SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Safety”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2018

Identification of Safety Metrics for Airport Surface Operations

A large fraction of safety incidents occurs on the ground during airport surface operations. Although these incidents are mostly non-fatal with a few exceptions, they are high profile incidents that remain a source of concern for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), major airlines, and other stakeholders of the National Airspace System (NAS). These incidents have historically been mitigated by implementing changes to regulations, policies, and procedures over time. This approach has minimized but not eliminated the risk of occurrences. It is thus important to develop integrated techniques to assess, model, and prevent these incidents by analyzing the risk and likelihood of occurrence and communicating results of the analysis to decision-making personnel who can mitigate and prevent incidents in real time. The research presented in this report builds on prior work of researchers at the NASA Ames Research Center who developed an automated framework, Real-Time Safety Monitoring (RTSM), to enable monitoring and prediction of the safety of the NAS. In the RTSM framework, hazards to flight are translated to safety metrics such as wake vortex encounters or loss of separation, that can be modeled and analyzed offline and also predicted and monitored in real time (online). The intent of this report is to integrate predictable incidents that occur during surface and ground operations into the safety portfolio of the RTSM project by (i) identifying suitable information sources from which ground incidents can be studied, (ii) developing safety metrics correlated with surface operations, and (iii) recommending suitable data sources that can be quantified and used for the computation of pertinent safety metrics.

ground operations↗

NASA NTRS2018

Real-Time Monitoring and Prediction of Airspace Safety

The U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) has reached an extremely high level of safety in recent years. However, it will only become more difficult to maintain the current level of safety with the forecasted increase in operations, and so the FAA has been making revolutionary changes to the NAS to both expand capacity and ensure safety. Our work complements these efforts by developing a novel model-based framework for real-time monitoring and prediction of the safety of the NAS. Our framework is divided into two parts: (offline) safety analysis and modeling part, and a real-time (online) monitoring and prediction of safety. The goal of the safety analysis task is to identify hazards to flight (distilled from several national databases) and to codify these hazards within our framework such that we can monitor and predict them. From these we define safety metrics that can be monitored and predicted using dynamic models of airspace operations, aircraft, and weather, along with a rigorous, mathematical treatment of uncertainty. We demonstrate our overall approach and highlight the advantages of this approach over the current state-of-the-art through simulated scenarios.

safety metrics↗

NASA NTRS2024

Assessment of Some IASMS-relevant Data Sources for Aviation Safety

An In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) [1,2] is a set of services, functions, and capabilities (SFCs) necessary for monitoring known hazards and emergent risks, assessing safety data for anomalies, precursors, and trends, mitigating hazards that reach safety thresholds, and assuring efficacy of controls in mitigating hazards. An IASMS will continually monitor the NAS to collect data on the status of aircraft, air traffic management systems, weather, and airports. Within the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) System-Wide Safety (SWS) project’s technical challenge called In-time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS) for Commercial Aviation Operations, which we often refer to as Technical Challenge 6 (TC-6), we have performed an assessment of several aviation data sources we have found that are relevant to assessing the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) in the context of an IASMS. This assessment includes understanding the nature of the data themselves and using some data analytics tools on these data to show how they can be used to identify potential safety issues. We also describe how the data and analytics are part of a system that can allow for other data and analytics to be performed and for the results to be visualized for use by appropriate operators to identify potential safety issues and develop mitigations. This report is a step toward the ultimate goal of TC-6, which is to develop a prototype IASMS system that demonstrates the potential of an IASMS and inspire operators to build analogous systems to make the best possible use of the significant investments that they make in collecting, storing, and managingdata related to their operations.

aviation safety↗

NASA NTRS1977

System safety in manned spaceflight

System safety in manned spaceflight is discussed with attention to the organization of the NASA safety effort, hazard identification and resolution, safety program integration, risk management visibility, and space transportation system payload safety. Key ingredients of the safety program, including concepts such as a distinct and appropriate level of responsibility for safety, and comprehensive and appropriate safety requirements from the policy level to the system level, are summarized. Program safety interrelationships are indicated.

