DOCSLIB.ORG

Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units Finding the Right Balance JOHN F. SCHANK • HARRY J. THIE • CLIFFORD M. GRAF II JOSEPH BEEL • JERRY SOLLINGER Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units Prepared for the United States Navy NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE R Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Navy. The research was conducted in RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-95-C-0059. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Finding the right balance : simulator and live training for navy units / John Schank ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. “MR-1441.” ISBN 0-8330-3104-X 1. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States. 2. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States—Simulation methods. 3. Anti-submarine warfare— Study and teaching—United States—Evaluation. 4. Fighter pilots—Training of— Evaluation. 5. Effective teaching—United States. I. Schank, John F. (John Frederic), 1946– II. Rand Corporation. V169 .F53 2002 359.4'071'073—dc21 2001057887 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2002 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 102, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] PREFACE Tightening budget constraints and increasing access restrictions have reduced the U.S. Navy’s ability to conduct tactical training at the unit level. At the same time that live training events have become more difficult to accomplish, signifi- cant technological advances have improved the productivity and realism in the modeling, simulation, and distributed training areas. However, the balance among live, simulated, and schoolhouse training events has not significantly changed since the 1970s. The Manpower, Personnel, and Training section of the Assessments Division (N81) of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Resources, Warfare Require- ments, and Assessments tasked RAND to examine the current mix of tactical training events in two mission areas—antisubmarine warfare and strike—and for three platforms—F/A-18 and P-3C aircraft and the DDG-51-class destroyers. The objective of the research was to document the current and historical mix of training events, understand how other U.S. services and our allies conduct simi- lar training, and recommend potential changes to the way the Navy conducts tactical unit training. This report describes the results of the research. It is intended for those with an interest in military training, particularly those with an interest in simulators and simulation. This research was conducted for the U.S. Navy within the Forces and Resource Policy Center of RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secre- tary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agen- cies. iii CONTENTS Preface .................................................. iii Figures .................................................. vii Tables................................................... xi Summary ................................................ xiii Acknowledgments.......................................... xvii Acronyms ................................................ xix Chapter One INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1 Background ........................................... 1 Research Objectives ..................................... 2 Data Caveat ........................................... 2 Organization of the Report ................................ 3 Chapter Two TRAINING ............................................ 5 Navy F/A-18 Training .................................... 5 Conclusion .......................................... 11 Marine Corps F/A-18 Training .............................. 12 Air Force F-16 Training ................................... 17 Allied Fighter Training.................................... 21 Royal Air Force........................................ 21 French Navy Carrier Aircraft Unit Training ................... 23 Comparison of Unit Training for Fighter Aircraft ................ 24 Airborne Antisubmarine Warfare Training ..................... 25 P-3C Training ........................................ 26 Allied Training........................................ 30 Comparison of Unit Training for MPA ...................... 33 Surface ASW Training .................................... 34 DDG-51 Training ...................................... 34 v vi Finding the Right Balance: Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units Allied Training........................................ 37 Comparison of Surface Ship ASW training ..................... 40 Chapter Three TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN LIVE AND SIMULATED TRAINING ....... 43 Focus on Live and Simulated Events ......................... 43 Focus Is on Synthesizing Existing Research .................... 44 Distinguishing Between Live and Simulated Training ............. 47 Simulation Use by Different Communities ..................... 48 F/A-18 Unit Simulator Use ............................... 