Reply to the Army

                                                                                                Feburary 04, 2018

Senator Richard Shelby

1000 Glenn Hearn Boulevard

#20127
Huntsville, AL 35824

Dear Senator Richard Shelby,

I received your letter of December 15, 2017 which  provided the Army November 15, 2017 response.   I've tried to keep my response as brief and concise as possible.

When I formally pointed out to the Army it was not in compliant with the Army Airworthiness Regulation they quickly removed the offending requirement by releasing a new revision of the Regulation. 

Both DO-178 (Software) & DO-254 (Firmware) as applicable are mandatory and overseen by the FAA for commercial platforms.  Note the Army only references DO-254 as not mandatory in their response not DO-178.  A new, let me repeat, new navigation system for the CH-47 Chinook that does not comply with either, as stated by the Army's own documentation, highlights the "gap" referral made in the Army reply.  The Army rebuttal is that it does meet Sec. 91.705 - Operations within airspace designated as Minimum Navigation Performance Specification Airspace, which is basely subterfuge.  Yes admittedly the Army has total control of Army certification allowing it to blatantly ignore world recognized and applied technical best practices equally required by the Federal government for operation in public airspace. Why does the Federal government have these requirements that are enforced on the commercial sector?  The Army's justification: We don't have to.  It's good to be King.  The issue is how can they in good conscious knowingly not.

I would be glad to specifically address in detail any part of the Army response you would like. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Thanks so much for your assistance. 

Sincerely,