AFMETCAL Newsletter - Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. (WP Public Affairs Case Number 88ABW-2011-XXXX). 

Director’s Comments 

The AF conducts Aircraft Mishap 

investigations to determine the cause 

of accidents for the purpose of 

preventing future mishaps. 

I was involved in investigating an 

F-16 crash where initially there was 

very little evidence. Oddly enough, a 

photo was taken in front of the jet of 

a re-enlistment a couple hours prior to 

that jet taking off for its final mission 

(pilot survived and flew less than a 

week later). The picture was 

provided to show the nose wheel tire 

was properly installed. What a trained 

investigator detected, using his 

‘calibrated’ eyes, was the tire 

appeared underinflated. The team of 

experts followed that lead and in fact 

determined an underinflated nose tire 

was one of the causes of the crash. 

Through the investigation process, 

the tire inflation kit, and subsequently 

the PMEL who calibrated it, were 

vindicated. I frequently tell people 

that calibration and metrology, aka 

PMEL, are behind the scenes support 

activities that only gain attention 

when something goes wrong. 

July 2011 

Volume 31, Issue No. 4 

AFMETCAL 

NEWSLETTER 

Colonel Robert E. Mitchell 

Director, Air Force Metrology 

and Calibration 

just never know when something is 

going to go wrong. 

Thanks for all that you do for our Air 

Force. Have a safe and enjoyable 

summer! 

Until next time…. “Air Superiority 

through Precision”! 

Colonel Robert E. Mitchell 

Director, Air Force Metrology and 

Calibration 

AIR FORCE 

METROLOGY 

Special Points of Interest: 

• Authorized Deviation/ 

Modification of TOs (pg. 4) 

• Maj Gen Fedder Visits 

Ramstein PMEL (pg. 5) 

• PMEL U&TW (pg. 6) 

• White Space Initiative (pg. 11) 

• USAF Material Deficiency 

Reporting (pg. 12) 

• Deleted K-100 Report? (pg. 14) 

• Misawa PMEL Personnel 

Survive Earthquake (pg. 15) 

• How Did You Celebrate World 

Metrology Day? (pg. 18) 

• Kunsan PMEL Completes 

Successful AFMETCAL 

Assessment (pg. 19) 

• EF3946-FTS Liquid Flow 

Transfer Standard Upgrade 

Details (pg. ) 

• Understanding Third Order 

Intermodulation (pg. ) 

• ADC 2500 Air Data Calibrator 

Data Storage Problem (pg. ) 

• Calculating Relative TRFL of 

MMR (pg. ) 

Inside This Issue: 

Director’s Comments 1 

Chief’s Corner 3 

News and Notes 4 

From the Bench 

• 

Coming Events: 

We need to continue to produce a 

100% quality product because you 

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. (WP Public Affairs Case Number 88ABW-2011-XXXX).

Page 2 

AFMETCAL NEWSLETTER 

July 2011 


The views and 

opinions expressed 

herein, unless 

otherwise specifically 

indicated, are those of 

the individual author. 

They do not purport to 

express the views of 

the U.S. Government, 

the Department of 

Defense, Department 

of the Air Force or 

HQ AFMC. 

Disclosure & Editorial Policy 

Disclosure: The Air Force Metrology and 

Calibration (AFMETCAL) Program Newsletter 

is published on a quarterly basis (Jan, 

Apr, Jul, Oct) by the AFMETCAL Division 

(WR-ALC/ENH), Plans & Analysis Section 

(AFMETCAL/ENHRX), 813 Irving-Wick 

Drive W, Heath, Ohio 43056-1199. 

The views and opinions expressed herein, 

unless otherwise specifically indicated, are 

those of the individual author. They do not 

purport to express the views of the U.S. 

Government, the Department of Defense, 

Department of the Air Force or HQ AFMC. 

Information contained in the AFMETCAL 

Newsletter is for informational purposes and 

is not directive in nature. Photographs are 

the property of the United States Air Force 

unless otherwise stated. 

The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute 

endorsement by the U.S. Air Force of 

the respective web site or the information, 

products or services contained therein. The 

U.S. Air Force does not exercise any editorial 

control over the information found at those 

locations. 

Editorial Policy Statement: The AFMET- 

CAL Quarterly Newsletter is the AFMET- 

CAL Director’s forum to share insights into 

policy and emerging trends, personnel news, 

technical and other information of interest to 

the Air Force metrology community at large. 

Newsletter articles cover many topics: technical 

issues; clarifications of policies/ 

procedures; process improvements; and items 

of general interest about Air Force metrology 

community members. 

Submissions: We encourage readers to submit 

articles for the following categories: 

From the Bench (technical), About People 

(field personnel news), News & Notes 

(general information). Submissions should 

be in Microsoft Word, Times New Roman 12 

font, accompanied whenever possible by 

digital photos in JPEG format. Native photo 

file sizes less than 2MB per image are preferred. 

Photos must be accompanied with 

caption information which fully identifies all 

individuals depicted, including rank, title 

or office, and event. Note that all text and 

photo submissions are subject to editing 

for content, cropping and/or size. All submissions 

that are technical in nature are 

reviewed by the AFMETCAL Engineering 

Branch (AFMETCAL/ENHE) for accuracy 

and appropriateness. Publication of any 

submission, regardless of subject matter, 

will be approved by the AFMETCAL Division 

and submission does not guarantee 

publication. All submissions are reviewed 

for compliance with Privacy Act, FDO, 

STINFO, OPSEC and other information 

security requirements as applicable. 

How to Make a Submission: The AF- 

METCAL Newsletter editor transmits 

quarterly calls for inputs through the 

PMEL MAJCOM Functional Managers 

and other significant metrology program 

POCs to the respective PMEL managers 

and/or program functional offices. Normal 

submissions are in response to these data 

calls. Authors should submit their article 

inputs via e-mail through their respective 

chain of command to the AFMETCAL 

Newsletter editor. Authors may submit 

inputs out of cycle, but should use the 

same channels for those submissions. 

Deadline for submissions is the 15th of the 

month prior to the scheduled quarterly 

newsletter publication. Do not submit 

copyrighted material. 

Director, Air Force Metrology & 

Calibration 

Colonel Robert E. Mitchell, USAF 

Editor: 

Bob Nappier 

Assistant Editor: 

Lee Wood

Page 3 


July 2011 


Chief’s Corner 

Fellow Maintainers, 

I must have missed the memo last 

year, but 2011 seems like the year 

of change and transformation. 

Those of you I have served with 

throughout the years know how 

much I embrace, encourage and 

facilitate change…no really, I do. 

However, after taking some time 

to reflect, these changes will 

improve our career field and the 

entire AF. 

The first major change will be the 

AFMETCAL Assessment process. 

In May, MSgt Sean Jenigen 

and I attended the AF Inspection 

Efficiencies Conference, hosted 

by the Inspector General. While 

there, we had the opportunity to 

help map the future of the entire 

AF Inspection System. MSgt 

Jenigen’s article details our way 

forward on several issues and the 

ongoing initiatives, but this is still 

a fluid process. At this point, two 

changes appear imminent, our 

assessment schedule and how we 

assess the six critical areas. The 

criteria for certification remains 

the same, so what passed prior to 

October will pass after October. 

The end goal of this process is 

provide the unit more time to train 

and perform their mission by 

establishing an AF-wide battle 

rhythm for inspections and reducing 

the on-site footprint for each 

inspection. 

We are also facing a Tier 3 Manpower 

Study. This is the most 

intense type of study and can take 

up to a year to complete. In the 

first phase, all processes are evaluated 

to the task level, determining 

the core workload and time 

required to accomplish each task. 

By now, all non-contract PMELs 

should have completed the Process 

Oriented Description (POD) and 

submitted their data to the 2 MRS. 