48 P-3C Unit Simulator Use ................................ 49 DDG-51 ASW Simulator Use.............................. 50 Relationship Between Training and Proficiency ................. 51 Where and How to Use Simulation .......................... 53 How to Encourage Greater Use of Simulators ................... 55 Balancing Training Resources: Trade-Offs Between Live and Simulated Training .................................. 57 Structure of a Model to Analyze Trade-Offs .................... 59 Difficulties in Analyzing a More Complex Trade-Off .............. 61 Large Number of Variables............................... 62 Interactions of the Variables.............................. 65 Chapter Four OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 67 Overall ............................................... 67 Fighter Training ........................................ 67 ASW ................................................. 68 Recommendations ...................................... 69 Appendix A. U.S. NAVY F/A-18 FIGHTER TRAINING FOR STRIKE MISSIONS............................................. 71 B. U.S. MARINE CORPS F/A-18 UNIT TRAINING .................. 103 C. USAF F-16 TRAINING .................................... 123 D. ALLIED TRAINING ...................................... 131 E. MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT AND ASW TRAINING ............ 141 F. SURFACE SHIP ASW TRAINING ............................ 165 Bibliography .............................................. 189 FIGURES 2.1. Typical Training Cycle................................. 6 2.2. Annual F/A-18 Flying Hours ............................ 10 2.3. F/A-18 Simulator Usage ............................... 11 2.4. Aggregate USMC F/A-18 Simulator Use .................... 16 2.5. USAF F-16 Flying Hours ............................... 20 2.6. Aggregate P-3C Flying Hours per Crew per Month ............ 28 2.7. Aggregate Simulator Usage in the P-3C Community ........... 29 3.1. Notional Performance-Repetitions Relationship ............. 52 3.2. Results from DERA Study .............................. 56 3.3. Simplified View of a Trade-Off Analysis .................... 60 3.4. Constraints Must Be Considered ......................... 61 3.5. Increasing Simulator Fidelity Can Affect Trade-Offs ........... 62 3.6. Variables in the Trade-Off Analysis ....................... 63 3.7. Multivariable Long-Term View of Trade-Offs ................ 66 A.1. Length of IDTC for F/A-18 Squadrons ..................... 76 A.2. Major Training Opportunities in IDTC ..................... 77 A.3. Real-World Example of IDTC............................ 81 A.4. Flight Hours Performance Versus PMR Hours ............... 91 A.5. Historical Budgeted and Executed Flight Hour Performance ........................................ 91 A.6. Flight Hour Allocation and Employment Cycle ............... 92 vii viii Finding the Right Balance: Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units A.7. Historical Flight Hour and STW Flight Hour Performance and the Employment Cycle ............................. 93 A.8. Average Squadron Flight Hours and STW Trends ............. 94 A.9. STW Flight Hours as a Percentage of Total Flight Hours ........ 95 A.10. Average Number of Pilots Assigned to F/A-18 Squadrons ....... 96 A.11. F/A-18 Fleet Squadron Pilot Experience .................... 97 A.12. Monthly Flight Hours per F/A-18 Fleet Squadron Pilot ......... 98 A.13. F/A-18 Simulator Usage ............................... 100 B.1. Notional MAW. ...................................... 104 B.2. Programmed, Budgeted, and Actual Flying Hours: USMC F/A-18 Crew per Month ..............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Edwin A. Shuman III, CAPT USN (Ret.) 6/59-1/60 VA-43, NAS Oceana (A-4)
    1968 2007 RV-6A Edwin A. Shuman III, CAPT USN (Ret.) 6/59-1/60 VA-43, NAS Oceana (A-4). “Ned” 1/60-10/60 Test Pilot School, NAS Patuxent River, MD (Various Airplanes). Date of Designation: October 1955 11/60-6/62 Weapons System Test Division, Project pilot, Patuxent River (Various R&D Test Airplanes). Total Flight Hours: 5,100 7/62-6/63 USNPG School, Monterey, CA (T-2A). 7/63-10/63 RVAH-3, NAS Sanford, FL (TF-9J). Carrier/Ship Landings: Fixed wing: 374 11/63-2/66 USS Roosevelt, Catapult Officer, Mayport, FL (C-1A, A-4, T-33, SNB). Approximate Flight Hours: 3/66-8/67 CVW-7, Operations Officer, NAS Oceana/ Jet: 2,600 Prop: 2,500 VF/VA: 2,800 VT: 250 USS Independence (A-6A, F-4J, A-4E). T&E & Misc: 750 General Aviation: 1,300 9/67-3/68 VA-35, Maintenance Officer, Executive Officer, NAS Oceana, VA/ USS Enterprise Combat Tours: (A-6A). Vietnam: VA-35, 1968 USS Enterprise (CVN-65) (A-6A) 3/68-3/73 POW, Hanoi, Vietnam. POW Hanoi 1968-73 8/73-6/74 Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Total Combat Missions: 18 North Vietnam (A-6A) 7/74-8/75 VF-43, CO, NAS Oceana (A-4, T-38). 9/75-10/75 Aviation Safety School, Monterey, CA. Commands: 11/75-1/78 Naval Safety Center, Norfolk, VA. CO, VF-43, 1974-75 (A-4, T-38) 2/78-6/82 CO, Naval Station Annapolis. MD. CO, Naval Station Annapolis, 1978-82 7/82-7/84 OIC Naval Annex Bermuda (C-131).
