Clarification (DO-178 & the Army)

I did want to make something clear.  I emailed everyone starting with my lead engineer CH-47 Chinook [who stated you need to go to management], then going to my supervisor Phil Howard [never responded], to then Director Bill Craig [never responded] and eventually everyone in my Army chain of command.  When I met with Phil for my Mid-point meeting after sending him the email documenting the issues I actually stated it to him in the meeting.  He said, "How do you know this?" [which was in the email?]  I stated because the official technical documentation states that.  He said "I'll investigate."  Last I hear from him even though I emailed him right after to document the discussion with an inquiry as to status.  Actually I've sent emails to Phil for over 4 years and he has never responded to a single one.  Harassment and retaliation by management only gets more subtle with time.  When I disapproved the T-700 engine control software, which I have overseen for 9 years, I was immediately stripped of all work by Phil Howard and the UH-60 Black Hawk Program Manager (PM).  Phil said when I entered his office being called there the same day of 2nd disapproval posting.  "You disapproved it!  I have called HR and told them I have no more work for you and with the reduces in the Government you will find yourself on the sidewalk!"  I had disapproved it originally (1st disapproval) primarily for not meeting DO-178 which was required by the contract with General Electric.  Phil called me to his office (1st disapproval) and said go back and reevaluate it.  I did not understand at the time [hey I'm dense, I'm an engineer!] that he was ordering me to go back and approve the software.  So I went back re-evaluated and wrote another disapproval stating even more glaring technical deficiencies: e.g. no traceability matrix, etc!  A DO-178 requirement.  I was immediately (within hours) called in to Phil's office and told the "you will find yourself on the sidewalk" threat and removed from the program.   Then removed from the CAAS program: "there is no more funding for you."

THE POINT is the Army claims it doesn't have to meet DO-178 which took over 4 years to get in writing with a  lot of retaliation and harassment along the way.  Both the UH-60 Black Hawk T700 engine control software and the CH-47 CAAS program Army contracts state the software was required to meet DO-178.  Level A in both cases.  One of my points in my write-up to Army command was if your not meeting DO-178B what does stating software meets Level A even mean?  Level A being defined by DO-178B.  In the first instance, the T700 software, early on based on my work and a couple of excellent of the engineers I worked with from the AED Engine Control office the first AWIS (Airworthiness Impact Statement) for software was written on the T700 engine control software.  First ever Army AWIS for software.  IMPORTANT NOTE: Which was a FAA certified Engine [which is how the FAA has done the engine control AS for years and even to this day: wrong].  The FAA representative admitted it to the Army in a phone conference with a huge of the Army airworthiness personnel (platform and engine) when I confronted them with official technical documentation which I read to him. "Shame on us if we approved that." was his statement.  When I disapproved the engine software, which I had overseen for 9 years, it was only my technical assessment that the software for not meeting the requirements specified by DO-178B, which it wasn't (e.g. missing required documentation not contracted - norm for the Army).   Funny thing when Phil removed me the person that was assigned to evaluate the T700 Software Accomplishment Summary (SAS) [Required by DO-178] for that release (Block Cycle) of the software Phil (my supervisor) gave the work to a DB4 who had been my supervisor but I'm a DB3.  Right, a DB3 has been working the software for 9 years reviewing all the documentation including the SAS for the software releases.  They then kick me off the program and Phil assigned the work to a DB4 for the SAS review.  Dr. Willie Fitzpatrick.  Previously when Willie was my supervisor it had taken me over a year to convince him stating "I don't care about that."  That being the control software AS (Application System) did not meet DO-178 and the AWIS came about a long time after I did.  Dr. Willie Fitzpatrick evaluation and technical posting for the SAS, I had disapproved, did not approve or disapprove it just stating "basically" gee it sure would be nice if you (General Electric) stated what the impacts of the changes to the software were.  Case closed.  Both times I have raised this issue on two different systems being developed the Army contract stated that the software was required to meet DO-178B.  In the case of CAAS the Army technical documentation (contractor submitted and Government approved documents) stated the software did not meet DO-178.  In addition, it also stated the CAAS system did not meet DO-254 and was not even contracted to meet DO-254. 

Even if the Army maintains it is not required to meet DO-178 how can it issue contracts that state the software is required to meet DO-178 but the contractor states explicitly in the technical documentation it does not meet it nor contracting the data required by DO-178. The Army didn't contact for the required data with the T700 which is very common for the Army (PM controls the money).   A waver to the contract could be issued but to the best of my knowledge this was not done in either case but I was removed from both programs after I pointed the technical issues out.  So this is not just about the Army stating that it doesn't have to meet DO-178, which I maintain violates the international treaty allowing the operate in foreign airspace of U.S. military platforms, but also does not even meeting the contracts for the software issued by the Army stating the software is required to meet DO-178.  Not to mention what the heck does Level A software that doesn't meet DO-178 even mean?  The PM controls money so controls absolute and my disapprovals made Phil look bad so he took it very personally.  Hence the "you'll find yourself on the sidewalk" statement and removal from both programs.  He is currently my 1st line supervisor.  Susan Davis is my 2nd line Supervisor.  To this day they are both abusing their authority doing everything in their power to remove me from the government in retaliation for my actions.

Since raising these issues I have never been allowed airworthiness work rather being forced (by Phil and Susan) onto non-airworthiness work to prevent me from raising these same airworthiness technical issues again, which the Army just calls "a gap."  A glaring gap in safety they are fully aware of.

In the recruiting commercials for the Army they talk integrity but the Army has displayed absolutely no integrity in this matter.  None and to date I have yet to find any integrity in any of Army management but rather exactly the opposite.  I'm currently up to the top of my chain of command again (Redstone) so I'll keep you posted.  I will also post a legal write-up where I address this I provided to the OSC.  No I am not a lawyer so an engineer non-lawyer view.  Best I can do!  We can all do better.