I understand this was a painful part 

of the process and thank everyone 

for their support. I want to emphasize 

the POD data is not the sole 

source determining the requirements 

for your PMEL, it is merely 

the first step. The second phase 

determines the steps required to 

accomplish the task. This will be 

the foundation utilized to develop 

the measurement tools/methodologies. 

Once this step is complete 

and the 2 MRS determines the 

measurement method, they will 

capture the associated man-hours 

leading to the manpower equation 

development. 

Another change I have noticed 

over the past year is the use of 

social media sites to broadcast the 

pride everyone feels when they do 

well on an assessment. Some are 

so proud, they post daily updates 

and the final assessment results. I 

appreciate the hard work that goes 

into an AFMETCAL assessment 

and the desire to share the good 

news, but I encourage everyone to 

think twice before posting your 

PMEL’s final results and daily 

Measurement Capability Assessment 

(MCA) updates. When the 

AF opened these networking sites, 

it came with a responsibility to 

Chief Master Sergeant 

Craig “Woody” Niemann 

Chief, Laboratory Certification 

Branch 

educate everyone to protect information 

that gives insight into our 

operational capabilities. The 

MCA, along with the rest of the 

certification criteria, is an important 

indicator of the PMEL’s capability. 

Take pride in your hard 

work, but consider what you are 

sharing before posting it to the 

internet. 

I would encourage everyone to 

read the article written by TSgt 

Blair. This should not be a change 

for anyone; following the TO 

should always be the first priority. 

I know we have smart people in 

this career field and I encourage 

everyone to change the TO 

(Continued on page 4)

Page 4 


July 2011 


Chief’s Corner (continued) 

(Continued from page 3) 

methodology by submitting an AFTO 22, if it improves the process for the AF. The assessment team takes 

each situation into consideration, especially, if a PMEL has unique standards. However, if you are coming up 

with your own methodology for making a measurement, I would encourage you to be very cautious. The calibrations 

we perform are complex and many times our engineers account for uncertainties that might not be obvious. 

If you have specific questions on substitution and uncertainty, follow the guidance in TO 00-20-14. 

Additionally, PMEL managers need to be aware of TO/AFI guidance and are not exempt from it. While not a 

trend, the team has encountered situations where a manager did not accomplish a requirement within the 

directed time-period (i.e. a Management Review or Internal Audit) and merely documented the discrepancy on 

a Memo for Record (MFR). Identification is the first step; however, documenting lack of compliance with an 

AF directive on a MFR does not absolve the PMEL of responsibility. If a PMEL does not meet requirements 

and has not corrected the issue, you can expect the assessment team to take note. Again, this is not a significant 

trend, but it has come up enough to be mentioned. 

In closing, since assuming the 2P0X1 Career Field Manager duties, I have not been able to attend as many 

assessments as I would like. Nevertheless, I am continually amazed at the things our diverse PMEL team 

(contractor, blue-suit, civil service) accomplishes on a daily basis. Because of the talent at every level of our 

career field, I have no doubt we will continue to work through these changes and come out with a much healthier 

team. Thanks to everyone for all you do. As always, if you have any questions or concerns about the 

AFMETCAL Assessment team, feel free to contact me. 

C. “Woody” Niemann, CMSgt, USAF 

Chief, Laboratory Certification Branch 

News and Notes 

Authorized Deviation/Modification of Technical Orders 

Throughout my career I’ve always heard other PMEL technicians say we are authorized to modify or deviate 

from calibration procedures as long as we can “prove” our methodology. However, TOs 00-20-14 and 00-5-1 

do not authorize technicians to deviate from, or to modify calibration procedures as they see fit. Many times 

technicians feel they can justify their deviations because they think their methodology meets the intent of the 

calibration TO and “they know a better way to do it”. As maintainers, we are required to follow calibration 

TOs to the letter. The only time we are allowed to modify methods is when a substitute standard is used as 

outlined in TO 00-20-14. If there is a faster, cheaper, or safer way of performing the calibration, then submit 

an AFTO 22 on the calibration procedure. Once the calibration procedure has been changed, then the new 

methods may be employed. Remember that we are calibration technicians, not engineers and we must follow 

calibration TOs to the letter. 


Page 5 


July 2011 


News and Notes (continued) 

Authorized Deviation/Modification of Technical Orders (cont.) 


Bottom line, if you are using what the TO calls for, you aren’t authorized to deviate from that TO. If you know 

a better, cheaper, faster or safer way, submit an AFTO Form 22 and then follow that up with an IDEA program 

submittal. 

Christopher Blair, TSgt 

Physical Dimensional Work Area Supervisor 

Nellis AFB, NV 

Maj Gen Fedder Visits Ramstein AB PMEL 

Major General Judith A. Fedder is Director of 

Logistics, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, 

Installations and Mission Support, Headquarters U.S. 

Air Force, Washington, D.C. She is responsible for 

organizing, training, and equipping more than 180,000 

technicians and managers maintaining the Air Force 

global engagement aerospace weapons system 

inventory. Major General Fedder recently visited 

Ramstein Air Base, Germany to get a better 

understanding of the base's logistical operations. She 

spent her day visiting many different logistics-related 

sections in order to gain a first-hand perspective. 

Pictured above: Major General Judith Fedder addresses 

attendees as the guest speaker at the 86 MXG Maintenance 

Professional of the Year Banquet during her recent visit to 

Ramstein AB Germany. 

One of the stops on Major General Fedder’s tour was 

to the 86th Maintenance Squadron TMDE Flight. 

Here she saw an initiative of hers, E-Tools, in full 

effect. The laboratory technical order operation is 

100% paperless through the procurement and 

implementation of E-Tools. She then took a tour of 

the facility with A1C Vega demonstrating the 

accuracies of our calibrations by weighing her official 

signature. Major General Fedder culminated her visit 

to Ramstein AB as the guest speaker at the 86 MXG 

Maintenance Professional of the Year banquet. 

MSgt Jacob Peeterse 

Ramstein PMEL

Page 6 


July 2011 



PMEL Utilization and Training Workshop (U&TW) 

Editor’s Note: The following three articles are three different perspectives offered by attendees to the 

PMEL U&TW. 

From April 18-22, 2011, the PMEL Utilization and Training Workshop (U&TW) convened at Keesler AFB, 

Biloxi, MS. The U&TW is used to determine education and training requirements for us, PMEL. This is 

accomplished by bringing in experts from the career field and using that knowledge to establish the most 

effective mix of formal and on-the-job training for each skill level. The U&TW happens every three years, but 

is something that not everyone gets to experience or even knows about. In my 13 years in PMEL, I didn't even 

know a U&TW happened until I took an instructor position; because of this, I thought it would be very beneficial 

to hear the perspective of the two junior NCOs in attendance of the 2011 U&TW, SSgt Michael Ocampo 

and SSgt Jason DeGrasse. 

The opportunity is out there to directly impact the career field and have your voice heard. Build your technical 

expertise and you might find yourself sitting in a room with way too many stripes to count and the opportunity 

to make a change to PMELs everywhere! 

TSgt Nathan D. Cyr 

Instructor Supervisor, Supplemental Courses 

Keesler AFB, MS 

A Junior Enlisted Member’s View 

(The writer of this article is currently a section supervisor at Charleston AFB, SC and K1/K8 SME of Air 

Mobility Command. He attended the 5-day long U&TW at Keesler AFB, MS, per his Functional Manager's 

request. Members wishing to participate in this capacity should seek assistance from his/her Flight Chief.) 

"…low man on the totem pole". As the Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory Utilization and 

Training Workshop began the monumental task of re-defining the future of the career field, all attending 

members were asked to introduce themselves. They were to face the group and explain who they are in the 

world of PMEL. "Chief This" and "Functional Manager That" were declared around the room, and then all 

eyes were on me. "Good morning. I am SSgt Michael Ocampo, and apparently... I am the low man on the 

totem pole." 

