The power of innovation lies not in mere ideas or words, but action. Innovation has an impact only when men and women who have no special rank or title see a problem and run toward a solution, spending their own spare time and money to solve problems that make their daily lives cumbersome.
The Departments of Defense and the Navy have both caught the “innovation” bug, but in many ways, they exhibit more talk than action. The Force of the Future initiative, an attempt to bring 21st-century talent-management policies to an aging seniority-based personnel system, was recently excoriated by the Senate Armed Services Committee for being too disruptive to the status quo, and the silence of the services in response was deafening. The much-acclaimed Chief of Naval Operations Rapid Innovation Cell, a band of emerging leaders who brought 3-D printers on warships, Google Glass, and design thinking to the Navy, despite intense institutional resistance and little funding, was killed in January after little advocacy from the admiralty following a prejudicial congressional mark that eliminated all funding for the program.
Yet, despite the challenges of creating a culture of innovation from the top down, unofficial grassroots efforts are thriving. And despite bureaucratic hurdles, antiquated acquisition policies, and middle management that would rather say “no” than find a way to “yes,” our young sailors are putting their minds to work and experimenting with revolutionary solutions.
The third annual Defense Entrepreneurs Forum, held in Chicago last November, featured eight such entrepreneurial military service members. The winners of the $5,000 annual Shark Tank–like pitch competition sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute had been all active-duty Navy naval professionals who created tangible and replicable solutions to real-world problems.
Lieutenant Peter Barkley, a Naval Academy mathematics professor and P-3 pilot, was tired of spending eight hours a day writing flight schedules and thus created an automated scheduling system that yields a fully developed flight schedule in less than an hour. Lieutenant Dan Conley, with Lieutenant Johannes Schonberg, wondered why sailors needed separate chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) and firefighting masks and spent their own money to develop drawings for an integrated breathing apparatus that prevents sailors fighting fires in the midst of a chemical attack from needing to take one mask off and replace it with another. Finally, now-Wisconsin National Guard First Lieutenant (then-Navy Ensign) Nick Sinopoli built a working prototype for glasses that help pilots train in Instrument Flight Rules conditions, using technology found on the windows of the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
As our Navy faces new challenges in the 21st century, senior leaders must develop ways to encourage and capture innovations from an underutilized community—our most junior sailors. The ability to take an idea and effectively execute on it has no minimum rank. The Defense Entrepreneurs Forum provides a pipeline for senior leaders to find the next generation of revolutionaries.
Automate Flight Schedules
By Lieutenant Peter Barkley, U.S. Navy
Despite improvements in information technology and operations research, the U.S. Navy continues to construct flight schedules the way it has for decades. We can do better.
Over the past two years, the U.S. Naval Academy scheduled more than 7,500 flight events using automated flight-scheduling software we call PFM.
Since switching to automated flight scheduling, our solo rate increased from 51 to 79 percent, the number of students who were unable to complete the program dropped from 19 to 5 percent, and our daily scheduling workload dropped from 12 hours to 3 hours. Increasing the solo rate and reducing our work hours saved the Navy more than $600,000 in systems and personnel costs. Automated flight scheduling offers a proven opportunity to reduce student time-to-train and lower personnel costs at our flight training squadrons and fleet replacement squadrons (FRSs).
‘Pace and Efficiency’
The flight schedule determines in practice the pace and efficiency of all flight training in a squadron. Instructor pilots and naval flight officers and their civilian counterparts create the flight schedule manually, assigning students and instructors to aircraft line by line. In the flight training squadrons, this currently takes 12 to 16 work hours each day. At the larger FRSs, it is closer to 24 hours.
While the existing software highlights major errors, it does not ensure that all possible events have been scheduled or automatically optimize the schedule in light of the forecast weather. The problem is so complex that schedulers frequently cannot take into account anything but the next day’s flight schedule and any late-breaking changes in the outcome of the current flight schedule can wreak havoc.
Every scheduler and flight student can provide examples of this complexity. In flight school, I watched as a fellow student who was up for both a simulator event and an aerobatics flight event was scheduled for the aerobatics event, despite a rotten weather forecast. He briefed and sat around in the ready room all morning while the simulator remained empty, wasting that training day.