    [Show full text]
  • The WWI Lafayette Escadrille with David Ellison
    Volume 22, Issue 7 ● September 2007 A Monthly Publication of the Pine Mountain Lake Aviation Association “Flyboys” – the WWI Lafayette Escadrille with David Ellison n 1914, "The Great War," World War I began in Europe. By 1917, the Allied powers of France, England, IItaly and others were on the ropes against the German juggernaut. America chose, at first, not to fight. Some young Americans disagreed. They volunteered to fight alongside their counterparts in France: some in the infantry, some in the Ambulance Corps. A handful of others had a different idea: they decided to learn to fly. The first of A real-life aviator and aerobatic pilot, Ellison began flying them - a squadron of only 38 - became known as the when he was 13 years old and performs at air-shows Lafayette Escadrille. In time, America joined their cause. around the world. In 2003 Ellison was chosen as one of the The Escadrille pilots became legendary. Flyboys is inspired "Stars of Tomorrow," six of the best aerobatic pilots in the by their story. country who displayed their ability to loop, roll, tumble, and free-fall at Oshkosh. In competition, Ellison flies a French Flyboys is the first film in decades to bring the story of the CAP 232, the world's premiere aerobatic aircraft and the famous World War I squadron to the big screen. The film plane of choice for the world's best aerobatic pilots. He is examines the lives of the young American men who the son of Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO of Oracle volunteered to join French soldiers in battling Germany Corporation and has trained with Wayne Handley.
    [Show full text]
  • JP 3-09.3, Close Air Support, As a Basis for Conducting CAS
    Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support 08 July 2009 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides joint doctrine for planning and executing close air support. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations and provides the doctrinal basis for interagency coordination and for US military involvement in multinational operations. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs) and prescribes joint doctrine for operations, education, and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing their appropriate plans. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the overall objective. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the Joint Staff, commanders of combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, and subordinate components of these commands, and the Services. b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 HISTORY and DEVELOPMENT of MILITARY LASERS
    History and Development of Military Lasers Chapter 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY LASERS JACK B. KELLER, JR* INTRODUCTION INVENTING THE LASER MILITARIZING THE LASER SEARCHING FOR HIGH-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS SEARCHING FOR LOW-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS RETURNING TO HIGHER ENERGIES SUMMARY *Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired); formerly, Foreign Science Information Officer, US Army Medical Research Detachment-Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 7965 Dave Erwin Drive, Brooks City-Base, Texas 78235 25 Biomedical Implications of Military Laser Exposure INTRODUCTION This chapter will examine the history of the laser, Military advantage is greatest when details are con- from theory to demonstration, for its impact upon the US cealed from real or potential adversaries (eg, through military. In the field of military science, there was early classification). Classification can remain in place long recognition that lasers can be visually and cutaneously after a program is aborted, if warranted to conceal hazardous to military personnel—hazards documented technological details or pathways not obvious or easily in detail elsewhere in this volume—and that such hazards deduced but that may be relevant to future develop- must be mitigated to ensure military personnel safety ments. Thus, many details regarding developmental and mission success. At odds with this recognition was military laser systems cannot be made public; their the desire to harness the laser’s potential application to a descriptions here are necessarily vague. wide spectrum of military tasks. This chapter focuses on Once fielded, system details usually, but not always, the history and development of laser systems that, when become public. Laser systems identified here represent used, necessitate highly specialized biomedical research various evolutionary states of the art in laser technol- as described throughout this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the World – a New Star Is Born
    CHAPTER ONE Welcome to the World – A New Star is Born The End of an Era… she was sold for scrap on July 1, 1958. Opposite page: Big E tended by a gaggle of The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise Then, in 1959, the shipyard at Kearney, tugs during her first year (CV-6) was the star of the US Navy in New Jersey, systematically deconstructed of life. World War II. From the outset, Big E Big E. “Starved and stifled by the years USN was renowned for her greatness as a ship long coma of inaction, the great spirit and the greatness of those who operated of Enterprise flickered and sank toward and flew from her. She also embodied extinction. And yet the spirit did not some magic: she was a lucky ship, seem- die.” Many opposed the inauspicious ingly always where she needed to be and scrapping of CV-6, and many more by good fortune always far from where hoped she would be immortalized as a things might have ended badly for her. museum. This was not to be. However, in A case in point was December 7, 1941, a fortuitous twist, a new carrier was being when she was not in port during the built not far from where CV-6 was built a Pearl Harbor attack – where she would third of a century earlier. This carrier was have had to take on the sizable Japanese to be bold, revolutionary, inspirational, armada alone. She operated success- and would bear the name Enterprise also. fully in almost every major Pacific fleet There would be an immortalization of encounter from 1941 to 1945, and was the name in a new body.
