Results for “risk communication” — Page 10

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

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 occurrence of safety incidents. 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 work presented in this paper builds on a previously developed architecture for safety, 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 paper 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.

safety↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Communication Delay on Human Spaceflight Missions

Missions onboard the International Space Station rely on the real-time availability of a large ground team of system experts to command the vehicle, solve safety-critical problems, and guide the crew during complex operations. Also, in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), supplies can be sent and crews evacuated quite quickly if needed. Future missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) will not have this 24/7, real-time safety net as communication latency increases, resupply difficulty increases, and evacuation opportunities diminish. There are few, if any, terrestrial analogs for human spaceflight missions BLEO that reflect the conditions—including extreme environments, long mission durations, and small crew sizes – that make these missions so high risk. Studies on specific conditions, such as communication delays and asynchronous interactions, have been performed in NASA Earth-based analog missions and have found that communication delays can disrupt ground-crew interactions and adversely impact team performance. However, there are gaps and limitations in studies conducted to date, notably on human spacecraft system failure response and recovery, the impacts of shorter lunar-relevant communication delays on complex operations, and the effectiveness of countermeasures. The work presented here breaks down real anomalies that occurred on ISS and Apollo missions and creates example scenarios fort Lunar Surface and Mars missions to explore the impact of communication delays of varying length on onboard operations and mission outcomes. Our analyses indicate that short communication delays (e.g., seconds to a minute) adversely impact the ability for ground to provide real-time oversight and guidance and to catch quickly emerging problems in time. Longer communication delays (e.g., up to 40 minutes on Mars missions) call for a shift of responsibility for tactical operations from ground to crew; crew must make time-critical decisions independently and respond to time-critical vehicle anomalies to prevent consequences.

human-systems integration↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Communication Delay on Human Spaceflight Missions

Missions onboard the International Space Station rely on the real-time availability of a large ground team of system experts to command the vehicle, solve safety-critical problems, and guide the crew during complex operations. Also, in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), supplies can be sent and crews evacuated quite quickly if needed. Future missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) will not have this 24/7, real-time safety net as communication latency increases, resupply difficulty increases, and evacuation opportunities diminish. There are few, if any, terrestrial analogs for human spaceflight missions BLEO that reflect the conditions—including extreme environments, long mission durations, and small crew sizes – that make these missions so high risk. Studies on specific conditions, such as communication delays and asynchronous interactions, have been performed in NASA Earth-based analog missions and have found that communication delays can disrupt ground-crew interactions and adversely impact team performance. However, there are gaps and limitations in studies conducted to date, notably on human spacecraft system failure response and recovery, the impacts of shorter lunar-relevant communication delays on complex operations, and the effectiveness of countermeasures. The work presented here breaks down real anomalies that occurred on ISS and Apollo missions and creates example scenarios fort Lunar Surface and Mars missions to explore the impact of communication delays of varying length on onboard operations and mission outcomes. Our analyses indicate that short communication delays (e.g., seconds to a minute) adversely impact the ability for ground to provide real-time oversight and guidance and to catch quickly emerging problems in time. Longer communication delays (e.g., up to 40 minutes on Mars missions) call for a shift of responsibility for tactical operations from ground to crew; crew must make time-critical decisions independently and respond to time-critical vehicle anomalies to prevent consequences.

human-systems integration↗

NASA NTRS2012

Guidelines for Successful Use and Communication of Instrument Heritage in Early Mission Development with a Focus on Spectrometers

Heritage is important for both cost and risk related issues and as such, it is heavily discussed in NASA proposal evaluations. If used and communicated efficiently, heritage can lower both the perception of risk and the associated costs. Definitions of heritage vary between engineering, cost, and scientific communities, but when applied appropriately, heritage provides a benefit to the proposed mission. By making an instrument at least once before, the cost of producing it again can be reduced. The time and effort needed to develop the instrument concept and test the product represent an expense that can be lowered through the use of a previously built and developed instrument. This same thought can be applied when using a flight spare or build-to-print model of the heritage instrument. The lowered perception of risk is a result of the confidence gained in the instrument through successful use in the target environment. This is extremely important in early mission development to the evaluation board. This analysis will use JPL-managed proposals from 2003 to 2011, including Discovery, New Frontiers, and Mars Scout missions. Through the examination of these proposals and their associated debriefs, a set of guidelines have been created for successful use and communication of instrument heritage in early mission development

specrtometers↗

NASA NTRS2023

The Hazard Components of Representative Key Risks. The Physical Climate Perspective