I have also watched as, 30 minutes before the flight schedule was published, a plane went down for maintenance and forced the cancellation of several events. Schedulers must either delay publishing the flight schedule to rewrite it over the next hour or just publish it, requiring the duty staff to adjust it by hand. In both cases, automated scheduling can do better.
How It Works
The Naval Academy’s Powered Flight Program has been using PFM since 2014. The program schedules an average of 85 students each day on two types of aircraft with a variety of syllabus constraints that mimic those of primary flight training. Its schedules meet all of the syllabus requirements and assign students to the correct instructors, checking crew rest, snivels (a request for time off of the schedule), and other obligations. It looks ahead three to five days, easily considers the weather, and typically runs in under a minute.
The scheduling software uses a special type of linear programming model known as an “integer program.” The model creates variables determining whether a given student event and a given instructor are scheduled during each available time slot. It then assigns weights to these variables based on student priority, the weather, instructor preferences, and other factors. The variables are also constrained to meet all of the syllabus, aircraft, student, and instructor requirement. An optimization program then searches through the feasible schedules to find the one that maximizes the weighted number of events scheduled.
Although it has reduced the hours they need to work, PFM has augmented—not replaced—our schedulers. They now have the time to focus on the resource issues that limit the schedule. They can also rerun the scheduling program quickly to adjust for new information such as flight failures or maintenance problems.
Next Steps
Our flight training squadrons and FRSs, like Powered Flight, are governed by a syllabus and scheduling rules that suit this type of optimization well. I propose the Navy adapt the Naval Academy’s model for a single training squadron. If we leverage the expertise we have developed at the Academy, the first year of testing and development should cost less than $20,000. After a trial period, evaluate the squadron’s scheduling work hours and student outcomes against its sister squadrons. Determine the ongoing support and training costs for the program. If the benefits outweigh the costs, continue development.
Scheduling automation will reduce the time required to train our student pilots and our scheduling work hours. It has for Powered Flight.
Lieutenant Barkley ([email protected]) is a Navy pilot stationed at the U.S. Naval Academy where he teaches operations research and manages scheduling for the Powered Flight Program. He was previously stationed in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, as a P-3 instructor pilot and mission commander with VP-47. He is a 2006 Naval Academy graduate with a master’s degree in computer speech, text, and Internet technology from the University of Cambridge.
Survivability: A Unified Mask Concept
By Lieutenant Daniel Conley, Medical Service Corps, U.S. Navy, with Lieutenant Johannes Schonberg, U.S. Navy Reserve
Not until 2015 and a new event known as the Athena Project did the notion occur that there may be a proper avenue for implementing a good idea.
I (Lieutenant Conley) presented the unified mask concept (UMC) at the Athena Project 2.0 in the Pacific Northwest, and despite not “winning” against the competition, it proved to be a fruitful and insightful event. Thanks to encouragement and networking on the part of its main organizer, Lieutenant Commander Drew Barker, Lieutenant Schonberg and I carried this concept to the 2015 DEF Conference.
The U.S. Navy currently employs various pieces of equipment to provide breathing air for crew members in the event of a full range of possible threats and environments. History has demonstrated that atmospheric threats are encountered in war and in peace, from smoke and fire to chemical, biological, or even radiological/nuclear (CBRN) contaminants as occurred during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
Each crew member has one MCU-2P NATO-standard gas mask for use in mission-oriented protective-posture (MOPP) scenarios. For the much more likely and hazardous threat of fire at sea, however, a sailor has a couple of options for breathing protection. Egress is supported by using the Oceanco emergency escape breathing device (EEBD), which is limited both in use and versatility. For fighting fires, the Navy has done well in equipping ships with self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs) that are akin to what one would see a local firefighter use.
At first glance, the current equipment may seem to suffice. However, problems come to light as one analyzes each piece’s efficacy on closer inspection. Having only a limited number of SCBAs, for example, is a vulnerability since it is not outside the realm of possibility that fire teams could be incapacitated, rendering their equipment unusable or inaccessible. Wearing a gas mask (which can only passively filter CBRN particulates/chemicals and does not provide air needed to fight a fire or even egress) limits options further. Even if there were enough SCBAs to augment initial responders, would sailors be expected to have to remove their gas masks in such an environment to don an SCBA, thereby exposing themselves to hazardous contaminants and particulates in the process?