For those readers who are unaware of what the U&TW actually is, let me enlighten you. Every few years, the 

PMEL functional managers of each command, the CDC writers, and the basic/supplemental course instructors 

convene to do a utilization review of the career field. In short, the task at hand is to ensure that, from the 

Electronic Principles course all the way up to the working laboratories, PMEL technicians have the resources 

to complete the mission with maximum efficiency. With all of these program managers present to make 

decisions affecting the labs, shouldn't those actively working in the field have a voice? This is where I come 

into the picture. I was invited to provide the perspective of the reporting official gaining a pipeline student, to 

give the perspective of the trainer or section supervisor, and to give the perspective of the subject-matter 

expert. Many issues are presented to the voting members of the conference. Issues such as what equipment we 

should teach, and to what proficiency level are hot topics. Other issues include the currency of the CDC 


Page 7 


July 2011 



PMEL Utilization and Training Workshop (U&TW) (continued) 


material or the modernization of equipment in the field (subsequently affecting the whole CFETP). It is all 

pretty heavy stuff if you ask a Staff Sergeant...which is precisely what they did! The subject-matter experts 

were invited across every rank demographic beginning with E-5, to ensure a fresh perspective while 

maintaining an experienced, critical eye on the field. 

Just as the topics varied, so did the level of discussion on each topic. It was exhilarating to witness universal 

concurrence at one moment, then suddenly "spirited debate" due to non-concurrence at the very next! By far 

though, the most satisfying moments came when the subject I was brought in to analyze was broadcast on the 

big screen. It would be time to showcase my knowledge. It would be time to voice what really happens in the 

lab, on my peers' behalf. This is where the blood pressure would rise, because win, lose, or draw... it would be 

time to earn my keep! At times, I was able to explain my position and garner concurrence from the members. 

Other times, I would be enlightened by other SMEs in a different position within their MAJCOM. Maybe only 

once in your career (for most enlisted members), will you find yourself with the attention of every Chief and 

MFM in PMEL while they inquire, "What do you think?" Certainly AF members are asked this rhetorically 

numerous times during their careers, but it is truly empowering to have the voting members ask it with honest 

intent, consider your remarks, and nod their heads in agreement. Just like that, the career field (at least until the 

next U&TW) is changed. 

In the end, I acquired a completely different level of respect for each and every functional manager. I equate 

what I witnessed to a Senate or Congressional meeting, complete with hard-fought issues and voting members 

arranged at a head table. Putting a face to the names and seeing the responsibility they carried is definitely a 

humbling experience. These people were molding the future of the career field right before my eyes. It was 

an honor lending a hand in any way I could. Of course on my last day, I tried to thank everyone present for the 

opportunity to participate. I must admit that I felt a sense of pride when the decision-makers were seeking out 

little-old-me, to give thanks for my input. Not too shabby for "the low man on the totem pole", if you ask 

me... and I hope you do. 

SSgt Michael Ocampo 

AMC Representative, Subject Matter Expert 

Charleston AFB, SC 

Notes From The Note Taker 

Have you ever walked into a room and felt like you didn’t belong? That’s how I felt walking in the auditorium 

at Wolfe Hall on April 18 th , 2011. You see, I walked into a room with every PMEL MFM sitting at a table, 

our PMEL CFM, Chief Niemann, glaring me down, and, because not enough rank was already in the room, 

another Chief from AETC, our Training Pipeline Manager. That’s a total of 73 stripes between the ten voting 

members. After the introductions, the workshop quickly got underway. The first day and a half were briefings, 

most of which were boring. According to MSgt Earp, the AFGSC PMEL MFM, those briefings were 

boring because I lacked that strategic level of thinking and scope that all SNCOs must have. In other words, he 

called me dumb. After those extremely informative briefings to those with the scope and boring briefings to 


Page 8 


July 2011 





those without it, we got down to what everyone was brought to Keesler for…the review. The review consisted 

of going line by line through the CFETP, CDCs, and all four courses (Apprentice, Phys-D, TACAN, and Adv. 

Cal) taught at Keesler AFB. My job during the workshop was two-fold: I was the note taker for the minutes 

and the Phys – D course representative. For those of you who know me, I had to actually stay quiet for long 

periods of time. Yes, I know it’s unbelievable and it took an enormous amount of restraint. There were 

several experts from the career field here as well; some were a little more boisterous than others, but all 

sections and MAJCOMs had adequate representation. Many changes were made to the CFETP because 

technicians and supervisors in the career field felt a need. Those long and extremely boring surveys everyone 

blazes through without really understanding what and why we’re taking them were actually being used. If the 

data showed an increase in any particular area (use, align, troubleshoot, calibration of any piece of TMDE) the 

voting members took a serious look at how they should address it. They used the experts in attendance 

from the Air University and Occupational Analysis on how to properly make changes if the SMEs and data 

indicated a change was needed. No change was made without serious consideration to the impact it would 

have on the career field and the needs of our Air Force. Just imagine, Chief Leary, ACC PMEL MFM, after 

giving you his now infamous stare, asking for your input on a particular subject. Your answer will directly 

affect whether or not a piece of TMDE is now a core task, whether or not the apprentice course will still teach 

the 2246, whether or not the PHYS-D course will start teaching TTU-205s, or whether or not troubleshooting 

will remain a part of the TACAN course. In my opinion, it was awesome. I loved it. If you ever get the 

opportunity to attend a U&TW, I’d highly recommend it, even if you are just the note taker. 

SSgt Jason DeGrasse 

K6 Supplemental Course Instructor, Subject Matter Expert 

Keesler AFB, MS 

(Contributors of these articles attended the 5-day long U&TW at Keesler AFB, MS. Members wishing to 

participate in this key capacity should seek assistance from his/her Flight Chief.) 

Pictured at left: 

SSgt Jason DeGrasse 

(left) and 

SSgt Michael 

Ocampo (right) 

working diligently at 

finding the information 

that would 

change PMEL 

forever (at least the 

next three years). 

Photo by: 

TSgt Nathan Cyr 


Page 9 


July 2011 





Editor’s note: The pictures below and on the next page were provided by the Keesler Schoolhouse and 

show the U&TW meeting in progress with some of the attendees from the PMEL community. 


Page 10 


July 2011 




(Continued from page 9)

Page 11 


July 2011 



The White Space Initiative 

White Space – you’re probably asking yourself “what is White Space”. Good question, because there’s not 

enough of it. White Space is the space on a calendar in-between inspections. You know what it’s like – this 

week it’s LCAP, next week is ESOCAMP, then the ORI and then AFMETCAL rolls in, etc. It’s just a 

constant string of inspections. Here’s a fun fact, over a 5 year period, the average wing had 97+ inspections 

totaling over 350 inspection days. The Air Force Chief of Staff (CSAF) heard the cry and put forth his vision: 

Reduce, Synchronize, Integrate. 

REDUCE: Reduce the number of AF inspections and reduce what is inspected on-site. The goal is to shrink 

the overall inspection footprint for a wing; ideally all inspections will be 5 duty days or less. 

SYNCHRONIZE: Synchronize all remaining inspections with the Secretary of the AF, Inspector General 

(SAF/IG) into a Combined Unit Inspection (CUI). All inspections will be on a 2 or 4 year cycle. So, one 

week every 2 years, your base will have its CUI, with all inspections taking place concurrently (LCAP, 

AFMETCAL, etc). The assessment team expects to be fully synchronized with SAF/IG by Oct 2013. To meet 

this goal, the assessments at Osan, Kunsan and Al Udeid will now be on a 2 year cycle. 

INTEGRATE: Integrate under the SAF/IG umbrella. The IG is, by US law, the only inspection authority in 

the AF, so all AF inspections will eventually have to integrate at some level with the IG. The assessment 

team’s goal is full integration by Oct 2013; however, we still have a few issues to work out. 