The framework of Representative Key Risks (RKRs) has been adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II (WGII) to categorize, assess and communicate a wide range of regional and sectoral key risks from climate change. These are risks expected to become severe due to the potentially detrimental convergence of changing climate conditions with the exposure and vulnerability of human and natural systems. Other papers in this special issue treat each of eight RKRs holistically by assessing their current status and future evolution as a result of this convergence. However, in these papers, such assessment cannot always be organized according to a systematic gradation of climatic changes. Often the big-picture evolution of risk has to be extrapolated from either qualitative effects of “low”, “medium” and “high” warming, or limited/focused analysis of the consequences of particular mitigation choices (e.g., benefits of limiting warming to 1.5 or 2C), together with consideration of the socio-economic context and possible adaptation choices. In this study we offer a representation – as systematic as possible given current literature and assessments – of the future evolution of the hazard components of RKRs. We identify the relevant hazards for each RKR, based upon the WGII authors’ assessment, and we report on their current state and expected future changes in magnitude, intensity and/or frequency, linking these changes to Global Warming Levels (GWLs) to the extent possible. We draw on the assessment of changes in climatic impact-drivers relevant to RKRs described in the 6th Assessment Report by Working Group I supplemented when needed by more recent literature. For some of these quantities - like regional trends in oceanic and atmospheric temperature and precipitation, some heat and precipitation extremes, permafrost thaw and Northern Hemisphere snow cover - a strong and quantitative relationship with increasing GWLs has been identified. For others - like frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms, and fire weather - that link can only be described qualitatively. For some processes - like the behavior of ice sheets, or changes in circulation dynamics - large uncertainties about the effects of different GWLs remain, and for a few others - like ocean pH and air pollution - the composition of the scenario of anthropogenic emissions is most relevant, rather than the warming reached. In almost all cases, however, the basic message remains that every small increment in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and associated warming will bring changes in climate phenomena that will contribute to increasing risk of impacts on human and natural systems, in the absence of compensating changes in these systems’ exposure and vulnerability, and in the absence of effective adaptation. Our picture of the evolution of RKR-relevant climatic impact-drivers complements and enriches the treatment of RKRs in the other papers in at least two ways: by filling in their often only cursory or limited representation of the physical climate aspects driving impacts, and by providing a fuller representation of their future potential evolution, an important component – if never the only one – of the future evolution of risk severity.

Representative Key Risks↗

NASA NTRS2005

Third Generation Wireless Phone Threat Assessment for Aircraft Communication and Navigation Radios

Radiated emissions in aircraft communication and navigation bands are measured from third generation (3G) wireless mobile phones. The two wireless technologies considered are the latest available to general consumers in the US. The measurements are conducted using reverberation chambers. The results are compared against baseline emissions from laptop computers and personal digital assistant devices that are currently allowed to operate on aircraft. Using existing interference path loss data and receivers interference threshold, a risk assessment is performed for several aircraft communication and navigation radio systems. In addition, cumulative interference effects of multiple similar devices are conservatively estimated or bounded. The effects are computed by summing the interference power from individual devices that is scaled according to the interference path loss at its location.

Nguyen, Truong X.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Integrated Risk Management Within NASA Programs/Projects

As NASA Project Risk Management activities continue to evolve, the need to successfully integrate risk management processes across the life cycle, between functional disciplines, stakeholders, various management policies, and within cost, schedule and performance requirements/constraints become more evident and important. Today's programs and projects are complex undertakings that include a myriad of processes, tools, techniques, management arrangements and other variables all of which must function together in order to achieve mission success. The perception and impact of risk may vary significantly among stakeholders and may influence decisions that may have unintended consequences on the project during a future phase of the life cycle. In these cases, risks may be unintentionally and/or arbitrarily transferred to others without the benefit of a comprehensive systemic risk assessment. Integrating risk across people, processes, and project requirements/constraints serves to enhance decisions, strengthen communication pathways, and reinforce the ability of the project team to identify and manage risks across the broad spectrum of project management responsibilities. The ability to identify risks in all areas of project management increases the likelihood a project will identify significant issues before they become problems and allows projects to make effective and efficient use of shrinking resources. By getting a total team integrated risk effort, applying a disciplined and rigorous process, along with understanding project requirements/constraints provides the opportunity for more effective risk management. Applying an integrated approach to risk management makes it possible to do a better job at balancing safety, cost, schedule, operational performance and other elements of risk. This paper will examine how people, processes, and project requirements/constraints can be integrated across the project lifecycle for better risk management and ultimately improve the chances for mission success.

