Army Integrity

This is a write-up I did in 2018 for the OSC (a lawyer) I previously stated I would post. 

Let me summarize for a moment.

The Army claims it is only required to meet Army Regulation.  Who controls Army Regulation? .... The Army!  When I first pointed out to Army management, Phil Howard and Bill Craig, that the Army was not meeting Army Regulation the Army proceeded to change it within months by deleting the offending statement.  Problem solved!

Tells you all you really need to know about Army integrity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and Professional Engineering license (GA).

33 years of system engineering (hardware/software) experience. 14 of which were overseeing software airworthiness for the Army (4 platforms). I consider myself a system engineer.

To get to the core "legality" issues I need to first focus on DO-178 (Software) for the moment.

DO-178, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification.

Noting there are revisions but we’re not going to sweat that at the moment.

DO-178 is a technical process with very specific data requirements required for certification by the FAA.  It is considered the world standard for "airworthiness" software.  ALL U.S. commercial avionic system are required to meet DO-178 which is overseen and certified by the FAA.  OK like with everything there are a few exceptions but they would have go to the FAA for approval to fly.  But all the U.S. manufactured airplanes you have ridden in or see at the airport or in the air over head are there because the software used on that "system" was FAA certified therefore can operate in public airspace.  This occurs because it is required by Federal law.  For everyone's safety.  There has to be a reason for this and one only has to look at the frequency of incidents within the commercial sector to understand why.

A very important point - essential the same technical process is used other countries: e,g, Europe.   EUROCAE published DO-178 as ED-12.  So the commercial platforms manufacture and certified to operate in their public airspace have the same avionics system software requirements as U.S. commercial platforms.

So by virtue of this equivalency in process (both essentially meeting DO-178) a platform (e.g. Airbus) is allowed to fly in U.S. airspace and vice versa a U.S. manufactured FAA certified platform (e.g. Boeing) is allowed to operate in their airspace.   This is a bilateral agreement between nations, and in this agreement military platforms are to be equivalent to operate in other nation’s airspace.  So e.g. to fly in the U.K. a US Army platform is essentially required to meet DO-178 to operate in their airspace per the Treaty.

You might be asking yourself how can he claim the Army is in violate?  For definitive proof  (not just my technical opinion) this would require us to go to the second time I officially pursued my technical and legal questions.  We'll skip over the first major incident – Black Hawk (HU-60 & MH-60) and Apache (AH-64) engine control software - See 1st grievance 2015 for more details.  During that incident, the primary DO-178 issues raised was in that the required data was not supplied to do certification per DO-178 as specified by the Government contract and not provided by the contractor.  Interpreting - the Army failed to buy the required data necessary for certification but said do it anyway which I refused – this is a major problem with the Army in that the required data for certification is not purchased by the Army Program Manager (PM).   That engine software block cycle (which I had overseen for 9 years) had multiple major technical documentation issues which I specifically documented.  Phil Howard had ordered me to reconsider my 1st disapproval which pointing out non-compliance to DO-178 - my position.  I had informed the PM about this problem multiple times prior to that disapproval.  As demanded by Mr. Howard, I reviewed the documentation again finding even more specific serious technical issues and expanded the 2nd disapproval documenting those issues in the official tasking at which point Phil Howard immediately called me to his office saying as soon as I entered - "YOU DISAPPROVED IT!  I have contacted HR and told them I have no more work for you and with the reductions in the Government you will find yourself on the sidewalk!" I left without saying a word.  Was immediately stripped of all work for over a year (placed on overhead funding) until I filed my 2015 grievances.  Three days after filing those I received an email from Phil Howard that I was assigned to oversee airworthiness for the CH-47 CAAS software. Finally, if that skipping then you’re in big trouble.

So focusing on my second quest for knowledge.  See my 2015-2016 Appraisal and 2nd grievance 2016 for more details.  I was assigned to the CH-47 CAAS software.  One point, Phil Howard claimed I had been given work and the Army ruled against my grievances reference above, but if I had work why did he have to give me work 3 days after I filed?  Sorry had to.  This assignment was overseeing airworthiness for the new versions of navigation software for the CH-47 Chinook helicopter - CAAS.  While reviewing the software's technical document, it came to my attention the Army official documentation explicitly stated that the software (Level A software – which is the highest criticality level) did not meet DO-178 (the actual document statement is in the Technical write-up attached).  The official Government contractor contracted to deliver DO-178 compliant software submitted documentation stating the software does not meet DO-178.  This is not just me saying it.  This is the official contractor submitted documentation accepted by the Army stating the software did not comply with DO-178 although required by the contract (you’re the lawyer).  It raised a technical and legal dilemma which I then presented to my lead engineer for an explanation.  I previously sent you the email chain between myself and Mr. Clark (lead eng).  In which he says you need to go to management (captured in that email).  Also captured is my contact and initial exchanges with Phil Howard (rater) about this officially documented technical and legal issue with the CAAS system. 

