M
Martel
Guest
Has anyone had any dealings with this rare beastie? Where is it at, what does it do? (-That is different from current system....obviously!)
-
Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
F
FOMP
Guest
MFMIS
Where do we start, yes it is coming to an Ops Room, Tower, Sqn near you soon. It is behind schedule but the phase1 field trial should take place in the next 3 months at Lyneham, Middle Wallop and Yeovilton (notice that its one from each service). If that is successful then it will be rolled out everywhere soon after. It is no a workstation per say but is a software package that will run on your RLI and in some cases SLI desktops (thats the ones that you can get MODweb on).
By now an individual should have been identified at each unit as the Local System Manager, he/she will allocate varying degrees of permissions to the users. These permissions could range from being able to manipulate NOTAMs for your LACs & SACs to being allowed (from phase 2) to make a Low Level system booking which MUST be done by the Aircrew themselves so that they can receive their individual mission deconfliction alerts. So everyone will have their individual logon password that links to individual permissions.
MFMIS is initially a message distribution system, then in phase 2 it will do LL Bookings, Airspace & range bookings, and it will be able to give you route brief PIBs (ala AIS PIBS).
Will it be any good? Too early to say, it is definitely different, windows based but more complicated than M-ALFENS. You will still not be able to block delete NOTAMS that you don't want (ICAO rules). Folks will have to know a little bit about Q-Code identifyers (remember them at TTF) if they want to sift PIBS. Lets give it a chance before we all slag it off, I for one remember how we used to whinge about ASMA, SOMA, MARATZ but we don't half miss em when they're gone if we're honest.
Where do we start, yes it is coming to an Ops Room, Tower, Sqn near you soon. It is behind schedule but the phase1 field trial should take place in the next 3 months at Lyneham, Middle Wallop and Yeovilton (notice that its one from each service). If that is successful then it will be rolled out everywhere soon after. It is no a workstation per say but is a software package that will run on your RLI and in some cases SLI desktops (thats the ones that you can get MODweb on).
By now an individual should have been identified at each unit as the Local System Manager, he/she will allocate varying degrees of permissions to the users. These permissions could range from being able to manipulate NOTAMs for your LACs & SACs to being allowed (from phase 2) to make a Low Level system booking which MUST be done by the Aircrew themselves so that they can receive their individual mission deconfliction alerts. So everyone will have their individual logon password that links to individual permissions.
MFMIS is initially a message distribution system, then in phase 2 it will do LL Bookings, Airspace & range bookings, and it will be able to give you route brief PIBs (ala AIS PIBS).
Will it be any good? Too early to say, it is definitely different, windows based but more complicated than M-ALFENS. You will still not be able to block delete NOTAMS that you don't want (ICAO rules). Folks will have to know a little bit about Q-Code identifyers (remember them at TTF) if they want to sift PIBS. Lets give it a chance before we all slag it off, I for one remember how we used to whinge about ASMA, SOMA, MARATZ but we don't half miss em when they're gone if we're honest.
F
Fenella
Guest
Thanks for that FOMP. Do you think the Aircrew doing their own bookings will work ok?
M
Martel
Guest
You can almost hear the excuse engine being started up from here....will the legal requirements be sewn up nicely so that the master-race will not be able to off load their responsibility onto a SAC/Cpl? I'm guessing probably not, but then alot of stuff they never used to do they now have become proficient at around the Sqn.
Thanks for the info FOMP: Comms Flt here were leading us to believe that there were more trials going on, more Stations involved and that we might be able to apply to 'test' the system (read: get it early)...but that is now nicely put to bed as a load of tosh.
Nice to see that 9-ship of tonkers from 11 this morning...anyone else see it? ....It makes you remember what it is like to have enough aircraft (in the RAF, established on a single Sqn AND serviceable) to carry something like that off.... Of course, if they were painted red, then it wouldn't be worth a comment!
Thanks for the info FOMP: Comms Flt here were leading us to believe that there were more trials going on, more Stations involved and that we might be able to apply to 'test' the system (read: get it early)...but that is now nicely put to bed as a load of tosh.
Nice to see that 9-ship of tonkers from 11 this morning...anyone else see it? ....It makes you remember what it is like to have enough aircraft (in the RAF, established on a single Sqn AND serviceable) to carry something like that off.... Of course, if they were painted red, then it wouldn't be worth a comment!
FormerFlake
SAC
- 100
- 0
- 0
Fenella said:
Surely, the whole point of the ops support set up is we do this sort of thing for them?
