ReStart Default Rules No Rules Prior to uploading your file, set your report options. Also check the rules and modify them as desired.       Stop Now

1. select browse, go to z-cassbeth/gda/documents 2. pick any.txt document 3. select a service, press submit, review results 4. go thru each service one at a time 5. select browse, pick another document 6. compare the results 7. update and create new rules and templates . . . These template instructions are user defined.

Book Information

Analysis Settings Hide PUI Mask Imperatives Process Only Imperatives

Parse Text Strip HTML Tags Strip Blank Lines Show Processed Upload

Report Areas Hide Analysis Results Accessed Words Accessed Patterns Metrics

Doc Shape Reading Level Comments

Services and Rules

Template Comments Generic Document Analysis

General Search
Find Duplicate Objects
Profile Document
My Highlighter Pen Show Search Show Simple Rules Show Complex Rules

. . .

Red Pen Green Pen Blue Pen Purple Pen STARS PATCO NAFEC Research AAS

Service Name

Service Description
Think of this as your highlighter pen or a really advanced search engine option.

Rule 1
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 2
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 3
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 4
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 5
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 6
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 7
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 8
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Rule 9
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

New My Highlighter Pen Rule 10
Name
Color Norm Metric Risk Case Sensitive
Access Object
AND With
Previous Object
Next Object
Reject Object
Comment

Hide Accessed Objects	Show Child Objects	Count Child Objects
Count Accessed Patterns	Count Accessed Words	Count Rejected Words

Generic Highlighter Pen
Emotions
Overall Reaction
Approach

Add New Service Name Remove Last Service: Approach

Analysis Results Hide

Filter case sensitive
Access Object Reject Object Access Risk

Show Comment Details Hide All Comments Hide Checked Items Save Results . File

Processing previously uploaded file in C:\z-places\Systems\FAA-Budget\History\all-history.txt

1. GDA-173 Jul 18, 1934: The Baker Committee (see Apr 17, 1934), having taken the testimony of 105 witnesses, visited various aviation centers, and received 536 communications from Air Corps officers, filed its report. The Committee found that the United States surpassed other countries in "general," commercial, and naval aviation, but that U.S. military aviation needed financial support. Practically all deficiencies in Air Corps armament, equipment, and munitions, the Committee found, were traceable to lack of funds. Considering the aviation industry essential to national defense, the committee recommended that the Federal government refrain from competition with private industry. It further recommended that in addition to purchase by open competitive bids, purchase by design competition and by negotiation should be lawful. Moreover, since the committee believed that commercial equipment and methods would continue to lead the way, it recommended that the Air Corps take steps to keep abreast of and adopt the latest such equipment and methods and that Army cargo and transport planes be converted or developed from commercial types. It also recommended that Army pilots be trained to use the national airways.
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: design competition Instance: 1

2. GDA-888 Aug 15, 1963: FAA issued a request for proposals (RFP) that established performance objectives for the United States supersonic transport (SST), providing the basis for design competition among airframe and engine manufacturers. The program timetable called for initial submission of manufacturers' designs based on this RFP by Jan 15, 1964. By Sep 10, 1963, three major airframe manufacturers and three major engine builders had notified FAA of their intention to submit proposals. (See Jul 29, 1963, and Nov 19, 1963.)
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: design competition Instance: 1

3. GDA-895 Oct 30, 1963: FAA announced a proposed program to stimulate development of a new passenger/cargo aircraft for the short haul market, still dominated by the venerable DC-3. A preliminary design competition was completed in June 1964, but FAA did not consider any of the designs submitted a sufficient advance in the state of the art to warrant a detailed design contract. Nov 1, 1963: At New York International Airport (Idlewild), FAA began operational tests of automatic broadcasts of routine, noncontrol terminal information using the voice channel of the navaid serving the airport. The agency later extended the new procedure to other busy terminal areas to reduce pilot- controller frequency congestion.
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: design competition Instance: 1