This leads up to the first important legal concern.  Upon identifying this issue of none compliance to DO-178 I decided to investigate Army Regulation (AR). Army Regulation 70–62 Airworthiness of Aircraft Systems 21 May 2007 was the document used by the Army [Note 8+ years] at that time.  In reviewing it and I found that the AR 70-62 stated: “1-4 (6) Ensures that the maximum degree of safety is applied through the practical application of systems safety engineering.”

Hopefully the earlier part of this discussion made it clear DO-178 is the world standard for Avionic software.  The Federal Government requires it for all commercial platforms (with very specific exceptions).  Also hopefully I’ve made it clear that the Army knowingly does not generally meet DO-178.  So AR 70-62 states the Army shall ensure that the “maximum degree of safety is applied.”  My argument was/is the Army is knowingly not meeting this requirement by virtue of the substantiated fact that the Army is not meeting even the minimum degree of safety, which is the world (as well as Federal) standard DO-178, much less the maximum degree of safety as required by AR 70-62.  In my attempts to get management to provide me direction or an explanation as to why the Army is not required to meet DO-178, to which they have never ever replied to then or afterward even though I sent the email to my entire management chain raising this specific legal issue only to have management retaliating against me for doing so.  The email and the technical document stating the argument above was send to my entire management chain on the 2 Nov 2015 raises this issue to management and are attached to this document's email.  As I said I never heard anything back from management which has always been the case regardless of the issues I raised to management.  Is that proper?  The technical and legal issues raised by this email was truly substantiated by the fact the Army quickly released a New AR 70-62 dated 11 May 2016.  This new revision deleted the requirement I had directed the Army to advising Army management that the Army was in violation of.  So less than 6 months (Pow!) after I pointed out the Army infraction the Army blatantly removed the requirement - max. safety.   This is a key point, military platform are overseen by the corresponding military branch.   The Army oversees Army airworthiness per AR 70-62 Airworthiness Qualification of US Army Aircraft Systems.  The Army has full and total control of airworthiness certification for Army systems.  Here lies a major point of contention and maybe mistakenly called legal by me.  The Army officially maintains in writing it is only required to meet AR-70-62.  I direct you to the Army’s two responses to my Senators inquirers as to how the Army can legally violate DO-178.  Located at:

https://air-worthy.blogspot.com

This is my blog which also has my letter to the IG who referred my legal inquiry to the organization (AED) that oversees airworthiness and knowingly allows the infractions - internally called a "gap" by the Army, acknowledged noncompliance.  Also posted are the Army's official responses to two Senatorial inquires both point to AR 70-62.  The Army officially points to AR 70-62 as their legal requirement but how is it ethical (or legal?) to delete a requirement from AR 70-62 when you find out you are in violation and not meeting it?  This action being a major part of why I question the legality of the Army's actions much less their ethics.

2nd legal point - Army's Nov 15, 2017 response to Senatorial inquire [posted on the referenced web site]: It is important to note that in the Army Nov 15, 2017 response that the Army only states DO-256  is not mandatory, not DO-178.  As you should be painfully aware of by now I have maintained that DO-178 is required (Federal law) and that document captures the Army officially not disputing that it is mandatory but of course maintaining that they only have to meet AR 70-62.  This is conflicting.  Acknowledging DO-178 mandatory nature but defending the Army right not to meet it but instead the totally controlled AR.  It's good to be King.

3rd legal point -  In dragging you here I tried to make it clear that DO-178 is not only the world standard for commercial platforms but is also the technical standard that the military is also required to meet to operate freely in all territories per the bilateral agreements or treaty discussed earlier.   Even if the Army is free to operate anyway it see fit by virtue of its controlled requirement AR 70-62 for US airspace, the international bilateral agreement requires the Army comply to DO-178 to operate freely in international airspace which it is currently documented to be in violation of this international legal agreement which hopefully I have substantiated.

As a lawyer if you were to point out a violation of a legal requirement and the powers that be then deleted that requirement is that legal?  It's surely not ethical but that is the character of the individuals I've dealt, even now as you read this.