CHANGE. What does this mean for PMEL and AFMETCAL? The assessment team has taken a hard look at 

how we perform our onsite assessments to see what we can modify to comply with CSAF’s vision. We 

determined the 6 critical areas currently looked at are still the right areas to assess. However, by collecting a 

little more pre-assessment data upfront, we can determine a grade on 3 of the 6 areas prior to setting foot in the 

PMEL. The areas we can grade ahead of time are the Management System (MS), Proficiency Testing/ 

Measurement Assurance Program (PT/MAP) and Environment. The Quality Program (QP), Measurement 

Capability Assessment (MCA) and Facility will still be graded on site. 

After working closely with the Headquarters AF Logistics Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP) office, 

we realized there was some overlap between AFMETCAL and LCAP assessments in the PMEL management 

functions. AFMETCAL reviewed these areas, but didn’t rate them. The LCAP inspected these areas for 

compliance and a grade. To reduce the overlap, AFMETCAL will no longer look at those areas the LCAP 

inspects (i.e. supply, scheduling, shipping, etc). 

MORE CHANGE. The assessment team will no longer sit down for formal interviews on the QP and MS. 

Instead of the interview, the team will provide written feedback on these programs, allowing the team to get 

“out of the weeds” and give a macro look. The team will still be open to discussion on issues or questions 

management or QA have on their programs, but no formal session will be planned. 

By implementing these changes, coupled with a few tweaks to how we conduct the MCA, we can eliminate at 

least one assessment day. This allows the assessment team to meet the CSAF challenge by bringing the 

average time in the laboratory to within the 5 day vision. 


Page 12 


July 2011 




The White Space Initiative (continued) 

Our plan is to implement these changes starting 1 October 2011. Please keep in mind there is still much 

changing in the AF. We will continue to adjust the AFMETCAL assessment program as needed to comply 

with CSAF and SAF/IG directives, while maintaining a stringent technical certification assessment. Please 

direct any questions regarding AFMETCAL and White Space to your MAJCOM/MFM. They will consolidate 

and forward to the team. 

Sean P. Jenigen, MSgt, USAF 

USAF Metrology Laboratory Lead Evaluator 

USAF Material Deficiency Reporting 

Annually, AFMETCAL publishes a Logistics Analysis Report. The report is prepared and provided to 

AFMETCAL program personnel with performance data for use in determining equipment acquisition requirements. 

One part of the Logistics Analysis Report is Material Deficiency Reporting including Warranty Repair Data on 

AFMETCAL-procured assets. In the past, Equipment Failure Information Report (EFIR) was a contractual 

requirement from the manufacturer. In FY08, the Air Force implemented the Joint Deficiency Reporting 

System (JDRS). JDRS is the official Air Force Deficiency Reporting tracking system and repository. 

Air Force Material Deficiency Reporting is mandated per TO 00-35D-54 which includes Warranty Repair 

Items. Paragraph 1.6.2.1 states Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs) are reports of deficiency (on 

hardware or software) resulting from an initial failure, defect, or nonconforming condition discovered on a 

new, newly-repaired, or overhauled product typically when that product is placed in service. PQDRs include 

failures that result after the item was placed in service that are suspected as latent defects or quality escapes 

resulting from poor workmanship, nonconformance to applicable specifications, drawings, standards, 

processes or other technical requirements. PQDRs also include the reporting of failures that occur on 

contractually-prescribed warranted items within the warranty period. 

Typically an exhibit is not required per TO 00-35D-54, paragraph 4.6.5 which states: 

4.6.5 Category II deficiencies on warranted items other than safety-related and new/newly-reworked 

material shall typically be processed according to the individual item warranty plan. While the information 

is captured, and may be closed, this type of information can be used for trend analysis. For warranted 

items indicate the exhibit is not available. Exhibits will be sent back to the manufacturer. 

When completing the Material Deficiency Report in JDRS for AFMETCAL-procured items, include the 


Page 13 


July 2011 




USAF Material Deficiency Reporting (continued) 

contract number which is published in the Equipment Support Plan. By having the contract number, it will be 

easy to query the JDRS database rather than query each National Stock Number (NSN) for all the items. 

There have only been 14 Material Deficiency Reports entered by the PMELs since 2008. This information 

will assist AFMETCAL in identifying Bad Actors and possible future equipment acquisitions. 

JDRS is a Navy-managed system and website is https://jdrs.mil. 

You can access the website via Common Access Card (CAC) or register with a Username and Password. You 

can also initiate a Deficiency Report without logging onto the site by selecting Toolkit on the Menu Bar and 

following the instructions. Again, please try to include the AFMETCAL contract number. It makes it easier to 


Page 14 


July 2011 




query the database. 

USAF Material Deficiency Reporting (continued) 

The requirement to perform product quality deficiency reporting and resolution is mandated by public law and 

complementary USAF and DOD guidance. 

Tony Oiler 

Plans & Analysis Section 

AFMETCAL/ENHRX 

Did you know about the PAMS Deleted K-100 report? 

It’s something not often spoken about and it 

seems many Schedulers and Lab Managers aren’t 

aware of it. It can be found under REPORTS, 

SCHEDULING, DELETED K-100. This report 

serves two important purposes: it helps to eliminate 

obsolete entries in the K-100 and ensures the PMEL’s 

inventory is loaded under the most correct entry. 

The Deleted K-100 Report? 

When an AFCAV entry is marked for deletion, the 

entry cannot be deleted until there is no longer an 

item loaded against it in PAMS. In most cases, the 

Technical Content Manager will have listed the correct 

Work Unit Code in the comments. This enables 

the scheduler/lab manager to change the entry without 

waiting for the next calibration due date. This is 

especially important for items that may never come 

back into the PMEL, such as CBU or NPC items. 

Occasionally, it may not be possible to change the 

entry without having the item on hand to verify the correct 

data. 

Pictured above: 

PAMS menu showing location of the “Deleted K-100” report 

referenced in this article. 

The report should be run each month after the AFCAV updates are published. By keeping up with this report, 

we can eliminate the excess entries in the K-100 and prevent confusion for personnel loading or verifying P/N 

and WUCs. 


Page 15 


July 2011 




The Deleted K-100 Report? (continued) 


A sample PAMS report showing inventory items loaded against AFCAV entries 

marked for deletion. 

Sean P. Jenigen, MSgt, USAF 

USAF Metrology Laboratory Lead Evaluator 

Misawa PMEL Personnel Survive Earthquake 

Friday, 11 March 2011. Misawa Air Base was in Day Two of an Operational Readiness Exercise (ORE). 

With 20 technicians assigned, the Misawa PMEL had eight technicians farmed out for exercise augmentation 

and the flight was operating two six-person crews working 12 hour shifts. 

At 1445 local time, the familiar shaking of an earthquake began. Earthquakes are common in this area; prior 

to March 11, we probably had one a month-they usually lasted about 5 seconds or so-but this one was different. 

This wasn’t a jolt, this was a sustained shake. After about 20 seconds, the tremor started to become 

stronger, much more intense than normal. Technicians took cover under benches and things started to fall off 

tables. At about the minute mark, the shaking was still getting stronger and the ground started to roll like 

waves on the water. The fire alarm in the PMEL was triggered by now, but the noise of the quake almost 

drowned it out. At about the three minute mark, power went out. The earthquake was at full intensity and it 

was hard to stand up. I remember staggering down the hall way like a drunken sailor as we tried to get outside 

the building before the safety lights went out. Time stood still-it was if the ground would never stop moving. 

When the shaking finally did finish almost five minutes after it began, there was a surreal silence everywhere. 

Cell phones worked for about 10 minutes before all service was lost. Power and phone lines were inoperative. 

The land mobile radios (LMRs) were useless, as the relay stations had gone down. A burst water main flooded 

the area around the Squadron building, and traffic was soon backing up at the main traffic intersections, which 


Page 16 


July 2011 



Misawa PMEL Personnel Survive Earthquake (continued) 


were now without lights. 