Hammack, J. B.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Space Station Freedom Safety Program

The renewed emphasis within NASA on the incorporation of firmly established safety design requirements and evolving new safety analysis techniques, including quantitative safety risk assessment methods, is discussed with particular reference to the Space Station Freedom Safety Program. The program provides for integration of the partial safety analysis performed by numerous NASA Centers and International Partners into a Programmatic Safety Assessment for each of the launch increments and the complete Space Station Freedom on orbit. Communication in the safety program will utilize state-of-the-art software and computers, which will provide broad accessibility to safety information among the NASA and International Partners.

Griggs, John G., III↗

NASA NTRS1999

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

This report covers the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) for calendar year 1998-a year of sharp contrasts and significant successes at NASA. The year opened with the announcement of large workforce cutbacks. The slip in the schedule for launching the International Space Station (ISS) created a five-month hiatus in Space Shuttle launches. This slack period ended with the successful and highly publicized launch of the STS-95 mission. As the year closed, ISS assembly began with the successful orbiting and joining of the Functional Cargo Block (FGB), Zarya, from Russia and the Unity Node from the United States. Throughout the year, the Panel maintained its scrutiny of NASA's safety processes. Of particular interest were the potential effects on safety of workforce reductions and the continued transition of functions to the Space Flight Operations Contractor. Attention was also given to the risk management plans of the Aero-Space Technology programs, including the X-33, X-34, and X-38. Overall, the Panel concluded that safety is well served for the present. The picture is not as clear for the future. Cutbacks have limited the depth of talent available. In many cases, technical specialties are 'one deep.' The extended hiring freeze has resulted in an older workforce that will inevitably suffer significant departures from retirements in the near future. The resulting 'brain drain' could represent a future safety risk unless appropriate succession planning is started expeditiously. This and other topics are covered in the section addressing workforce. The major NASA programs are also limited in their ability to plan property for the future. This is of particular concern for the Space Shuttle and ISS because these programs are scheduled to operate well into the next century. In the case of the Space Shuttle, beneficial and mandatory safety and operational upgrades are being delayed because of a lack of sufficient present funding. Likewise, the ISS has little flexibility to begin long lead-time items for upgrades or contingency planning. For example, the section on computer hardware and software contains specific findings related to required longer range safety-related actions. NASA can be proud of its accomplishments this past year, but must remain ever vigilant, particularly as ISS assembly begins to accelerate. The Panel will continue to focus on both the short- and long-term aspects of risk management and safety planning. This task continues to be made manageable and productive by the excellent cooperation the Panel receives from both NASA and its contractors. Particular emphasis will continue to be directed to longer term workforce and program planning issues as well as the immediate risks associated with ISS assembly and the initial flights of the X-33 and X-34. Section 2 of this report presents specific findings and recommendations generated by ASAP activities during 1998. Section 3 contains more detailed information in support of these findings and recommendations. Appendix A is a current roster of Panel members, consultants, and staff. Appendix B contains NASA's response to the findings and recommendations from the 1997 ASAP Annual Report. Appendix C details the fact-finding activities of the Panel in 1998. During the year, Mr. Richard D. Blomberg was elected chair of the Panel and Vice Admiral (VADM) Robert F Dunn was elected deputy chair. VADM Bernard M. Kauderer moved from consultant to member. Mr. Charles J. Donlan retired from the Panel after many years of meritorious service. Ms. Shirley C. McCarty and Mr. Robert L. ('Hoot') Gibson joined the Panel as consultants.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1996

A Risk Assessment Model for Reduced Aircraft Separation: A Quantitative Method to Evaluate the Safety of Free Flight