    [Show full text]
  • RARE: Rethinking Architecture Research and Education
    RARE: Rethinking Architecture Research and Education Chuck Thacker ([email protected]) Microsoft Research Silicon Valley October, 2010 Influential D. Patterson columns: Seven Reason to Shave Your Head and Three Reasons Not to: The bald truth. Commun. ACM. 49, (4): 31-32 (April, 2006) Computer Science Education in the 21st Century. Commun. ACM 49, (3): 27-30 (March, 2006) Alas, sometimes, Dave is wrong… Points in Dave’s second CACM column: • Use tools and libraries – “For many CS courses, a dramatic change would simply be if students first wrote a clear specification and then built software using modern tools and software components”. • Embrace Parallelism. – It is the only road remaining today for performance improvement • Join the open source movement. • Build your own supercomputer. – Described RAMP, which led to my latest projects. The problem for Computer Architecture • As with “real” architecture, it is about building things. – The “things” must be functional, elegant, and cost-effective. • Academic departments haven’t been able to build computers since about 1982. – Chip fabrication is too expensive – Chip design is too complex for small student teams. • Result: Architecture research became incremental. The RAMP idea • Provide an FPGA-based platform for architectural research. • Would allow small groups to design and build significant systems again. • I was initially skeptical – “FPGAs aren’t big enough” – “Design tools aren’t up to the job”. • I was wrong • But I was right that this isn’t something best done by students. –
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • Pueblo—A Retrospective Richard Mobley U.S
    Naval War College Review Volume 54 Article 10 Number 2 Spring 2001 Pueblo—A Retrospective Richard Mobley U.S. Navy Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Mobley, Richard (2001) "Pueblo—A Retrospective," Naval War College Review: Vol. 54 : No. 2 , Article 10. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol54/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mobley: Pueblo—A Retrospective PUEBLO A Retrospective Commander Richard Mobley, U.S. Navy orth Korea’s seizure of the U.S. Navy intelligence-collection—officially, N“environmental research”—ship USS Pueblo (AGER 2) on 23 January 1968 set the stage for a painful year of negotiations. Diplomacy ultimately freed the crew; Pyongyang finally released the men in December 1968. However, in the first days of the crisis—the focus of this article—it was the military that was called upon to respond. Naval power would have played an important role in any immediate attempts to force the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea to re- lease the crew and ship. Failing that, the Seventh Fleet would have been on the forefront of any retaliation. Many works published over the last thirty-three years support this view.1 However, hundreds of formerly classified documents released to the public in the late 1990s offer new insight into many aspects of the crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Has Been Developing Video Games for More Than Three Decades
    Rare has been developing video games for more than three decades. From Jetpac on the ZX Spectrum to Donkey Kong Country on the Super Nintendo to Viva Pinata on Xbox 360, they are known for creating games that are played and loved by millions. Their latest title, Sea of Thieves, available on both Xbox One and PC via Xbox Play Anywhere, uses Azure in a variety of interesting and unique ways. In this document, we will explore the Azure services and cloud architecture choices made by Rare to bring Sea of Thieves to life. Sea of Thieves is a “Shared World Adventure Game”. Players take on the role of a pirate with other live players (friends or otherwise) as part of their crew. The shared world is filled with other live players also sailing around in their ships with their crew. Players can go out and tackle quests or play however they wish in this sandboxed environment and will eventually come across other players doing the same. When other crews are discovered, a player can choose to attack, team up to accomplish a task, or just float on by. Creating and maintaining this seamless world with thousands of players is quite a challenge. Below is a simple architecture diagram showing some of the pieces that drive the backend services of Sea of Thieves. PlayFab Multiplayer Servers PlayFab Multiplayer Servers (formerly Thunderhead) allows developers to host a dynamically scaling pool of custom game servers using Azure. This service can host something as simple as a standalone executable, or something more complicated like a complete container image.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Navy Training System Plan N88-Ntsp-A-50-8501B/D
