adaptive architectures for command and control, and the development of decision support systems. He has taught systems engineering and developed and taught the AFCEA short courses on C4ISR architectures.

[birther truther tenther]

Enterprise Architecture and Government Transformation By Beryl Bellman and Felix Rausch.
Published by The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management

A study of mandated Enterprise Architectures change communication within government and defence agencies, and the resulting implications for how knowledge is managed, organizational business structures are realigned and cultures transformed.

Keywords:    Enterprise Architecture, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Department of Defence Architecture Framework, Government Transformation, Organizational Culture and Technology, Information Technology, Knowledge Management, Learning Organization

International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Volume 5, Issue 9, pp.147-156. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Article: Electronic (PDF File; 1.977MB).
Dr. Beryl Bellman

Dr Beryl Bellman is a tenured full Professor of Communications at California State University at Los Angeles and is the co-founder of the FEAC Institute in Washington DC, which provides education and certification in the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework and the Department of Defence Architectural Framework.

Dr Bellman has over twenty-five years consulting experience in communications and enterprise architecture related projects consulting to the Executive Office of the President of the United States, Forest Service, Department of Energy, Immigration and Naturalization Service, US Postal Service, US Department of State and other federal agencies; as well as was a contract consultant for Ptech, NCR, AT&T, ASK and the Digital Equipment Corporation on projects both for their internal and external customers.. He also was the Research Director of the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla and helped manage its School of Management and Strategic Studies.

He also served on the faculties of the University of California at San Diego, State University of New York at Stonybrook and California Institute of the Arts and was a consultant in the Institute for Information Revolution Analysis at RAND where he organized the World Design Forum. Dr Bellman received his doctorate from the University of California at Irvine in 1971 in Social Science and has published three books and numerous articles in both academic journals and edited volumes, and also in industry related professional publications. He has extensive international research and consulting experience in Africa, Latin America, China, Korea and Europe.

Extracted from:

http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20000918235538/ptechinc.com/CalState.doc

California State University Los Angeles

Beryl Bellman, Professor of Communications at California State University Los Angeles, has been using process and enterprise modeling tools in his research and consulting since the mid-eighties.  Recently, he developed an innovative program at the University in which he uses Ptech's Framework ™ modeling product to teach his students about organizational communications, intercultural communications, communication networks, and the relationship between human communications and technology.

"Framework is easy for my students to learn, and it's a powerful technology that is built upon theories of organization, architecture, design, and implementation.  Framework is a practical teaching tool that enables me to teach both a theory and the analysis of that theory at the same time."

    - Beryl Bellman,
   Professor of Communications,
   California State University Los Angeles

Cal State LA Students Use Ptech's Framework™ to Model Organizational Communication



 


For the past two years, Beryl Bellman, Professor of Communications at California State University Los Angeles, has been using Ptech's Framework ™ product to help his students – candidates for bachelor's and master's degrees in communications – to visually depict the communication within a business organization.  With the help of enterprise modeling tools and technologies, he teaches them about organizational communications, intercultural communications, communication networks, and the relationship between human communications and technology.

Enterprise modeling provides businesses with a systematic approach to strategic planning by enabling them to foresee how their missions and visions will translate into concrete strategies and implementation.  "I teach a course called Applied Communications and Consulting," says Bellman.  "It is an evening course, and a lot of my students work during the day for various corporations in the area.  They are learning to use Framework to model real-life situations at their places of work.  For example, one student who works for a small manufacturing company is doing a lean enterprise analysis of his company with the goal of helping to improve its profitability."

Bellman, who has been using process and enterprise modeling tools in his research and consulting since the mid-eighties, shows his students how they can use Framework to create a visual "blueprint" of a business enterprise.  That blueprint can then be used to analyze and evaluate what-if scenarios so that the business can measure the impact of various changes in terms of cost, time, etc.  A platform-independent product, Framework allows an organization to look at everything from business requirements to implementation, so that it can make educated decisions about incorporating new technologies and business processes to improve efficiency and cohesion and reduce or eliminate the problems caused by conflicting goals and initiatives.

A Tool That's Both Powerful and Easy to Use

Bellman chose Framework because it is a powerful and highly versatile tool with tremendous intelligence and greater capability than other modeling programs.  "Some of my students have had previous experience with other modeling tools, so they learn to use Framework quite easily," he says.  "I have them use it to build a strategic planning model, or an organizational model, or an activity model, or an in-step process model.  I try to keep things fairly simple for them; they do not get involved in customization or in building meta models."


Exciting Plans for the Future

Convinced that modeling products represent excellent educational tools for the twenty-first century, Bellman is creating a new virtually delivered master's degree in Communications at the University with an emphasis on Knowledge Management and Enterprise Architecture.  Students would apply for this program through Ptech, and requirements for the degree would include conducting a thesis project that would involve creating knowledge enterprise models using Framework. "It would be like a graduate program in business communications, in which students would really understand the logic and theory behind meta models," he says. 

Students would learn all about the various capabilities of enterprise modeling, gaining practical knowledge that they could bring back to their companies in order to improve internal communications and processes.  They would be considered regularly enrolled University students, and they would receive a degree in Communications.  Bellman is also exploring a program in conjunction with the School of Business to establish a Framework-based virtual Executive MBA program.

"I am very excited about the future possibilities of this technology," says Bellman.  "Enterprise modeling is relatively easy for students to learn with tools like Framework.  It's a powerful technology that is built upon theories of organization, architecture, design, and implementation.  Enterprise modeling tools enable me to teach both a theory and the analysis of that theory at the same time.