Sailors are trained to follow fundamentals rooted in the concept of ship-shipmate-self. However, this idealism falls flat when self-preservation is impossible. You cannot save your shipmates, let alone yourself, if your equipment is not up to the task. The current equipment being outfitted is well short of being a comprehensive, flexible resource. If our sailors and shipmates are not equipped to overcome the dangers of a multi-threat environment, then our ship’s survivability is potentially compromised, with far-reaching second- and third-order effects.
Inspiration from the Free Market
The solution is fairly straightforward. In 2007 the very first iPhone was announced. Many were enthralled with the notion that we no longer had to carry our digital cameras, mp3 players, and phones separately. We did not have to buy GPS units because there was now an affordable “one-device-suits-all.” The same approach applies to consolidation of our breathing equipment.
It was just a matter of combining all three aspects of the masks into a single concept. Fortunately, such a design was much easier to achieve than the complex iPhone. The mask will incorporate all of the strongest aspects of existing masks and when fielded could be compatible with existing self-contained breathing apparatus regulators (to supplement SCBAs) but at a fraction of the cost of a full SCBA rig. It will have a modified, modular, removable, small compressed-air tank for egress (to replace EEBDs) in addition to a fitting for standard NATO-threaded filters such as the C2A-1 (to replace MCU-2Ps).
Acquisition costs for this mask would be offset by eliminating the need for the MCU-2Ps and the EEBDs. Ships would not need to be retrofitted, as this single mask could be stored where EEBDs were housed throughout the ship with the modular small air tanks and filters and during MOPP drills the UMC from the sailors’ racks could be carried around with them with the filter component handy and no deviation from current practices.
Increased Response Time/Improved Capability
Despite a combined decade of sea duty, we have seen no shipmates don an EEBD to practice escape. And most sailors have never opened one, let alone activated a real one, because EEBDs are permanently expended once deployed. This means when it comes time to actually use one, most sailors will likely be in darkened, smoke-filled compartments, fumbling around with unfamiliar, bulky equipment they have never actually used. As Lieutenant Schonberg demonstrated on the stage at DEF, the mouthpiece, nose clip wires, plastic bag, and neck straps are difficult to untangle while just standing on stage.
With a unified mask implementation we would actually be able to train our sailors on egressing with such a mask every time we have General Quarters. It could also provide a significant improvement in response time and damage control. Such masks would enable sailors to assess the situation immediately, armed with a portable CO2/PKP extinguisher, which would allow them to attack a fire in the first few critical moments before it grows out of control.
Meanwhile, in such a scenario the flying squad could arrive on scene after they dress out minutes later with full SCBA packs on and a “Y” splitter air supply to share with a first responder equipped with a mask capable of quick-release air-supply sharing. This would not only decrease response time substantially but provide flexibility and confidence in equipment sailors may need. We could live up to our training of every sailor being a firefighter since we’d be equipped to make that a reality.
Cost Savings
In addition, the Navy could save maintenance time and money since redundant, non-compatible systems would be eliminated with fewer total masks required. Take a carrier, for example. Each sailor in a crew of 5,000 is issued a personally fitted MCU-2P gas mask at $500 per unit or $2.5 million. In addition, EEBDs are currently outfitted in each rack, and 1.5 units per sailor for manned spaces, which translates to roughly 2.5 masks per sailor or 12,500 EEBDs on a carrier alone for a similar unit acquisition cost equating to $6.25 million. A carrier currently employs a few hundred SCBA rigs (which falls well short of being enough for every crew member but would be retained and augmented with implementation of the unified mask concept). So between the EEBDs and MCU-2Ps, ships currently outfit 3.5 units per sailor. With the UMC replacing the existing egresss and gas mask, we could meet the current equipment requirement with only 2.5 unified masks per sailor. For a comparable acquisition cost, the Navy would be saving $2.5 million on just one carrier for acquisition costs alone—not to mention maintenance savings, which would be maintained with implementation of the unified mask concept but fall well short of being enough for every crew member. So between the EEBD and MCU-2Ps, ships currently outfit 3.5 units per sailor. With the UMC replacing the existing egress and gas mask, we could meet the current equipment requirement with only 2.5 unified masks per sailor.
