MA, here's an advice.

[Inspector Fuzz]

I built my Extreme 2 years ago and used a paper manual. It did not, however, have the nice, blown up, blue print style drawings that previous MA kits came with. Man, those were great.
One question, without a manual, how the hell am I supposed to mix up epoxy and JB weld??!!! :dontknow :lol:
JEFF

[shawgl]

I will tell you that building my Tempest over a year ago was not too dificult with the PDF manual however I did print it and have a paper copy to take to the field. I personally dont need anything more to drag with me.

ClayK- As for IETMS. I worked up at Pax on the Y and Z for almost 4 years which shares the Hangar with the V-22. We bought paper pubs for the sole reason of the train wreck that we called IETMS. I'm telling you it's like going to a yardsale in Tijuana. Pure junk. I am presently in Iraq and working on Hueys and Cobras. We are only allowed one set of paper manuals and the rest are CD. It is killing us on a daily basis having to go print entire workpackages to do maintenance. We are trying to fix and fly 31 aircraft with one set of pubs per type model series. As much work as it may be to keep updating them. You just cant beat a set of paper pubs. Do what bell did on the 4 blade and inport your CAD drawings into the manuals for better clarity and you have a win-win situation. That is from where the rubber meets the road.

Estimated survival time of a laptop in one of my Marines hands on the flightline......
It probably wouldn't even make it to the aircraft. Guaranteed not to make it back in one piece.

Greg :twisted:

[ClayK]

Perhaps shawgl... We have user juries on just about everything related to the program. The PMD is a Panasonic Toughbook. So far, Marines have only damaged two out of 20. They are currently in Operational Assessment and doing fine. Better than fine really. I have personally visited and consulted the guys on the V-22 program with respect to their IETM. To put it bluntly, their IETM sucked. They are effecting changes to make it better, but it still has some growing pains. The shortcomings of that program stem from it's design conception (contract structure) and early program office direction. Anyone on V-22 will confirm this.

Adding to the above, I have also turned wrenches with the Marines at AVTB (Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch) and worked on multiple user juries with respect to the IETM and supporting information. Thus far, every response from EVERY Marine has been positive. That includes the maintenance personnel, the crew, embarked personnel and staff (where the C crew is concerned) and the supporting personnel (COMM). We've had opinions from both crew and maintenance about photos/graphics. Both want a digital picture for relational usage when locating a component and both want the line art (CAD drawings) when referring to exploded assemblies and pertinent parts information.

Printing pages is not necessary, it really isn't. In the case of the V-22 it was, due to long load times for the maintenance procedures. They are fixing this with a different display mechanism. However, that really is a separate program and can't even come close to what the EFV IETM can do. Hate to diss your experience with IETMs, but you haven't really experienced an IETM yet. You've really experience an ETM, electronic technical manual. There is a distinct difference between the two. Currently, there are only a couple fully functional Class 5 IETMs. EFV has one of them. I'll include a paper tomorrow to properly display the differences of the different classes, should you want to know.

Considering the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of studies on creation, deployment, support, update and eventual disposition of technical information..... The IETM is the logical choice, provided it's done correctly. There is a lot of junk out there and there is a lot of misconception on what an "IETM" really is. Those that think they know, can't really explain what it is. I can accurately equate my knowledge in this area to a simple comparitive. I am to IETMs what David Harkey is to Miniature Aircraft (I could probably just say helicopters really....). :glasses2:

[z11355]

try printfu.org

[WillJames]

I like the online docs. Carey had really made it easy with the great pics. Like Gordie, I open them in my photo editor so I can blow them up and lighten them if necessary. A pic is worth a thousand words. Can't wait to see the new 50 Manual Carey!!

[shawgl]

I agree that the V-22 system is complete garbage however the problem that we really saw was the refering from trouble shooting or say flight control rigging back to the assembly work packages without an effective way to transfer back and forth between the required information. I have not had the chance to see the IETM that the EFV is usning however I have seen the vehicle and the systems it contains out at Camp Pendleton. One of my Marines works for the contracting company now that he is out. I will tell you this though. It must be nice to take a Panasonic toughbook out into a motorpool and do some work because it wouldn't last a week out here. I have 5 of them in our squadron all in offices and nothing but problems pulling up PDF format manuals and printing them. I honestly think there will always be a place for paper manuals. As much as I hate them. It's true.

[ClayK]

Fault isolation is the key to our Class 5. Total system integration would be the preferred way. Basically, the fault codes that are dumped from the MMU feed the FI tree to correct the fault. Then there are MTP's that should isolate the fault, but those are a fall back.

Sometimes I like paper, just for scribble. Getting more and more involved, you see more and more functionality (redline, save configuration, bookmarks, configuration management that eliminates user interaction, graphics zoom, multimedia/video, etc etc).