Two technicians were sent around the housing area to make sure families were safe and accounted for. Another 

was sent to the unit conrol center (UCC) to report our status; the rest of us fumbled in the dark looking 

for flash lights so we could do a damage assessment, secure gas cylinders, and unplug items, etc. (have you 

ever tried to do CTK accountability with a flashlight when things are strewn about and you weren’t the one 

working in the area at the time). The safety lights were out within minutes and there was a strong smell of 

burning in the lab. The exterior of the building was cracked in a number of places. The fire department responded 

to us almost immediately (they are located barely 100 yards from us) and they determined that the 

burning smell was just the air handler belts having been thrown and which had been rubbing prior to power 

loss. Preliminary structure evaluations determined that we were safe to enter the building. 

Over the next two hours, the technicians and their families all started arriving at the PMEL (this was our designated 

meeting point in the event of an accident/disaster), but we still had to go down town and “rescue” one 

member whose electrical garage door was inoperative; she couldn’t reach the chain to manually open the door 

and get her car out. No one was injured, but we had a spouse who was unaccounted for in Tokyo (that went on 

for almost 24 hours). At this point, we had no idea that the tsunami had hit. We had no contact with the outside 

world and even the emergency sirens downtown were out. As it happens, the Misawa port was completely 

destroyed and two people killed just a few kilometers away. Those of you who have been stationed 

here before will know Hachinohe isn’t that far away. The wave that hit there was almost 20 ft high and lifted 

ocean-going ships onto the docks. It wasn’t until much later that night that any of us even realized how lucky 

we were. 

We were without power, heat or water for three days on base. We camped in sleeping bags on living room 

floors in the dark and cold (each night dropped below freezing and it even snowed on day two). None of us 

wanted to go upstairs where the shaking of the aftershocks was even more magnified. Over the next few 

weeks we had over 1,500 aftershocks-some as strong as 7.0 on the Richter scale. Gas was rationed, and the 

commissary did what it could to sell items in the dark without cash registers. If you didn’t have cash you were 

out-of-luck, until finance started handing out $40 “advances” on day three. MREs were the meal of choice and 

when the gym rigged portable showers on day three people were lining up to take a 5 minute wash in hot water. 

It’s during times like this that you truly appreciate things like running water, heat and electricity. 

Over the course of the next week power was slowly restored across base, and the lab was finally brought back 

on line one week after the “big one”. During that time, we sustained significant water damage as the ECS system 

drained through the ceiling into the lab, and we had no way to dry out the facility without power. We had 

critical standards plugged in anywhere we could find a building with a generator and we relocated pressure and 

torque operations across the flightline to the Avionics facility. 

I cannot say enough about the technicians who were here at the time. Although the TMDE Flight only makes 

up 3% of our squadron, we took on 39% of the augmentee taskings and helped the base to recover in an incredibly 

short amount of time, and turn it into a major hub for Operation TOMODACHI. In fact, just last 


Page 17 


July 2011 





month the Wing Commander came down to recognize the flight’s efforts during the disaster and personally 

coined three of the technicians: TSgt James Laws, SSgt James Ahn and SrA Kyle Meister. During the weeks 

after the disaster, we contributed people to: search and rescue teams, escorts for international relief agencies, 

aircraft decontamination teams, forklift and bus drivers to unload aircraft, energy conservation teams, noncombatant 

evacuation operations (NEO) , UCC duties, security details and some of us even led teams of volunteers 

to help recovery operations in the local community. 

It has been three months since that terrible day, and we are still dealing with the effects of the earthquake. The 

lab is still operating on only two of four air handlers, we are still trying to catch up with exchange standards, 

etc. after more than a month of not having shipping capability. We are still helping the local communities 

clean up and rebuild, and the Navy is still using our 400Hz capability while they await repairs in their own facilities. 

Travel restrictions were recently lifted to travel south, although the nuclear reactors are still not considered 

safe and must be bypassed when heading to Tokyo. The Pacific Ocean is off limits due to debris/ 

chemicals that are in the water. Families that were evacuated are still trickling back to base, while many have 

decided not to return at all. Yet despite all this, we are still significantly better off than tens of thousands of 

Japanese who are still homeless or who lost loved ones. 


Earthquake devastation at Noda Village; Misawa AB personnel have assisted 

the Japanese residents in clean-up and rebuilding efforts. 


Page 18 


July 2011 





The earthquake was measured at 9.0, the fourth strongest in recorded history. It lasted almost 5 minutes and 

generated a tsunami that peaked at 128 feet in height at Miyako City. More than 15,000 people lost their lives, 

and the coast of Honshu has shifted more than 15 feet in places. We at Misawa were very, very fortunate. 

We did not suffer a single death or injury of any significance. To date, the base has conducted more than 70 

missions under the “Misawa Helps” Program, and contributed thousands of often brutal man-hours to help local 

communities clean up from the devastation. I am proud to say that every member of the TMDE flight, and 

many of our dependents, have volunteered their off-duty time to contribute to this incredible effort. I can also 

say that being part of the relief efforts here has been one of the most rewarding things I have ever done in my 

AF career. 

Lastly, I would to thank everyone who sent notes and well wishes to Misawa in the aftermath of the events of 

March 11th. Your thoughts and prayers meant a lot to everyone when things here weren’t always going as 

easily as we would have liked. 

CMSgt Andy Breur 

TMDE Flight Chief 

Misawa AB, Japan 

How Did You Celebrate World Metrology Day On May 20th? 

The 527 th Electronics Maintenance Squadron at Hill AFB, 

UT commemorated World Metrology Day by submitting 

and having published an article in the Hilltop Times, Hill’s 

base paper. The two page article provided readers a brief 

history of metrology, an explanation of World Metrology 

Day, the organization structure of the 527 EMXS and an 

explanation of PMEL from a technician’s viewpoint. The 

article was a joint effort, as many members of the squadron 

provided suggestions and inputs. 

The article can be found at: http://www.hilltoptimes.com/ 

node/4561. 

Mr. Don Hallford 

Squadron Director, 527 EMXS/CL (PMEL) 

Hill AFB UT

Page 19 


July 2011 



Kunsan PMEL Completes Successful AFMETCAL Assessment 

Deployed at Kunsan? The most recent visit by the AFMETCAL Assessment Team was not the typical trip to 

Kunsan. Working out of five temporary lodging farcicalities (C-Huts), the Wolf Pack calibrators proved that 

they are capable of working under austere conditions while accomplishing the 8th Fighter Wing mission, 

proving their ability to make safe, accurate, reliable, and traceable measurements during the 2011 AFMET- 

CAL Assessment. 


The temporary laboratory facilities at Kunsan consist of five 18 x 32 feet “C Huts”, which are normally part of lodging facilities. 

The only issue keeping the Kunsan Air Base PMEL from being a fully certified PMEL is the environmental 

control system and the lack of a permanent facility. The current facility is undergoing a complete renovation. 

Planning for the project started over seven years ago and adds an additional 2,300 square feet, new ECS, new 

scheduling area, and new restroom. The new facility will provide an impressive 5,300 square feet of calibration 

area! Scheduled for completion in early August, the flight is gearing up to relocate once again. 


The new 20 x 80 foot addition to the main laboratory’s calibration/repair area. 


Page 20 


July 2011 



Kunsan Completes Successful AFMETCAL Assessment (cont.) 


Pictured above from left to right: 

Front Row: SSgt Leaton, SrA Cavazos, SSgt Gilchrist, SSgt Farrington, TSgt Perniciaro, SrA Singleton 

Back Row: A1C Leone, SrA Warren, SrA White, TSgt McEntire, SSgt Veara, SrA Kmet, MSgt Neeley 

Rotation after rotation, the professionalism of the men and women of the Wolf Pack will continue to make 

Kunsan a better place. The success of the laboratory during the 2011 AFMETCAL Assessment should be 

attributed to past and present rotations as it truly takes a team effort. 