They would be stored where EEBDs are currently stored, and during MOPP drills the UMC from the sailors’ racks could be carried around with them with the filter component handy and no deviation from current practices. For a comparable acquisition cost, the Navy would be saving $2.5 million on just one carrier for acquisition costs alone—not to mention maintenance savings.
DEF 2015 was like the Athena Project on steroids and checkered with Department of Defense celebrities. It is impossible not to be encouraged by so many youthful, vibrant, energetic, and innovative thinkers. It is a tremendous departure from the run-of-the-mill mindset of the majority of military operations and bureaucracy—refreshing to say the least. We could have walked out of the conference having not placed during the innovation competition and still considered ourselves successful simply from the connections made and the inspiration provided.
The conference left a lasting impression, not least of which was hopeful optimism for what this country can bring to bear. Most important on the forefront was the acknowledgement of the need for disruption to ensure our military’s relevancy in the future of 21st-century warfare. Stagnation will render us obsolete. Our only hope is that the disparate efforts of incubators, start-ups, Athena Projects, innovation cells, small-business innovation research, etc., can all be properly networked to build on the momentum, motivation, and development that can be fostered from the relationships built through such conferences. It is only through further support and recognition of these efforts that we can expect to maximize our absolutely invaluable capital of personnel.
Lieutenant Conley is a surface warfare officer and a 2007 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He transferred to the Medical Service Corps in 2010 and is currently stationed at Naval Hospital Bremerton, Washington.
New ‘Helo Hood’ Will Improve Training
By First Lieutenant Nick Sinopoli, Wisconsin National Guard
Following is one idea that could save lives.
The Instrument Conditions Awareness Recognition and Understanding System (ICARUS) came about after I grew frustrated with what I wore as a student pilot to train to fly in the clouds, or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). There are quite a few different styles of these hoods, but they all work the same way. The one I wore in Navy helicopter training was nothing more than a piece of construction paper that you wedge onto your helmet to try and block your vision outside the cockpit.
The problem that was drilled into me in flight school was that if you flew using visual flight rules (VFR) into IMC you had a high probability of losing control because of spatial disorientation and crashing. VFR into IMC is especially dangerous for helicopters because of their slow speed, low altitudes, and inherent instability. In 2011 there were 52 civilian crashes because of VFR into IMC; 45 of them were fatal. The problem is also huge in military aviation. It caused a Black Hawk crash in March 2015 and a Huey crash in May. I had a flight instructor tell me that going VFR into IMC at night was the scariest thing that ever happened to him—and he had been shot at in Afghanistan.
‘The Inspiration’
The inspiration for ICARUS came after a big Marine Corps captain swiped the stick out of my hands to narrowly avoid hitting a bird. I was under the hood at the time and had no idea what was transpiring. Having the stick or cyclic violently ripped out of my hands and going hard left was not fun. I would have loved to instantly be able to see outside. While I was walking back from the flight line I wondered if there was a better way to train. Ingenuity takes place at the intersection of information and imagination. I had just read an article about the new Boeing 787’s electrochromatic windows that changed opacity with a dial. I did some more research on the technology—polymer dispersed liquid crystal, or PDLC—and found that it was readily available in film form.
As the idea stewed in my brain I realized that, while it would be convenient to activate at the flick of a switch, the true value in the idea was that it could simulate VFR into IMC like nothing else available. Helicopter and low-time general-aviation pilots could now practice “going inadvertent IMC” and hopefully improve their survival chances. I purchased some film and started prototyping, building the first dozen or so using safety glasses.
‘Beta Testing’
The glasses-style device is now in Beta testing, and we are looking forward to a strong showing at the Experimental Aircraft Association’s Founder’s Prize Competition this summer at the Oshkosh Airshow. The judges will award a $25,000 top prize to the innovation that best prevents loss-of-control accidents in small aircraft. Once the glasses device is more mature, focus will shift to developing a visor device for military pilots. Compatibility with existing systems will be key, and the goal is to have the device out to the fleet as soon as possible.
First Lieutenant Sinopoli, formerly a Navy helicopter pilot, serves in the Wisconsin National Guard. He studied aeronautical engineering at Purdue University and has been working on his invention, ICARUS, full-time since leaving the Navy in April 2015.