 Good morning everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with everyone today and kick off the open group faith and social consortium technical interchange meeting on July 29th. We held the tri service open architecture event in Atlanta. This event was hosted by with strong coordination between the army, navy, air force and select industry partners at the standing room only event with well over 300 attendees present. We were able to show not only the great progress and collaboration made in maturing the standards. But also in aligning the standards. This is the 1st time this hardware in the hardware domain that try services work so closely together to maintain alignment. The clear and consistent messaging to industry from all the services has been significant in furthering our efforts towards adoption. Among the TSA ID attendees, we invited a few key media to get a 1st hand look at our latest advancements. The editor director of military embedded systems magazines reported that he's been covering the market for over 20 years, but he had never seen such enthusiasm, not only from industry, but also from the government and prime contractors. The editor in chief of the military and aerospace electronics wrote an extensive article and included by saying with this kind of top and level support clearly demonstrated. It's clear that the government and industry are marching forward together to craft the high performance electronic systems of the future. For our open architecture efforts here at PMA 209 that speaks volumes, both in the entire marketplace, the PMA 209 avionics architecture team or AAT as a long history supporting the development of open architecture standards. We've been involved with face and host from the inception and support SOSA and other open architecture efforts. As OA standards have matured, our team has made the transition to focus more heavily and supporting the adoption of these standards. Efforts have grown to include direct engagement and support for the adopting program offices, as well as the development of supporting documentation and example implementations. As mentioned on the previous slide, we are working diligently to support program adoption of standards. That being said, we don't provide a one size fits all recommendation to other program offices. Our team is able to engage through all phases of the engineering lifecycle from planning and requirements development through testing and sustainment. We review requirements, specifications, evaluate proposals and defined approaches to OA verification. What's truly important to note from this slide is the number of external agencies that are involved, both within and external to DOD. Without this level of collaboration, we would not be successful. Here are some examples of most of the efforts currently active within PMA 209. This is not an all-inclusive list of every open architecture effort at NavAir. We regularly engage with all the program offices to provide awareness and training to OA standards. As you can see, there is a growing number of aviation platforms incorporating open architecture and we expect to see this list continue to evolve. The focus of AAT has broadened beyond the development of the standards. Two of our primary goals are to identify open architecture opportunities and support the insertion of OA standards. Additionally, our team is working on applying model-based systems engineering or MBSC tools and processes to open architecture efforts. The goal of MBSC and open architecture are complementary in many ways. The robust modeling tools provide a means to document functions and interfaces and which are key aspects of enabling portability and reusability. Here is an overview of some of the most of standards that we are actively working on. In addition to host, we are working with the Army and Face Consortium members to maintain synergy with CMOS and Victory efforts. We are also working in concert with the Air Force and the SOSA Consortium to ensure SOSA alignment. Before I conclude my opening remarks and welcome all of you on behalf of NavAir to today's technical interchange meeting, I'd like to draw your attention to important events. This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the Face Consortium. My sincere congratulations to all the members of the Face Consortium on their extensive effort since its inception in 2010. We look forward to their continued achievements and advancements to open standards. Finally, I'd like to extend the invitation to you and your colleagues to join us on March 23, 2021 for the live expo that we're planning at the Holiday Inn in Solomon's Island, Maryland. We hope to see all of you there. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you so much, Captain. We do have a question. If we do have time for one question, if application happens. Absolutely. Okay. Last January, the Tri-Service memo was released creating a wave of momentum for open architecture efforts. Now that we are over one year removed from the release of that memo, is the Navy still pushing forward with OA? Yes, the Navy is absolutely still pushing forward with OA. OA approaches are required by the National Defense Authorization Act and by the SECNAV Instruction 5000.2 Foxtrot. Additionally, we know that we're an environment that includes constantly changing threats and rapidly involving technology. Open architecture approaches are allowing us to take advantage of the latest technologies and share these advances across platforms. If we continue to develop stovepipe solutions, we're not going to get there in time. So we're working very hard to make sure that these solutions are applicable across each platform. MOSA allows us to rapidly respond to changing threats by upgrading components on an individual basis, which is much more agile and responsive than full systems upgrades. Are there any other questions? I do. I have one more question here. Sure. Some of the initial hesitation with open architecture approaches are the increased cost of design and development, especially for the initial adopting platform. Is Navy leadership willing to spend more upfront to react to benefits in the future? Well, I can only speak on behalf of PMA-209, but I can say within our program office, we're making these investments and I'm seeing my fellow program managers also making these investments in their programs. Our latest mission computer, which we call MCA, Mission Computer Alternative, is developed as a host standard and will include face conformant apps. Additionally, we've developed the Flight Management Function app, which includes a set of face apps that will be used on multiple Navy platforms. We can't go back and fully redesign existing systems in the name of OA, but we are seeing more and more platforms looking to OA solutions as they go through with their tech refresh updates. Reflexible in our approach on OA adoption, developing and deploying face and host components where feasible. Over time, our systems become more open and more reusable across the board. Great. Thank you very much. I believe we just have a few minutes and Franco Gasparoni actually has a question for you. Franco, did you have a question for the captain? I do have a question for the captain, if you don't mind captain, is that I was impressed by a number of planes you flew on and I understand that in civil aviation and in particular in regular aviation, pilots have to be certified for each different plane. And my question is, looking at the modularity aspect, how does it work in for military aircraft? Did you have to be certified for 35 different planes or everything is so modular? And yeah, you learned that those five different variants and you're all set. How does it work? Well, in all fairness, I wasn't certified for 35 different aircraft, but I did fly over 35 different aircraft. I was certified in a handful at a time. Right now, the way it works is you try to have very common systems. So even if it's implemented a little bit differently on each different platform, it's still one that you're used to. Take the example of your attitude gyro. Most attitude gyros look relatively the same. There might be a slight variation in color or how it's displayed, but overall it's the same concept. So when you get into that cockpit, your brain goes, okay, I understand what this gauge is trying to communicate to me as far as my situational awareness. The more standard we can be moving forward, the easier it is for a pilot to come in and quickly refresh themselves on what are the idiosyncrasies of the very specifics of this particular aircraft. For example, RNPR now is coming up as a mandate out of the FAA. If we can get that implemented in aircraft in the same way going forward, even if the display is slightly different, it will speed up the process of teaching the pilot how to fly that particular aircraft, which will shorten the amount of time spent in flight school and offer up more timing and flexibility and money to other endeavors. Thank you very, very much. Absolutely.