    DRAFT NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AGM-65F IMAGING INFRARED MAVERICK MISSILE N88-NTSP-A-50-8501B/D MAY 1998 Enclosure (1) N88-NTSP-A-50-8501B/D AGM-65F IMAGING INFRARED MAVERICK MISSILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Air Force is the Executive Service for development of the AGM-65 Maverick Missile System series. In October 1978, the Air Force began engineering development of the Air Force Imaging Infrared (IIR) Maverick AGM-65D, and in 1980 the Navy started development of the Navy AGM-65F IIR Maverick utilizing a modified IIR tracker from the Air Force AGM-65D Guidance and Control Section (GCS) and the Center-Aft Section (CAS) from the Navy AGM-65E. The AGM-65F IIR Maverick Missile is currently in the Operational Support Phase of the Weapon System Acquisition Process. The AGM-65F IIR Maverick Missile is designed primarily for use against targets requiring instantaneous or delayed blast fuzing for destruction of hardened ground and waterborne targets during day or night operations and in adverse weather conditions, with sufficient standoff range to permit limited exposures to terminal defenses. The IIR Maverick does not replace any weapons in the current inventory. The IIR Maverick does not affect current manning levels or existing Navy Enlisted Classification codes and Marine Corps Military Occupational Specialties. Manpower requirements at the organizational, intermediate, and depot level maintenance activities are based upon total workload requirements for a specific work center, and the skills needed to perform maintenance on the systems supported by that work center. The IIR Maverick operator training is provided at the appropriate Fleet Readiness Squadrons for P-3C pilot and Naval Flight Officer personnel, for F/A-18 pilot and Weapons System Officer personnel, and for AV-8B pilots.
    [Show full text]
  • ZERO TOLERANCE: Policy on Supporting 1St Party Xbox Games
    ZERO TOLERANCE: Policy on Supporting 1st Party Xbox Games FEBRUARY 6, 2009 TRAINING ALERT Target Audience All Xbox Support Agents Introduction This Training Alert is specific to incorrect referral of game issues to game developers and manufacturers. What’s Important Microsoft has received several complaints from our game partners about calls being incorrectly routed to them when the issue should have been resolved by a Microsoft support agent at one of our call centers. This has grown from an annoyance to seriously affecting Microsoft's ability to successfully partner with certain game manufacturers. To respond to this, Microsoft is requesting all call centers to implement a zero tolerance policy on incorrect referrals of Games issues. These must stay within the Microsoft support umbrella through escalations as needed within the call center and on to Microsoft if necessary. Under no circumstances should any T1 support agent, T2 support staff, or supervisor refer a customer with an Xbox game issue back to the game manufacturer, or other external party. If there is any question, escalate the ticket to Microsoft. Please also use the appropriate article First-party game titles include , but are not limited to , the following examples: outlining support • Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts boundaries and • Fable II definition of 1 st party • Gears of War 2 games. • Halo 3 • Lips VKB Articles: • Scene It? Box Office Smash • Viva Pinata: Trouble In Paradise #910587 First-party game developers include , but are not limited to, the following #917504 examples: • Bungie Studios #910582 • Bizarre Creations • FASA Studios • Rare Studios • Lionhead Studios Again, due to the seriousness of this issue, if any agent fails to adhere to this policy, Microsoft will request that they be permanently removed from the Microsoft account per our policies for other detrimental kinds of actions.
    [Show full text]