What version Toughbook do you have? 5 different versions failed case studies, only one passed. Perhaps you have a non-preferred version? Look on the bottom for the code/model type (CF28ET.... CF29FT.... etc etc). I can tell you which one you got based on that.

[shawgl]

I will go take a look on the tough books, the book marking and things of that nature are what kills it on aircraft and configuration management is impossible for us. In my squadron we are running 31 aircraft, two type model series and I couldn't begin to tell you how many different configuartions we have due to the aircraft having thousands of TD's and not all of them effect all the same type model series. It's a great concept for something like the EFV which is all brand new and you can keep track of the configurations by vehicle serial number but impossible to back fit all the information. That would be a fun job. Research 30 years worth of TD's and check every huey and cobra in the Marine Corps and back fit the info. WOW!!! :arggg:

[ClayK]

You aren't serious are you? We currently have a total of 10 vehicles. Every vehicle is different based on ECR/ECP or modkit applied. As built is completely different from as maintained on all of them. We expect that during fielding, all vehicles will be different in a myriad of ways. Currently, we manage, track and maintain each configuration accurately (the ones we are funded for). Sounds like the problems you have encountered with configuration management have been limited by the tools you've been using. I have no such problem doing CM on the EFV. We haven't started LRIP (low rate initial production) yet so our vehicles change daily, each of them. We track by hull/bumper number. Each mod or ECP has an effectivity block. Not all vehicles in that effectivity block will be modded, but they "might" be modded. Depending on whether or not that mod or change was actually applied, determines whether or not we "turn on" the filter that displays the technical data for that particular vehicle. Trust me when I say this, the EFV is breaking ground with respects to IETM and Configuration Management in the technical data world. We've gotten awards and numerous write ups on it.

As promised, here's a good read from one of my guys. Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (http://www.net1hosting.com/Interactive%20Electronic%20Technical%20Manuals.doc ).

[shawgl]

I am very serious. I know exactly what you guys are doing, it is exactly what we were trying to do on the Y and Z (4 bladed upgrade huey and cobra). So imagine trying to back fit 30 years of mods on say 280 aircraft that were built over a 35 year period. It's not going to happen. You said you guys have less than 10 vehicles. Wait untill LRIP lot one rolls off and then two and so on. Just wait. It all sounds good but wait untill the civilians are no longer contracted to maintain the CM and it WILL grow to be a giant shit sandwich. I worked on all five of the prototype 4 blade aircraft and everyone was different. Man it sucked trying to maintain all the MOD paperwork. And not to mention every mod that is performed doesn't go as planned which requires limited design variations. Where does the IETM take that into account? Paper pubs..... Slip pages. Crude but effective. Just think though, you guys do have the opportunity to start from scratch so it'll be much easier to do than reverse engineer it like we would have to do on our aircraft. Way too many systems are carried forward from other aircraft.

[ClayK]

GD is in charge of life cycle management, just like the M1. The project concept is womb to tomb. We have 10 vehicles right now and we are starting LRIP next year. There have been over 1000 individual mods to just those 10 vehicles. Some in blocks, some in single effectivity.

Reverse engineering an IETM can be done, the authors would only need to have all the source material. That source material would have to be accurate. I can guarantee that ISO wasn't around back in the day and I can also guarantee that production control and configuration management has grown, even in the last 10 years. Trying to go "back" and do an IETM on something that has already been produced is a monumental task. The other problem is that configuration control hasn't become a priority until recently. Unless those birds of yours are visually confirmed and torn down, you won't know what's on the birds for sure. Configuration Status Accounting from the beginning is what allows our configuration control to work. Your project would appear that an IETM is not a good path to take. For other projects that are in their infancy though....

[shawgl]

Absolutely agree on that one, the problem with aircraft is almost every time a new aircraft is developed it carries forward legacy systems that have been around for god knows how long and they have been modified countless times. It's only effective in Build New equipment. That is why I just love my pubs, when in doubt call the fleet support team or an engineer and pull the drawing and check the effectivity. Much easier than trying to reverse engineer an IETM. At least untill we buy build new aircraft which will never happen on our budget.

[RealMcCoy]

FYI

I was at Miniature Aircraft's factory today and I asked them about the PDF manual versus the paper manual. I was told that they would be happy to supply a paper manual to anyone who has the PDF version and would like a paper copy. You just have to call them and request one.

Earl

[DavidH]

I was told that they would be happy to supply a paper manual to anyone who has the PDF version and would like a paper copy.

That is nothing new. They have always offered the paper manual.

http://www.miniatureaircraftusa.com/Store/search.asp?stext=manual&pg=1

The one for the Extreme is $24.95

David