Lessons learned is the knowledge often obtained from participation in real-world activities, such as a project or assignment. Often, lessons learned are discussed after a project or assignment to help improve future processes.  

For this discussion, you are asked to post 1 of your case studies (attached) completed in the first three weeks of this course on the Discussion Board.

Describe 3 lessons that you learned from the case study you selected. The lessons learned should cover the following points.

• How the lesson learned would benefit your organization strategically as it applies to systems engineering
• Identification of knowledge gaps in your organization as it pertains to the implementation of systems engineering
• Best practices that you can identify that would be valuable for the class 

Post should include at least 1 reference to research sources, and all sources should be cited in APA format.

Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and format should be correct and professional.  

CASE STUDY: STORM CLOUDS OVER STONEHENGE 4

Angel E. Soto

SE610T – Unit 3 – Individual Project

Professor: Bary Pollack

Colorado Technical University

February 22, 2020

When overlooked requirements or specifications are introduced, then it causes undocumented features because the software must work as per its designing and how it is supposed to work and not according to how one wants it to work. Adverse landing surfaces and high-desert weather flying are some of the airborne mission requirements. However, there is not any limitation included in the service regarding the landing phase, cloud or visibility, precipitation, and during the recovery. This had already known the judgment and experience of the pilot regarding the launch and full use of expensive missiles. There are no pedal flight controls or joysticks, and there are only pushbuttons that deal with the hardware response and leads towards the action. Further, this documentation helped to give more information about the simulator emergency training, live flying and simulator flowing. The watchkeeper system had many elements that bolstered the equipment and assisted in controlled form ground control station, operation and recovery, launch and preflight preparation. Maintenance, storage, transportation was allowed by the ground equipment support. A function called “master override” helped to trigger the protection measures; otherwise, the final attempt to land would have been aborted by the system. Even though the function was as per the guidance of the FTC, the prediction was made to continue the attempt to make a landing when the cloud is at CP.

Takeoff, engine start, mission briefing, and preflight weather might go as per the planning, but the weather conditions were not as per the requirements, as the surface visibility was 150 meters but the profile might be less than 800 meters and the lowest cloud base was 200 feet below. But the visibility and cloud base is not improved during the assessment. The UAS is expected to land and take off in very low visibility and low cloud cover which is not as per the required design specifications. As per the service inquiry report, there is not enough data about landing and operators were not given enough data of landing WK006 so the situation could be deal with properly. This causes to crew’s minimal comprehension of the logic related to the landing and the message given to the group during the recovery. Moreover, there is a limited envelope of Watchkeeper and there are many other limitations beneath the CP regarding CP. TAA MIGHT not be informed about these limitations. The quote above shows the indirect confirmation of fact and the watchkeeper is not an all-weather aircraft. Even though the authorizers had attended the course and also further evidence cannot be found that the Authorizing officers had taken the required training which can help them to play their role. It comes out to be true when the panel loot at other Air system and claim they’re authorizing processes to be borne and taken place due to years of practice in both manned aviation world and UA. It is stated that in order to perform the procedure for UAC recovery in low conditions, frequently, the aircraft might need to cover with cloud at or below the CP. The crew starts to think that they could make the flights when clouds are expected to be below or at CP and it was due to the wording and lack of formal limitations. And it was stated by the Service inquiry report, during the planned recovery period, the panel took into consideration that the operation of watchkeeper when the forecast is low cloud, it can cause the accidents to happen more likely. And the crew wants to make the landing attempt with the cloud at CP, and it is due to the crew’s preflight risk assumption to land during the allocated period of recovery.

Army crews have to normalize deviance. The MASTER OVERRIDE helps to complete test flights and training as per the situations in which even manufacturers don’t even operate UAV. A false “normal” expectation among the deciders and operators have to establish successfully. The lack of comprehension concerning the software and training is used to get rid of crash-landing incidents, and MASTER OVERRIDE is effectively being used in this process. The software designed was working as per the programmed hazard analysis but it can’t work as per the intention and there would always be flaws in it. The system is said to be working reliably and safely and it is challenging to have a detailed and full understanding of the flight control system and landing logic. When the optional and current modes of operation are not taken fully into consideration, human operators can make needlessly risky decisions in the human-automation interface. Managers, designers, and planners who work keeping into account that operators do not need to know such sort of data are playing their role to make future failure modes even though it is unintentionally.