As new technologies and procedures are introduced into the National Airspace System, whether they are intended to improve efficiency, capacity, or safety level, the quantification of potential changes in safety levels is of vital concern. Applications of technology can improve safety levels and allow the reduction of separation standards. An excellent example is the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM). By taking advantage of the surveillance and display advances of PRM, airports can run instrument parallel approaches to runways separated by 3400 feet with the same level of safety as parallel approaches to runways separated by 4300 feet using the standard technology. Despite a wealth of information from flight operations and testing programs, there is no readily quantifiable relationship between numerical safety levels and the separation standards that apply to aircraft on final approach. This paper presents a modeling approach to quantify the risk associated with reducing separation on final approach. Reducing aircraft separation, both laterally and longitudinally, has been the goal of several aviation R&D programs over the past several years. Many of these programs have focused on technological solutions to improve navigation accuracy, surveillance accuracy, aircraft situational awareness, controller situational awareness, and other technical and operational factors that are vital to maintaining flight safety. The risk assessment model relates different types of potential aircraft accidents and incidents and their contribution to overall accident risk. The framework links accident risks to a hierarchy of failsafe mechanisms characterized by procedures and interventions. The model will be used to assess the overall level of safety associated with reducing separation standards and the introduction of new technology and procedures, as envisaged under the Free Flight concept. The model framework can be applied to various aircraft scenarios, including parallel and in-trail approaches. This research was performed under contract to NASA and in cooperation with the FAA's Safety Division (ASY).

Cassell, Rick↗

NASA NTRS1997

Aviation Safety Reporting System: Process and Procedures

The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) was established in 1976 under an agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This cooperative safety program invites pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, maintenance personnel, and others to voluntarily report to NASA any aviation incident or safety hazard. The FAA provides most of the program funding. NASA administers the program, sets its policies in consultation with the FAA and aviation community, and receives the reports submitted to the program. The FAA offers those who use the ASRS program two important reporting guarantees: confidentiality and limited immunity. Reports sent to ASRS are held in strict confidence. More than 350,000 reports have been submitted since the program's beginning without a single reporter's identity being revealed. ASRS removes all personal names and other potentially identifying information before entering reports into its database. This system is a very successful, proof-of-concept for gathering safety data in order to provide timely information about safety issues. The ASRS information is crucial to aviation safety efforts both nationally and internationally. It can be utilized as the first step in safety by providing the direction and content to informed policies, procedures, and research, especially human factors. The ASRS process and procedures will be presented as one model of safety reporting feedback systems.

Connell, Linda J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Design for Reliability and Safety Approach for the NASA New Launch Vehicle

The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is in the midst of a space exploration program intended for sending crew and cargo to the international Space Station (ISS), to the moon, and beyond. This program is called Constellation. As part of the Constellation program, NASA is developing new launch vehicles aimed at significantly increase safety and reliability, reduce the cost of accessing space, and provide a growth path for manned space exploration. Achieving these goals requires a rigorous process that addresses reliability, safety, and cost upfront and throughout all the phases of the life cycle of the program. This paper discusses the "Design for Reliability and Safety" approach for the NASA new crew launch vehicle called ARES I. The ARES I is being developed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in support of the Constellation program. The ARES I consists of three major Elements: A solid First Stage (FS), an Upper Stage (US), and liquid Upper Stage Engine (USE). Stacked on top of the ARES I is the Crew exploration vehicle (CEV). The CEV consists of a Launch Abort System (LAS), Crew Module (CM), Service Module (SM), and a Spacecraft Adapter (SA). The CEV development is being led by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). Designing for high reliability and safety require a good integrated working environment and a sound technical design approach. The "Design for Reliability and Safety" approach addressed in this paper discusses both the environment and the technical process put in place to support the ARES I design. To address the integrated working environment, the ARES I project office has established a risk based design group called "Operability Design and Analysis" (OD&A) group. This group is an integrated group intended to bring together the engineering, design, and safety organizations together to optimize the system design for safety, reliability, and cost. On the technical side, the ARES I project has, through the OD&A environment, implemented a probabilistic approach to analyze and evaluate design uncertainties and understand their impact on safety, reliability, and cost. This paper focuses on the use of the various probabilistic approaches that have been pursued by the ARES I project. Specifically, the paper discusses an integrated functional probabilistic analysis approach that addresses upffont some key areas to support the ARES I Design Analysis Cycle (DAC) pre Preliminary Design (PD) Phase. This functional approach is a probabilistic physics based approach that combines failure probabilities with system dynamics and engineering failure impact models to identify key system risk drivers and potential system design requirements. The paper also discusses other probabilistic risk assessment approaches planned by the ARES I project to support the PD phase and beyond.