Connley, Warren↗

NASA NTRS2023

IMPACTing Medical System Design with a Risk Analysis Tool [“IMPACT” sur la Conception du Système Médical avec un Outil d'Analyse des Risques]

Background: Following the success of Artemis I, NASA is preparing for human extended duration missions. Ongoing efforts are focused on mitigating mission-related risks, including those affecting crew health and performance. Communication latency, logistics of resupply and time frame of medical evacuation are barriers to provision of healthcare for these missions, especially with respect to constraints in mass, volume, and crew training. An in-depth assessment of medical risks, capabilities and resources for a specific mission design is necessary to determine an optimal balance that maximizes likelihood of mission success. Overview: IMPACT (Informed Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a dynamic tool designed to estimate medical risk and outcomes for a specific mission design. In its current iteration, a list of medical conditions selected based on likelihood of occurrence and/or consequence was linked to a set of clinical capabilities and resources necessary for diagnosis and management. A probabilistic risk analysis tool was then used to identify and estimate the likelihood and consequence of risks through the following outcome metrics: loss of crew life (inflight mortality due to medical conditions), need for medical evacuation (return to definitive care), and crew disability (task time affected based on how medical conditions influence the ability to perform specific exploration mission crew tasks). Finally, the model’s optimization algorithm provides recommendations for medical capabilities that maximize risk mitigation relative to mass and volume constraints. In the Spring of 2023, IMPACT was utilized to estimate outcome metrics for a design reference mission that would be representative of an extended duration Artemis mission. Notional data generated were then used to determine a recommended set of medical capabilities and resources relative to user-defined mass and volume constraints. A multidisciplinary team has also been updating IMPACT to strengthen the model’s fidelity. Figure 1 shows how updates to outcome metric inputs for the conditions resulted in different capability and resource allocation recommendations. Discussion: This presentation will discuss the IMPACT tool and share the latest data generated for a representative extended duration Artemis mission. Efforts to improve the fidelity of data generated by the model’s algorithm will also be discussed.

K A Shair↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

IMPACTing Medical System Design with a Risk Analysis Tool

Background: Following the success of Artemis I, NASA is preparing for human extended duration missions. Ongoing efforts are focused on mitigating mission-related risks, including those affecting crew health and performance. Communication latency, logistics of resupply and time frame of medical evacuation are barriers to provision of healthcare for these missions, especially with respect to constraints in mass, volume, and crew training. An in-depth assessment of medical risks, capabilities and resources for a specific mission design is necessary to determine an optimal balance that maximizes likelihood of mission success. Overview: IMPACT (Informed Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a dynamic tool designed to estimate medical risk and outcomes for a specific mission design. In its current iteration, a list of medical conditions selected based on likelihood of occurrence and/or consequence was linked to a set of clinical capabilities and resources necessary for diagnosis and management. A probabilistic risk analysis tool was then used to identify and estimate the likelihood and consequence of risks through the following outcome metrics: loss of crew life (inflight mortality due to medical conditions), need for medical evacuation (return to definitive care), and crew disability (task time affected based on how medical conditions influence the ability to perform specific exploration mission crew tasks). Finally, the model’s optimization algorithm provides recommendations for medical capabilities that maximize risk mitigation relative to mass and volume constraints. In the Spring of 2023, IMPACT was utilized to estimate outcome metrics for a design reference mission that would be representative of an extended duration Artemis mission. Notional data generated were then used to determine a recommended set of medical capabilities and resources relative to user-defined mass and volume constraints. A multidisciplinary team has also been updating IMPACT to strengthen the model’s fidelity. Figure 1 shows how updates to outcome metric inputs for the conditions resulted in different capability and resource allocation recommendations. Discussion: This presentation will discuss the IMPACT tool and share the latest data generated for a representative extended duration Artemis mission. Efforts to improve the fidelity of data generated by the model’s algorithm will also be discussed.