Congratulations! 

MSgt Charles Neeley 

Kunsan Flight Chief

Page 21 


July 2011 



From The Bench 

EF3946-FTS Liquid Flow Transfer Standard Upgrade Details 

The EF3946-FTS is undergoing an upgrade to its firmware. The changes now allow for a single temperatureviscosity 

and single temperature-density (specific gravity) offset for the viscosity and density tables. These 

tables are important for measuring flow rates with the FTS and the firmware change now makes it much easier 

to update them as an ambient measurement can be taken and then entered into the “flow gator” through its 

front panel. The manual indicates two methods are available; however, going forward the new offset approach 

should be the only way that the viscosity and density tables are updated. The excerpt from the manual for updating 

the viscosity table is shown below, and the routine is the same for density. 


Page 22 


July 2011 


From The Bench (continued) 

EF3946-FTS Liquid Flow Transfer Standard Upgrade Details (cont.) 


The other change now informs the user when they are outside of the 

calibration table for the meter being used. When the table values are 

exceeded, the screen will indicate “BEYOND TABLE!”. 

The revised manual is posted to the WebAFCAV entry. 

Jeremy Latsko 

AFMETCAL/ENHEM 

Pictured at right: 

Flow Gator Computer 

P/O EF3946-FTS Liquid Flow Transfer 

Standard

Page 23 


July 2011 



Understanding Third Order Intermodulation (TOI) 

After reading the title I bet many of you immediately plucked Third Order Intermodulation (Distortion) from 

the folds of your mind. Seems logical but for those doing so you might’ah picked ya peaches a’fore they’ahs 

fuzzed up good. When referenced in metrology, the term TOI can mean at least one other thing, as you’ll soon 

see. 

Brevity is common in military environments so it is unremarkable for descriptive phrases to be condensed into 

more toothsome morsels. Take Third Order Intermodulation distortion, for example. As a sizeable twelvesyllable 

chunk it can be quite tiring if required more than once in conversation and for many it leaves a bad 

taste. Some dislike it so much they instead resort to panicky gestures while others, such as those from SAPP, 

make it a point to savor all twelve syllables as many times as anyone will listen. By the way, for those who 

paused to actually count syllables…the Society for the Acceptance of Pocket Protectors is looking for 

members! 

Regardless of SAPPy influences the common folk prevailed and born 

was TOI. It was touted by trainers and supervisors as an alternative to 

an otherwise mouthful and they encouraged its use. For most of us the 

term always meant one thing – Third Order Intermodulation 

(distortion). With little warning, however, a new dawn has broken. 

Though calibration paragraphs are still titled with the lip-twisting 

description you might now see TOI in a different light…surprisingly, 

it’s not the dBc version to which most of us are accustomed. 

Picture yourself preparing to clear the last hurdle of an agonizing 80-page procedure. It’s your old friend 

Third Order Intermodulation distortion but upon scanning a once familiar process you notice obvious changes. 

Table 21 

Frequency 1 (MHz) Frequency 2 (MHz) Limits (dBm) 

300.00 300.05 > 7.5 

5000.00 5000.05 > 5 

Confused, you revisit the Table 1 specs and find only large, negative dBc values coupled with a specific 

applied mixer level. Something doesn’t feel right but with a slight shrug you trudge on and find the test works 

exactly as written. Others may pause with raised brows if the terms or limits cited in methodology do not 

correspond to Table 1, but it’s been two days and you are tired, cranky and NOT the engineer. Besides, 

leaving the methodology solely in their hands is a no-brainer…right? 

In past spec-an procedures, Table 1 provided dBc limits for the third order intermodulation distortion products 

with respect to a given input mixer level and we checked for dBc values during calibration – no questions, no 

problem. Now, however, the Table 1 spec for Third Order Intermodulation Distortion may be listed as < -75 

dBc with -30 dBm at the mixer while at the same time paragraph 4.whatever expresses the limit as > +7.5 dBm 

TOI. To top it off we apply -20 dBm to the mixer instead of -30 dBm! On the surface what seems 

contradictory – the 33K not checking for dBc at the correct mixer level – really isn’t. In this situation, I could 


Page 24 


July 2011 



Understanding Third Order Intermodulation (TOI) (continued) 


emphatically say “Third Order Intermodulation Distortion > +7.5 dBm TOI.” Notice I purposely didn’t take 

the easy way and say TOI > +7.5 dBm TOI. Why? In the first place it sounds quite awkward and secondly, 

Third Order Intermodulation can’t be shortened to TOI in this context. If you think it can then refer to the first 

place – silly wabbit. 

In this writing, TOI correctly refers to Third Order Intercept. It is defined as the mixer level input at which an 

analyzer’s internal third order intermodulation distortion level is equal to that of the applied fundamental. In 

other words, at a high enough mixer level there would be 0 dBc between the fundamental amplitude and the 

third order distortion intermodulation products. I should point out that intercept values are mostly theoretical 

and not likely obtainable in practice. Before you could actually get to 0 dBc the input mixer would be well 

into compression, screaming from saturation or have totally kicked the bucket. Still, TOI can be used to 

compare one spec-an against another, as well as to gauge capability at different mixer levels. Higher TOIs 

correspond to lower third order intermodulation distortion products for a given input level and most likely an 

increased dynamic range (and this is all good). 

The dynamic range of a spectrum analyzer indicates its ability to discern signals accurately from compression 

to the noise floor including harmonics and closely related signals at its input without internal distortion being a 

limiting factor on the measurement. The first hurdle is a non-linear input mixer. Being non-linear is a 

necessary characteristic for proper analyzer operation, but it must be balanced against the amount of second 

and third order distortion it causes. The analyzer generates distortion when you inject a signal into the 

non-linear mixer and its distortions will be located at the same points as those of the device under test (DUT). 

It is for this reason a higher TOI (Third Order Intercept) is desired. The benefit is greater dynamic range, 

lower distortion and less influence with respect to DUT distortion. 

Our main focus here is the third order distortion caused by intermodulation of two closely spaced signals. To 

test for this, we inject two equal amplitude signals and look for distortion sidebands (products). In some 

instances you may see nothing except the analyzer’s noise floor (which, by the way, is another limitation on 

dynamic range). So, is the procedure really working? Did you miss something in the setup? After all, 

shouldn’t you be able to see the distortion which you are purposely trying to cause and measure? To combat 

the issue we have in the past raised the generator input level high enough to cause greater distortion (visible), 

making sure our marker is placed correctly, and then returning the input to the previously specified level. 

Almost always it was made quite clear we must return the mixer level to that specified in Table 1 before 

making the actual measurement. The marker value was either the intermodulation distortion product level or 

noise floor, and in either case it must meet the TOI (note that here TOI means Third Order Intermodulation) 

distortion spec. If it didn’t meet the spec due to noise floor then a TO Directed limitation was required. 

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a way to raise the two fundamental signals to create visible intermodulation 

distortion products in the initial setup and leave it there throughout the test? If so, could we then somehow 

correlate the observed dBc values to Table 1 limits? There is a way and yes we can, thanks to TOI. In the 

manufacturer spec for the third order intermodulation distortion of < -75 dBc with -30 dBm at the mixer, the 


Page 25 


July 2011 





third order intercept would be +7.5 dBm, without a doubt this is true even if Table 1 doesn’t say so. Here’s 

how we know this: 

TOI = A(fund)-(dBc/2) 

where A(fund) is the Table 1 mixer level spec (input power level – analyzer attenuation) and the dBc value is 

the Table 1 third order intermodulation distortion spec (assumed a negative value). 