Safie, Fayssal, M.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Systems, methods and apparatus for quiesence of autonomic safety devices with self action

Systems, methods and apparatus are provided through which in some embodiments an autonomic environmental safety device may be quiesced. In at least one embodiment, a method for managing an autonomic safety device, such as a smoke detector, based on functioning state and operating status of the autonomic safety device includes processing received signals from the autonomic safety device to obtain an analysis of the condition of the autonomic safety device, generating one or more stay-awake signals based on the functioning status and the operating state of the autonomic safety device, transmitting the stay-awake signal, transmitting self health/urgency data, and transmitting environment health/urgency data. A quiesce component of an autonomic safety device can render the autonomic safety device inactive for a specific amount of time or until a challenging situation has passed.

Hinchey, Michael G.↗

NASA NTRS2008

2008 NASA Range Safety Annual Report

Welcome to the 2008 edition of the NASA Range Safety Annual Report. Funded by NASA Headquarters, this report provides a NASA Range Safety overview for current and potential range users. This year, along with full length articles concerning various subject areas, we have provided updates to standard subjects with links back to the 2007 original article. Additionally, we present summaries from the various NASA Range Safety Program activities that took place throughout the year, as well as information on several special projects that may have a profound impact on the way we will do business in the future. The sections include a program overview and 2008 highlights of Range Safety Training; Range Safety Policy; Independent Assessments and Common Risk Analysis Tools Development; Support to Program Operations at all ranges conducting NASA launch operations; a continuing overview of emerging Range Safety-related technologies; Special Interests Items that include recent changes in the ELV Payload Safety Program and the VAS explosive siting study; and status reports from all of the NASA Centers that have Range Safety responsibilities. As is the case each year, contributors to this report are too numerous to mention, but we thank individuals from the NASA Centers, the Department of Defense, and civilian organizations for their contributions. We have made a great effort to include the most current information available. We recommend that this report be used only for guidance and that the validity and accuracy of all articles be verified for updates. This is the third year we have utilized this web-based format for the annual report. We continually receive positive feedback on the web-based edition, and we hope you enjoy this year's product as well. It has been a very busy and productive year on many fronts as you will note as you review this report. Thank you to everyone who contributed to make this year a successful one, and I look forward to working with all of you in the years to come.

Lamoreaux, Richard W.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Reliability and Maintainability Engineering - A Major Driver for Safety and Affordability