4. GDA-915 Apr 1, 1964: Executive Order 11149 established the President's Advisory Committee on Supersonic Transport (SST) to advise President Lyndon B. Johnson on "all aspects of the supersonic transport program." The committee's original membership included Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara (chairman), Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon, Commerce Secretary Luther H. Hodges, NASA Administrator James E. Webb, FAA Administrator N. E. Halaby, CIA Director John A. McCone, and two private citizens: Eugene R. Black, former president of the World Bank, and Stanley de J. Osborne, Chairman of the Board of Olin Mathieson. The committee remained in existence until Sep 5, 1968, when it was terminated by the President. Also on Apr 1, 1964, FAA’s Deputy Administrator for SST Development Gordon Bain reported on the results of a evaluation made in Phase I of the SST design competition. A 210-person Federal team gave the highest competitive scores to the Boeing variable-sweep wing airframe design and the General Electric after-burning turbojet engine design. In transmitting these results to Administrator Halaby, Bain recommended that the two companies be selected to go into a one-year noncompetitive detailed-design phase. (See Jan 15 and May 20, 1964.)
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: design competition Instance: 1

5. GDA-921 May 20, 1964: President Johnson gave his approval for the U.S. supersonic transport (SST) development program to proceed into Phase IIA--a six-month design competition between two airframe manufacturers (Boeing and Lockheed) and two engine manufacturers (General Electric and Pratt & Whitney). The President based his decision on the recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on Supersonic Transport made on May 15, 1964. On Jun 1, the four competitors signed the six- month Phase IIA contracts. The contracts authorized each air frame manufacturer to spend at the rate of $1 million per month during the contract period and each engine manufacturer at a rate of $835,000 per month. All four manufacturers agreed to bear 25 percent of the contract costs. The design competition was subsequently extended for an additional six month period designated Phase IIB. (See Apr 1, 1964, and Jul 1, 1965.) Jun 1, 1964: La Guardia Airport opened to scheduled air carrier jet operations. Jet air carriers had begun operating at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Oct 4, 1958, and at Newark Airport on Sep 11, 1961. (See Apr 24, 1966.)
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: design competition Instance: 2

6. GDA-1916 Jul 26, 1985: FAA announced the award of a contract for replacement of the IBM 9020 computers at the nation's 20 air route traffic control centers (ARTCCs) as part of the agency's Advanced Automation Program. IBM won the replacement contract in a competition with Sperry Corp. under a pair of contracts that had been announced on Sept 22, 1983. The new installations were designated the "Host" Computer Systems (HCSs) because of their ability to run the existing 9020 software package with minimum modifications. Using the IBM 3083-BX1 computer as its key element, the Host system would provide greater speed, reliability, and storage capacity. Each installation would consist of two units, one serving as the primary processor and the other providing support and backup. (See Mar 22, 1983, and May 29, 1987.) In addition to installing the Host systems at the ARTCCs, IBM agreed to supply the systems to teams working on the other major element of the Advanced Automation Program, the Advanced Automation System (AAS). Under a pair of contracts announced on Aug 16, 1984, IBM and Hughes Aircraft Co. were engaged in a competition to produce the best AAS design (see Jul 26, 1988). Among the key elements of AAS were controller work stations, called "sector suites," that would incorporate new display, communications and processing capabilities. AAS would also include new computer hardware and software to bring the air traffic control system to higher levels of automation. Once the full AAS system was operational, FAA planned to begin the integration of en route and terminal radar control services at the ARTCCs, which would be renamed Area Control Facilities (ACFs) and expanded to handle the new functions (see Apr 19, 1993). Among the planned future enhancements to AAS was Automated En Route Air Traffic Control (AERA), which would automatically examine aircraft flight plans to detect and resolve potential conflicts.
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: AAS Instance: 6

7. GDA-2044 Jul 26, 1988: FAA announced it had awarded IBM a $3.55 billion contract to develop, deploy, and service the Advanced Automation System (AAS). The announcement ended almost four years of competition between IBM and Hughes Aircraft Corp. (See Jul 26, 1985, and Oct 1, 1991.)
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: AAS Instance: 1

8. GDA-2256 Nov 30, 1992: FAA gave a “cure notice” to IBM concerning its development of the Initial Sector Suite System (ISSS), a part of the Advanced Automation System (AAS). The agency stated that unless the company provided a plan to remedy deficiencies within 10 calendar days, the government would withhold progress payments under the contract. Earlier in November, IBM had stated that, because of software difficulties and other problems, the ISSS would not be ready for FAA acceptance until Sep 1994, thus adding another 14 months to an already delayed timetable. Following the cure notice, IBM submitted to FAA an initial and later a final cure plan. FAA’s own steps to remedy the situation included changes in the project’s management structure and an Apr 1 ban on further changes in user requirements for the ISSS. (See Oct 1, 1991, and Dec 13, 1993.)
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: AAS Instance: 1