F
FOMP
Guest
I know what you guys mean, but I'm afraid that if the aircrew want to low fly in future then they have got to log on and do it themselves. Thats how the system has been developed (those of us who have been around a bit will remember that was how ALFENS was supposed to work but the software just couldn't cope with it). ALFENS was designed to give the aircrew confliction avoidance tracks but MFMIS will just give them alerts of potential conflicts and its up to the aircrew to resolve it, thats why we can't do the bookings for them. Yes I know they will try to get the assistant on the Sqn to do it but remember that the assistant won't have the permissions on the system (tee hee).
At some future point the crew will be able to insert their HAMPA, JAMPA or TAMPA route disk into MFMIS and it will process their Low Level legs for them (Gucci), I've sen a demo of this complete with a 3D fly through, it looks cool but is a few years away yet!
At some future point the crew will be able to insert their HAMPA, JAMPA or TAMPA route disk into MFMIS and it will process their Low Level legs for them (Gucci), I've sen a demo of this complete with a 3D fly through, it looks cool but is a few years away yet!
F
Fenella
Guest
Formerflake
When you have stopped jumping down my throat, I was asking FOMP, who appears to know what he is talking about, if he thought it would work. I am very aware of my responsibilities in this trade towards helping Aircrew,thank you very much, I have just heard that Aircrew will be responsible for their own. I have also worked for Aircrew who do not like dealing with Computers and always feel happy when the Ops guys are doing it for them. This is fine but if they have their own log ins, then they will have to do it won't they!?
Chill fella!
When you have stopped jumping down my throat, I was asking FOMP, who appears to know what he is talking about, if he thought it would work. I am very aware of my responsibilities in this trade towards helping Aircrew,thank you very much, I have just heard that Aircrew will be responsible for their own. I have also worked for Aircrew who do not like dealing with Computers and always feel happy when the Ops guys are doing it for them. This is fine but if they have their own log ins, then they will have to do it won't they!?
Chill fella!
FormerFlake
SAC
- 100
- 0
- 0
Fenella
My comments where not intended as a dig at you, or anyone.
This does show that the powers that be within the ops world are not thinking ahead though. By cutting ops people out of new systems in this way, it gives the brach less credability. Mind you, knowing aircrew, ops people will end up doing it all for them unofficially, so we would never get any credit and get blammed if it all goes wrong. Same old, same old.
My comments where not intended as a dig at you, or anyone.
This does show that the powers that be within the ops world are not thinking ahead though. By cutting ops people out of new systems in this way, it gives the brach less credability. Mind you, knowing aircrew, ops people will end up doing it all for them unofficially, so we would never get any credit and get blammed if it all goes wrong. Same old, same old.
F
FOMP
Guest
FF,
I don't want to burst any balloons chaps but there will be no way that the Ops assistants will be able to do the Low Level bookings for the aircrew on MFMIS. If you think about it, for legal reasons the crew themselves will have to acknowledge the warnings and conflict alerts. Which IMHO is no bad thing in this litigatious age, I remember when I was responsible for a series of Sqn Ops Rooms the "late warning" system sometimes failing if the assistant didn't get the message to the crew quickly enough on the management frequency (sometimes the assistants forgot/unable to tell the crew about the warnings when the crew walked, because they were busy dealing with another crew). The crew would then call Ground then Local who if very busy (as they were in those days) sometimes didn't manage to get the warning to the crew before they got airborne, panic would then enshew as Sqn Ops tried other means to get the warning to the crew.
Not safe, not expeditious and stress invoking, now if the crews got the warnings direct, on their own login that the system registered and kept record of, surely that's safer and will result in a lot less bo**ockings for the Ops assistants.
I'm intrigued to know who these Ops "powers that be" are by the way!
I don't want to burst any balloons chaps but there will be no way that the Ops assistants will be able to do the Low Level bookings for the aircrew on MFMIS. If you think about it, for legal reasons the crew themselves will have to acknowledge the warnings and conflict alerts. Which IMHO is no bad thing in this litigatious age, I remember when I was responsible for a series of Sqn Ops Rooms the "late warning" system sometimes failing if the assistant didn't get the message to the crew quickly enough on the management frequency (sometimes the assistants forgot/unable to tell the crew about the warnings when the crew walked, because they were busy dealing with another crew). The crew would then call Ground then Local who if very busy (as they were in those days) sometimes didn't manage to get the warning to the crew before they got airborne, panic would then enshew as Sqn Ops tried other means to get the warning to the crew.
Not safe, not expeditious and stress invoking, now if the crews got the warnings direct, on their own login that the system registered and kept record of, surely that's safer and will result in a lot less bo**ockings for the Ops assistants.