The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is in the midst of an effort to design and build a safe and affordable heavy lift vehicle to go to the moon and beyond. To achieve that, NASA is seeking more innovative and efficient approaches to reduce cost while maintaining an acceptable level of safety and mission success. One area that has the potential to contribute significantly to achieving NASA safety and affordability goals is Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) engineering. Inadequate reliability or failure of critical safety items may directly jeopardize the safety of the user(s) and result in a loss of life. Inadequate reliability of equipment may directly jeopardize mission success. Systems designed to be more reliable (fewer failures) and maintainable (fewer resources needed) can lower the total life cycle cost. The Department of Defense (DOD) and industry experience has shown that optimized and adequate levels of R&M are critical for achieving a high level of safety and mission success, and low sustainment cost. Also, lessons learned from the Space Shuttle program clearly demonstrated the importance of R&M engineering in designing and operating safe and affordable launch systems. The Challenger and Columbia accidents are examples of the severe impact of design unreliability and process induced failures on system safety and mission success. These accidents demonstrated the criticality of reliability engineering in understanding component failure mechanisms and integrated system failures across the system elements interfaces. Experience from the shuttle program also shows that insufficient Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability (RMS) engineering analyses upfront in the design phase can significantly increase the sustainment cost and, thereby, the total life cycle cost. Emphasis on RMS during the design phase is critical for identifying the design features and characteristics needed for time efficient processing, improved operational availability, and optimized maintenance and logistic support infrastructure. This paper discusses the role of R&M in a program acquisition phase and the potential impact of R&M on safety, mission success, operational availability, and affordability. This includes discussion of the R&M elements that need to be addressed and the R&M analyses that need to be performed in order to support a safe and affordable system design. The paper also provides some lessons learned from the Space Shuttle program on the impact of R&M on safety and affordability.

Safie, Fayssal M.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Automating the Generation of Heterogeneous Aviation Safety Cases

A safety case is a structured argument, supported by a body of evidence, which provides a convincing and valid justification that a system is acceptably safe for a given application in a given operating environment. This report describes the development of a fragment of a preliminary safety case for the Swift Unmanned Aircraft System. The construction of the safety case fragment consists of two parts: a manually constructed system-level case, and an automatically constructed lower-level case, generated from formal proof of safety-relevant correctness properties. We provide a detailed discussion of the safety considerations for the target system, emphasizing the heterogeneity of sources of safety-relevant information, and use a hazard analysis to derive safety requirements, including formal requirements. We evaluate the safety case using three classes of metrics for measuring degrees of coverage, automation, and understandability. We then present our preliminary conclusions and make suggestions for future work.

Denney, Ewen W.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Safety Inhibit Timeline Tool

The Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Observatory is a joint mission under the partnership by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Japan. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) has the lead management responsibility for NASA on GPM. The GPM program will measure precipitation on a global basis with sufficient quality, Earth coverage, and sampling to improve prediction of the Earth's climate, weather, and specific components of the global water cycle. As part of the development process, NASA built the spacecraft (built in-house at GSFC) and provided one instrument (GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) developed by Ball Aerospace) JAXA provided the launch vehicle (H2-A by MHI) and provided one instrument (Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) developed by NTSpace). Each instrument developer provided a safety assessment which was incorporated into the NASA GPM Safety Hazard Assessment. Inhibit design was reviewed for hazardous subsystems which included the High Gain Antenna System (HGAS) deployment, solar array deployment, transmitter turn on, propulsion system release, GMI deployment, and DPR radar turn on. The safety inhibits for these listed hazards are controlled by software. GPM developed a "pathfinder" approach for reviewing software that controls the electrical inhibits. This is one of the first GSFC in-house programs that extensively used software controls. The GPM safety team developed a methodology to document software safety as part of the standard hazard report. As part of this process a new tool "safety inhibit time line" was created for management of inhibits and their controls during spacecraft buildup and testing during 1& Tat GSFC and at the Range in Japan. In addition to understanding inhibits and controls during 1& T the tool allows the safety analyst to better communicate with others the changes in inhibit states with each phase of hardware and software testing. The tool was very useful for communicating compliance with safety requirements especially when working with a foreign partner.

Dion, Shirley↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)

The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) collects, analyzes, and distributes de-identified safety information provided through confidentially submitted reports from frontline aviation personnel. Since its inception in 1976, the ASRS has collected over 900,000 reports and has never breached the identity of the people sharing their information about events or safety issues. From this volume of data, the ASRS has released over 5,500 aviation safety alerts concerning potential hazards and safety concerns. The ASRS processes these reports, evaluates the information, and provides de-identified report information through the online ASRS Database at http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov. The NASA ASRS is also a founding member of the International Confidential Aviation Safety Systems (ICASS) group which is a collection of other national aviation reporting systems throughout the world. The ASRS model has also been replicated for application to improving safety in railroad, medical, fire fighting, and other domains. This presentation \vill discuss confidential, voluntary, and non-punitive reporting systems and their advantages in providing information for safety improvements.