9. GDA-2290 Dec 13, 1993: FAA Administrator David Hinson ordered an extensive review of the Advanced Automation System (AAS), a multi-billion dollar program designed to help modernize the nation's air traffic control system. The contractor, IBM, was far behind schedule and had major cost overruns (see Nov 30, 1992). Hinson's recommended review included conferring with IBM to determine the impact the company's plan to sell its unit in charge of the AAS contract to Loral Corp., a sale subsequently concluded. On Mar 3, 1994, FAA announced initial actions as a result of the review that included a new AAS management team and suspension of the portion of the program designated the Area Control Computer Complex (ACCC). Subsequently, on Jun 3, 1994, FAA announced a major overhaul of the AAS program. The agency terminated ACCC. FAA also cancelled another AAS element, the Terminal Advanced Automation System (TAAS), stating that it would substitute a new procurement for modernization of terminal radar approach control facilities (see Sep 16, 1996). The agency reduced the number of towers planned to receive the Tower Control Computer Complex (TCCC). In addition, the agency planned to review the software for the Initial Sector Suite System (ISSS), a program to provide new workstations for en route controllers. On Sep 30, 1994, FAA announced that it would seek a proposal from Loral that would permit the company to move forward with this work under a new program, the Display System Replacement (DSR), which would replace ISSS. (See Apr 27, 1995.)
. . . AAS My Highlighter Pen Risk: Item: AAS Instance: 5

Processed Entire File

Filter Noise Words

No results to report.

Accessed Patterns Found Hide

Metrics Hide

Save Metrics with analysis run C:\z-places\Systems\FAA-Budget\History\all-history.txt 05/24/017 14:59:54 Appended Metrics File

Total Lines: 4122 Blank Lines: 3 Non Blank Lines: 4119 Imperatives: 71 Shalls: 8 Wills: 69 IsReq:

Message: These metrics are what allow you to compare different documents and different analysis runs. Consider moving the numbers into a spreadsheet for visualization. Counts of Shalls, Wills, IsReq, and Imperatives are hardcoded into the tool. You have the ability to enter a Norm value, which can be surfaced after multiple analysis sessions.

Item	Risk	Count	Children	% lines	% imperative	% shall	% will	% isreq	% Norm
AAS s4s		9		0.21	12.67		13.04
Blue Pen s4s
Green Pen s4s
NAFEC s4s
PATCO s4s
Purple Pen s4s
Red Pen s4s
Research s4s
STARS s4s
z Mined Objects		9		0.21	12.67		13.04

Rules Total 10
Rules Triggered 2
Rules Not Triggered 8
Percent of Rules Triggered 20%

Reading Level Hide

Disabling the noise filter may reduce the reading level. Re-run the report to capture metrics for both instances.

Accessed Unique Words:
Accessed Unique Syllables:
Words with 3+ Syllables:
Polysyllabic Count: 0
Reading Level: No reading level is available. Select any rule option and check: Count Accessed Words or use a Reading Level Service which has checked: Count Accessed Words.

Document Shape Hide

The number of children at a particular level translate to a document shape. There are diffrent document shapes and each have implications. The document shapes are: random, rectangle, pyramid, inverted pyramid, trapazoid and diamond.

There are no child counts. Try disabling all services except for the service that has checked: Count Accessed Words.

Services and Triggered Rule Comments Hide

My Highlighter Pen: Think of this as your highlighter pen or a really advanced search engine option.

. . . 1. AAS No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: AAS Color: OLIVE Access Object: \bAAS\b|Design Competition Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 2. Blue Pen No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: Blue Pen Color: BLUE Access Object: install Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 3. Green Pen No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: Green Pen Color: GREEN Access Object: computer Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 4. NAFEC No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: NAFEC Color: BROWN Access Object: NAFEC|FAATC|FAA Technical Center Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 5. PATCO No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: PATCO Color: MAROON Case Sensitive : CHECKED Access Object: PATCO Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 6. Purple Pen No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: Purple Pen Color: PURPLE Case Sensitive : CHECKED Access Object: SAGE Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 7. Red Pen No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: Red Pen Color: RED Access Object: automation Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 8. Research No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: Research Color: ORANGE Access Object: research Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED

. . . 9. STARS No Comment Text in this rule.
. . . . . . Rule Summary Name: STARS Color: NAVY Case Sensitive : CHECKED Access Object: STARS Count Accessed Patterns: CHECKED