Solving the equation using the manufacturer’s data example above, we have: 

TOI = -30 dBm – (-75 dBc / 2) = 7.5 dBm 

Once TOI is known, calculation of the maximum dBc value can be determined for any mixer input level. For 

example, if we use -20 dBm at the mixer because we know at this power level the intermod products are 

present, we can then solve for our new maximum dBc value relative to the new mixer level. The result is: 

7.5 dBm = -20 dBm – (dBc/2), where dBc would equal -55 dBc. 

We must use the same TOI (third order intercept) value because 7.5 is based on the manufacturer’s spec. In 

this case, since our original spec used “

Page 26 


July 2011 





“less than” value; if it had been “less than or equal to” 

then a result lying on the line would pass.) 

If you are wondering about the origin of Figure 1, think 

mathematical culmination of linear equations. It’s basically 

a three step process, which is shown graphically 

in Figure 1b, and is based on the third order spec (-30 

dBm at the mixer and -75 dBc intermod products). [1] 

If we change the fundamental power into the mixer by 

1 dB, then the fundamental power out of the mixer also 

changes by 1 dB; this line begins at -30 dBm and is 

plotted on the graph with a slope = +1. [2] The same 1 

dB change in the fundamental power going into the 

mixer causes a 3 dB change in the third order distortion 

effects coming out of the mixer; this line starts at -105 

dBm (also the -75 dBc point) and is plotted with a 

slope = +3. [3] Because our real interest here is the difference 

between the signals, we can subtract the equation 

of the line for the fundamental from the equation 

of the line for the third order intermodulation products. 

The equation for the difference is a line having a slope 

= +2. To summarize this phenomenon, a 1 dB change 

in the applied fundamental at the mixer input causes a 3 

dB change in the third order intermodulation products 

at the mixer output. Taking this a step further, and noting 

the difference in the slopes from above as being +2, 

this translates to the dBc value noted in the main TOI 

formula above being divided by two. And now we’re 

back to the same equation as shown in Figure 1. 

So what does all this mean when viewed on your Spectrum 

Analyzer? For exaggeration the bolded blue lines 

of Figure 2 show fundamental changes of 10 dB. Since 

third order is third order, the math equally applies to 

the third harmonic distortion as well as the third order 

intermodulation distortion. In Figure 2A below, a -20 

dBm input gives us a third harmonic level of -75 dBm. 

Decreasing the input to -30 dBm drops the third harmonic 

to -105 dBm. In Figure 2B, at -20 dBm we have 

-55dBc intermod distortion products and if the input 


Page 27 


July 2011 





power is lowered to -30 dBm then the intermod product drops to -75 dBc. Can you see although the absolute 

(dBm) ratio is 1:3 the relative difference of the change respective to the fundamental (dBc) was a 1:2 ratio? 

Interestingly enough the TOI plot in Figure 1 has the same 1:2 ratio and commonly it is said to have a slope of 

2. Simply stated, for every 1 dB change of the fundamental at the mixer, the change in third order intermod 

distortion is 3 dB, and the relative difference in change respective to the fundamental is 2 dB. This difference 

of change respective to the fundamental is the relationship linking Figures 1 and 2. 

One more concept and we’re done. I’d like to prevent unintentional purging so take a few seconds to 

compress the data you’ve acquired thus far. Take a deep breath. Vigorously shake your head from side-toside 

while at the same time letting your loose lips make a cartoon blabbering sound. Feel better? 


Page 28 


July 2011 





To understand intermodulation products you should be aware these are in addition to simple mixing products: 

sum, difference and fundamentals. Again refer to Figure 2B. Third order intermodulation is a harmonic 

relationship in the mixer and is characterized by f1, f2, 2(f2)-f1 and 2(f1)-f2 where f1 is subtracted from twice 

the second harmonic of f2, and f2 is subtracted from twice the second harmonic of f1. If 100 MHz (f1) and 

100.1 MHz (f2) were applied to a general purpose mixer the output would be 100 MHz, 100.1 MHz, 100 kHz 

and 200.1 MHz. At the same time, an analyzer’s mixer may produce third order intermod distortion products 

of the fundamentals at 99.9 MHz and 100.2 MHz. If our span is set narrow for fundamental analysis we may 

not see the sum and difference but the third order intermod products may be visible – during calibration we 

want them to be visible. Notice the lower distortion product falls below f1 by an amount equal to the difference 

between f1 and f2, and the upper distortion product is found above f2 by the same difference. 

Well, there you have it. You have to be careful when thinking about TOI. It can mean Third Order Intermodulation 

or it can mean Third Order Intercept, and these terms mean very different things, but they are related 

mathematically. It is common in the telecommunications industry to use TOI (in the general sense), in 

part, to rate mixers, amplifiers and other test equipment where higher intercept values are associated with 

lower intermodulation values and generally mean better performance. Knowing and understanding the concepts 

of TOI make it a useful tool whether in calibration or substitution of test equipment. If you are so inclined, 

both Agilent (Spectrum Analyzer App Note series) and Rohde & Schwarz are excellent sources. 

On a side note you may encounter SHI in the calibration procedure. This is the Second Harmonic Intercept. 

Without going into detail it is the same concept as TOI save one exception: the SHI plot has a slope of 1 and 

the formula is SHI = A(fund) – dBc. In the very general case, the SHI = (Input Power – Analyzer Attenuation) 

– (dBc – Analyzer Frequency Response Error). A -30 dBm mixer level and a spec of -65 dBc, yields an SHI 

of +35 dBm. These values seem extraordinarily high but as with TOI they are not meant to be achievable 

points. Many times you’ll find TOI, SHI, IF bandwidth, noise floor and phase noise plotted on the same graph 

since all are quality measures relating to the dynamic range. 

Thanks to Mr. Jeff Boulton and Mr. Jon Schiefer for their invaluable inputs. 

Ken Bullard 

3 CMS/MXMD 

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK

Page 29 


July 2011 



ADC 2500 Air Data Calibrator Data Storage Problem 

The Beale AFB PMEL acquired their ADC 

2500 Air Data Calibrator (ADC) in December 

2010 and soon became aware of a problem storing 

data from the calibration of TTU-205s. 

They performed approximately 15 to 20 TTU- 

205 calibrations with it and were unable to retrieve 

any TI calibration data that is typically 

stored. Until recently this had been more of an 

inconvenience than a mission stopper; in fact 

right up until the last calibration they had no 

need to retrieve any data, though they had 

searched the ‘C’ drive (without success) to determine 

where the data was stored for future 

reference. The last TTU-205 calibration (26 Apr 

11) performed required tilt/offset alignment and 

the subsequent creation of an out of tolerance 

letter. When Mr. Wertz attempted to find the 


ADC 2500 Air Data Calibrator 

(OEM Photo) 

calibration data file he realized there were no saved files anywhere on the hard drive. He needed this to exact 

data points to detail where the TI was out of tolerance. 

At this point, it seemed likely that the hard disk was write-protected. To prove it, he created a TTU-205 

calibration data session and saved it. He then closed out of the program and searched the ‘C’ drive to find it, 

which he did. However, he then shut down and restarted the ADC only to discover the data had been wiped 

clean and was nowhere to be found. He called Testvonics and spoke with an engineer (Jack Bravo). He 

instructed Mr. Wertz to create a ‘notepad’ document, save it in two separate places on the hard drive, close the 

document, then run a search to see if it was still there. After confirming it was, he was then told to shut off/ 

restart the ADC and search for the document. Mr. Wertz did this and verified the data was no longer there, 

the Testvonics engineer determined the hard disk was write-protected and most likely had a faulty compact 

flashcard ‘CF’ data card. 