Connell, Linda↗

NASA NTRS2014

The Evolution of System Safety at NASA

The NASA system safety framework is in the process of change, motivated by the desire to promote an objectives-driven approach to system safety that explicitly focuses system safety efforts on system-level safety performance, and serves to unify, in a purposeful manner, safety-related activities that otherwise might be done in a way that results in gaps, redundancies, or unnecessary work. An objectives-driven approach to system safety affords more flexibility to determine, on a system-specific basis, the means by which adequate safety is achieved and verified. Such flexibility and efficiency is becoming increasingly important in the face of evolving engineering modalities and acquisition models, where, for example, NASA will increasingly rely on commercial providers for transportation services to low-earth orbit. A key element of this objectives-driven approach is the use of the risk-informed safety case (RISC): a structured argument, supported by a body of evidence, that provides a compelling, comprehensible and valid case that a system is or will be adequately safe for a given application in a given environment. The RISC addresses each of the objectives defined for the system, providing a rational basis for making informed risk acceptance decisions at relevant decision points in the system life cycle.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗

NASA NTRS2015

Development and Execution of the RUNSAFE Runway Safety Bayesian Belief Network Model

One focus area of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is to improve aviation safety. Runway safety is one such thrust of investigation and research. The two primary components of this runway safety research are in runway incursion (RI) and runway excursion (RE) events. These are adverse ground-based aviation incidents that endanger crew, passengers, aircraft and perhaps other nearby people or property. A runway incursion is the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft; one class of RI events simultaneously involves two aircraft, such as one aircraft incorrectly landing on a runway while another aircraft is taking off from the same runway. A runway excursion is an incident involving only a single aircraft defined as a veer-off or overrun off the runway surface. Within the scope of this effort at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), generic RI, RE and combined (RI plus RE, or RUNSAFE) event models have each been developed and implemented as a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). Descriptions of runway safety issues from the literature searches have been used to develop the BBN models. Numerous considerations surrounding the process of developing the event models have been documented in this report. The event models were then thoroughly reviewed by a Subject Matter Expert (SME) panel through multiple knowledge elicitation sessions. Numerous improvements to the model structure (definitions, node names, node states and the connecting link topology) were made by the SME panel. Sample executions of the final RUNSAFE model have been presented herein for baseline and worst-case scenarios. Finally, a parameter sensitivity analysis for a given scenario was performed to show the risk drivers. The NASA and LaRC research in runway safety event modeling through the use of BBN technology is important for several reasons. These include: 1) providing a means to clearly understand the cause and effect patterns leading to safety issues, incidents and accidents, 2) enabling the prioritization of specialty areas needing more attention to improve aviation safety, and 3) enabling the identification of gaps within NASA's Aviation Safety funding portfolio

Green, Lawrence L.↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)

The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) collects, analyzes, and distributes de-identified safety information provided through confidentially submitted reports from frontline aviation personnel. Since its inception in 1976, the ASRS has collected over 1.4 million reports and has never breached the identity of the people sharing their information about events or safety issues. From this volume of data, the ASRS has released over 6,000 aviation safety alerts concerning potential hazards and safety concerns. The ASRS processes these reports, evaluates the information, and provides selected de-identified report information through the online ASRS Database at http:asrs.arc.nasa.gov. The NASA ASRS is also a founding member of the International Confidential Aviation Safety Systems (ICASS) group which is a collection of other national aviation reporting systems throughout the world. The ASRS model has also been replicated for application to improving safety in railroad, medical, fire fighting, and other domains. This presentation will discuss confidential, voluntary, and non-punitive reporting systems and their advantages in providing information for safety improvements.

Connell, Linda J.↗