I'm intrigued to know who these Ops "powers that be" are by the way!
FOMP I here what you're saying but...
FOMP I here what you're saying but...
FF is right about the Opsie doing the routes, at some time anyway. How many times have you writen out a flight plan??? We're only supposed to address them yet we do 'em.
When the jocky can't get on the system 'cause another bod is on it do you not think he maybe tempted to say "Can you do me a favour...?" and slid the route across the desk along with his log in?
FOMP I here what you're saying but...
FF is right about the Opsie doing the routes, at some time anyway. How many times have you writen out a flight plan??? We're only supposed to address them yet we do 'em.
When the jocky can't get on the system 'cause another bod is on it do you not think he maybe tempted to say "Can you do me a favour...?" and slid the route across the desk along with his log in?
G
GBZ
Guest
Sorry for digging up a long dormant post, but now that MFMIS is finally coming online, how is everyone finding it?
My first impressions are it's gonna need a couple of patches to tweak it here and there, but it seems to be an improvement over ALFENS (not hard, I know).
Having an extra PC is certainly handy for admin. Bit crap that it doesn't beep when you get a message and it prints out a whole page for one or two lines of text though!
Just got to find a big enough hole to bury the old ALFENS TEG in now
I'll get my coat...
My first impressions are it's gonna need a couple of patches to tweak it here and there, but it seems to be an improvement over ALFENS (not hard, I know).
Having an extra PC is certainly handy for admin. Bit crap that it doesn't beep when you get a message and it prints out a whole page for one or two lines of text though!
Just got to find a big enough hole to bury the old ALFENS TEG in now
I'll get my coat...
Last edited:
P
POB
Guest
I have not worked it yet, but it's on its way soon. (FOMz will correct me if its thre allreay, I am sure.)
My problem with ANOTHER computer on the desk is it will get in the way of the 5 (FIVE!) other systems I have to use, each one with its own screen...I know there is a capability to use technology to break it down to a few less screens, but it is still reducingmy workspace.
My problem with ANOTHER computer on the desk is it will get in the way of the 5 (FIVE!) other systems I have to use, each one with its own screen...I know there is a capability to use technology to break it down to a few less screens, but it is still reducingmy workspace.
I understand that any time there is a change in IT software there is a teething period and it is important to give these systems a chance to get up and running rather than just shut them down at the first sign of difficulty. However my question is that if MFMIS fails in it's phase 1 trial then will it be redrafted/fixed/scrapped? Or will it be implemented regardless by our venerated lord and masters who will run roughshod over the objections of those people that have actually worked with/will have to work with it.
DT_Xtremez_21: As a side note I haven't yet used this system myself but have seen the same thing happen with other projects.
I'll keep an open mind on it until I've had a chance to play. ALFENS promised so much, yet delivered so little though.
I read up on MFMIS last week and the principle looks sound, as long as people don't start trying to bolt various other things onto it.
As for a change of system and learning Q codes...............
QJC or QRL ????????????????
I read up on MFMIS last week and the principle looks sound, as long as people don't start trying to bolt various other things onto it.
As for a change of system and learning Q codes...............
QJC or QRL ????????????????
L
League Any Time
Guest
If you have an RLI connected terminal you won't need another terminal it is Web/Java based.
G
GBZ
Guest
The phrase "...rollout expedited due to ministerial pressure..." did come up on my MFMIS course unfortunately! Hopefully it won't lead to another M-ALFENS type situation.
I just hope all the feedback from users is taken onboard by the software developers so we can get Phase 1 sorted before moving on to Phase 2.
I've been using it for a week now and it's not too bad. No major problems, just annoyances that can hopefully be patched.
H
Hammer
Guest
mfmis
mfmis
The main problem is that EDS are experts in mission planners and phase 2 will be spot on, however they bought phase 1 and thats where the problems lie. The messaging side is struggling.
mfmis
The main problem is that EDS are experts in mission planners and phase 2 will be spot on, however they bought phase 1 and thats where the problems lie. The messaging side is struggling.
H
Hammer
Guest
Hello mate
The reason the contract went to EDS and not NATS was due to their supposed expertise in building mission planners. That is primarily what they do. NATS offered a 100% delivery NOTAM system but couldnt offer phase 2 which is what the RAF wanted.
The reason the contract went to EDS and not NATS was due to their supposed expertise in building mission planners. That is primarily what they do. NATS offered a 100% delivery NOTAM system but couldnt offer phase 2 which is what the RAF wanted.