Testvonics priority shipped out another ‘CF’ data card on the same day and the Beale PMEL had it two days 

later. They included instructions on how to perform the procedure and it took approximately 30 minutes for 

the entire swap-out process. After installation of the ‘CF’ card, Mr. Wertz let the ADC warm up for one hour 

then performed a “balance pressure’ and ‘auto exercise” to verify correct operation then saved a document, 

shut down, and restarted the ADC to ensure the data was saved. He then made another call to Testvonics to let 

them know it fixed the problem and also to get verification from them that swapping out the ‘CF’ cards would 

not affect or void the calibration. Jack Bravo verified that the calibration of the ADC is not affected since the 

calibration data points are all saved to the hard disk through a serial port. Programs on the “CF” card simply 

control and enable certain features of the ADC including storage and/or write protection of the hard disk 


Page 30 


July 2011 



ADC 2500 Air Data Calibrator Data Storage Problem (cont.) 


Pictured above: ADC 2500 Air Data Calibrator connected to TTU-205 ( ) 

(OEM Photo) 

The time elapsed from the first phone call to Testvonics to fixing the data storage problem was under three 

days. The support personnel and engineers at Testvonics were extremely helpful and obviously had the resolution 

of the problem as their top priority. 

We encourage all owners of this asset to check now so the data is there if and when you need it. 

Jack Wertz & Don Bowman 

The Bionetics Corporation 

Beale AFB CA PMEL 

Pictured at right: 

Mr. Jack Wertz 

Beale PMEL

Page 31 


July 2011 



Calculating Relative Tuned RF Level (TRFL) of the 

Microwave Measurement Receiver (MMR) 

This article will show you how to figure out Relative Tuned RF Level (TRFL) accuracy of the MMR. TRFL 

level accuracy is determined from two different attributes. The first is the measurement linearity of the MMR 

itself and the other is the noise of the MMR being added to the signal. Noise of the MMR is added to the 

TRFL tolerance on the lower ranges and the point at which the noise affects the accuracy is called the Residual 

Noise Threshold. There are also two range switch points that increase the uncertainty. 

Figuring out the tolerance of TRLF above the Residual Noise Threshold is simple. The accuracy is as follows: 

+/- (0.015 dB + 0.005 dB/10 dB step) 

Agilent defines "Step" as the difference between relative measurements, such as might be experienced by 

stepping a step attenuator. So starting at your reference, your accuracy is +/- 0.015 dB. For any full or partial 

10 dB step, we have to add the 0.005 dB error, for example, -5 dB would be +/- 0.020 dB. At -10 dB, the error 

is +/- 0.020 dB. The error from < -10 dB to -20 dB is +/- 0.025 dB and from < -20 dB to -30 dB, the error is 

+/- 0.030 dB. 

Range 2 and Range 3 switch points add +/- 0.031 dB of error. Let’s say our Range 2 switch point is at the -60 

dB point and our Range 3 switch point is at the -80 dB point. If we continue from the example above, -50 dB 

would be +/- 0.04 dB and -60 dB would be +/- (0.045 + 0.031 dB) or +/- 0.076 dB. -70 dB would be +/- 0.081 

dB and the -80 dB would be +/- (0.086 dB + 0.031 dB) or +/- 0.117 dB. 

TRFL uncertainties become large fairly quickly once you cross over the Residual Noise Threshold. The 

Residual Noise Threshold can be calculated by adding 30 dB to the minimum power level. The minimum 

power depends on the Resolution Bandwidth (RBW) setting, preamp setting, frequency range, and if you are 

using a sensor module or not. Also, the 50 GHz MMRs and the 26.5 GHz MMRs do not have exactly the 

same minimum power levels and there are separate charts located in the Agilent’s N5530E26/E50 Measuring 

Receiver Specifications and Accessories Guide. 

For this example, we will use a 26.5 GHz MMR, 10 RBW, preamp on, and without a sensor module. The 

minimum power level at this setting is -140 dB so the Residual Noise Threshold is -110 dB. All TRFL 

measurements at or below -110 dB will have an additional uncertainty added caused by the internal noise of 

the MMR. The calculation of this error is: 

+/- (Cumulative Error + 0.0012 x (Input Power-Residual Noise Threshold Power) 2 ). 

Cumulative Error is defined by Agilent as the sum of the error incurred when stepping from a higher amplitude 

level to power levels below the Input Power at Uncertainty Threshold. This is what we were calculating 

above. To figure out the cumulative error for -110 dB, we can continue from where we left off from above: 

-90 dB +/- 0.122 dB, -100 dB +/- 0.127 dB, and -110 dB +/- 0.132 dB. 


Page 32 


July 2011 



Calculating Relative Tuned RF Level (TRFL) of the 

Microwave Measurement Receiver (MMR) (continued) 

Agilent gives a formula to figure out the cumulative error without having to figure out each step: 

+/-(0.015 dB + [x/10]x0.005 dB) 

X is the difference between the reference value and the current input level. In our case, our reference is 0 dB 

and our input level is -110dB so X equals 110. The formula works out to equal +/- 0.07 dB. Then we have to 

add in the Range 2 and 3 errors which is +/- 0.031 each so the error at -110 dB equals +/- 0.132. 

Now to figure out the rest of the formula, you simply have to subtract the Input Power from the Residual Noise 

Threshold Power, square it, then multiply by 0.0012. To continue our example above, input power would be - 

110 db and the Residual Noise Threshold Power is also -110 dB. These cancel out leaving no additional error 

to add to our cumulative error so let’s figure out it out to the minimum power level of -140 dB. 

-120 dB: +/- (0.137 + 0.0012 x (-120 dB -(-110 dB)) 2 ) or +/- 0.257 dB. 

-130 dB: +/- (0.142 + 0.0012 x (-130 dB -(-110 dB)) 2 ) or +/- 0.622 dB. 

-140 dB: +/- (0.147 + 0.0012 x (-140 dB -(-110 dB)) 2 ) or +/- 1.227 dB. 

Since now we know how to figure out the formulas, all we need to figure out any other setting is where the 

Range 2 and Range 3 switch points are and the level minimum power. As stated previously, there are minimum 

power level charts located in the N5530E26/E50 Measuring Receiver Specifications and Accessories 

Guide. There are also minimum power level charts located in Agilent’s PSA Series Spectrum Analyzer Specifications 

Guide in the Measuring Receiver Personality Section. The Spectrum Analyzer Specifications Guide 

has a note on how to figure out the minimum power level of 30 kHz and 200 kHz RBW settings. The 30 kHz 

and 200 kHz settings are based off of the 75 Hz RBW. The 30 kHz RBW will have a minimum power level 

26 dB higher than the corresponding 75 Hz RBW setting and the 200 kHz RBW will have a minimum power 

level 34 dB higher than the corresponding 75 Hz RBW setting. 

We were also curious as to why the 10 Hz RBW setting is the only setting that has separate minimum power 

level specifications for with and without a N5532A Sensor Module. Agilent representatives responded saying 

the sensor modules degrade the minimum power level because there is a power divider built inside of them. 

They also produce “residuals” of -100 dBm or lower around 50 MHz. Agilent assured us that using the 75 Hz, 

30 kHz, and 200 kHz RBW without the sensor module could only improve the minimum power level but 

unfortunately, they do not have exact specifications. 

Hopefully, this article has helped clear the confusion around the Relative TRFL specifications. 

TSgt Jonathan Jones 

Ramstein PMEL

Page 33 


July 2011 


We’re On The Web! 

http://www.robins.af.mil/library/ 

factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8361 

USAF METROLOGY 

AFMETCAL/ENH 

813 Irving-Wick Drive W 

Heath, Ohio 43056-1199 

Phone: 740-788-5092 

DSN: 312-366-5092 

Some of the articles to look for in the next edition: 

• Comments from the AFMETCAL Director 

• Words of Wisdom from the Chief of the Laboratory 

Certification Branch 

• News & Notes from AFMETCAL, the AFPSL and 

PMELs in the field 

• Interesting articles From the Benches of PMELs 

throughout the world 

• And much, much more!

AFMETCAL Newsletter - Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?