K A Shair↗

NASA NTRS2014

Use of Semi-Autonomous Tools for ISS Commanding and Monitoring

As the International Space Station (ISS) has moved into a utilization phase, operations have shifted to become more ground-based with fewer mission control personnel monitoring and commanding multiple ISS systems. This shift to fewer people monitoring more systems has prompted use of semi-autonomous console tools in the ISS Mission Control Center (MCC) to help flight controllers command and monitor the ISS. These console tools perform routine operational procedures while keeping the human operator "in the loop" to monitor and intervene when off-nominal events arise. Two such tools, the Pre-positioned Load (PPL) Loader and Automatic Operators Recorder Manager (AutoORM), are used by the ISS Communications RF Onboard Networks Utilization Specialist (CRONUS) flight control position. CRONUS is responsible for simultaneously commanding and monitoring the ISS Command & Data Handling (C&DH) and Communications and Tracking (C&T) systems. PPL Loader is used to uplink small pieces of frequently changed software data tables, called PPLs, to ISS computers to support different ISS operations. In order to uplink a PPL, a data load command must be built that contains multiple user-input fields. Next, a multiple step commanding and verification procedure must be performed to enable an onboard computer for software uplink, uplink the PPL, verify the PPL has incorporated correctly, and disable the computer for software uplink. PPL Loader provides different levels of automation in both building and uplinking these commands. In its manual mode, PPL Loader automatically builds the PPL data load commands but allows the flight controller to verify and save the commands for future uplink. In its auto mode, PPL Loader automatically builds the PPL data load commands for flight controller verification, but automatically performs the PPL uplink procedure by sending commands and performing verification checks while notifying CRONUS of procedure step completion. If an off-nominal condition occurs during procedure execution, PPL Loader notifies CRONUS through popup messages, allowing CRONUS to examine the situation and choose an option of how PPL loader should proceed with the procedure. The use of PPL Loader to perform frequent, routine PPL uplinks offloads CRONUS to better monitor two ISS systems. It also reduces procedure performance time and decreases risk of command errors. AutoORM identifies ISS communication outage periods and builds commands to lock, playback, and unlock ISS Operations Recorder files. Operation Recorder files are circular buffer files of continually recorded ISS telemetry data. Sections of these files can be locked from further writing, be played back to capture telemetry data that occurred during an ISS loss of signal (LOS) period, and then be unlocked for future recording use. Downlinked Operation Recorder files are used by mission support teams for data analysis, especially if failures occur during LOS. The commands to lock, playback, and unlock Operations Recorder files are encompassed in three different operational procedures and contain multiple user-input fields. AutoORM provides different levels of automation for building and uplinking the commands to lock, playback, and unlock Operations Recorder files. In its automatic mode, AutoORM automatically detects ISS LOS periods, then generates and uplinks the commands to lock, playback, and unlock Operations Recorder files when MCC regains signal with ISS. AutoORM also features semi-autonomous and manual modes which integrate CRONUS more into the command verification and uplink process. AutoORMs ability to automatically detect ISS LOS periods and build the necessary commands to preserve, playback, and release recorded telemetry data greatly offloads CRONUS to perform more high-level cognitive tasks, such as mission planning and anomaly troubleshooting. Additionally, since Operations Recorder commands contain numerical time input fields which are tedious for a human to manually build, AutoORM's ability to automatically build commands reduces operational command errors. PPL Loader and AutoORM demonstrate principles of semi-autonomous operational tools that will benefit future space mission operations. Both tools employ different levels of automation to perform simple and routine procedures, thereby offloading human operators to perform higher-level cognitive tasks. Because both tools provide procedure execution status and highlight off-nominal indications, the flight controller is able to intervene during procedure execution if needed. Semi-autonomous tools and systems that can perform routine procedures, yet keep human operators informed of execution, will be essential in future long-duration missions where the onboard crew will be solely responsible for spacecraft monitoring and control.

Brzezinski, Amy S.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Risk

Speaking up, i.e. expressing ones concerns, is a critical piece of effective communication. Yet, we see many situations in which crew members have concerns and still remain silent. Why would that be the case? And how can we assess the risks of speaking up vs. the risks of keeping silent? And once we do make up our minds to speak up, how should we go about it? Our workshop aims to answer these questions, and to provide us all with practical tools for effective risk assessment and effective speaking-up strategies..

speaking up↗

NASA NTRS2004

Communicating Medical Needs to Non-Medical Managers

Differences in communication styles and languages between groups often lead to miscommunication, confusion, and/or frustration. Engineers, computer specialists, clinicians, and managers often utilize the English language in very different ways, with different groups using the same words to represent different concepts ("complaint" is a typical example). In addition, medical issues are often perceived as "off-nominal" and not "primary mission tasks" by managers, which can cause them to assign lower priorities to medical training time and resources. Knowledge bases differ due to variations in training and skill sets, and the goals (both immediate and long-term) of the communicators may also vary, with managers being primarily concerned with overall mission objectives, while clinicians focus on individual or group health issues. Furthermore, true communication is only possible when clinicians possess a deep understanding of mission requirements as well as the ability to communicate medical requirements on a priority basis using risk assessment, added value, and cost benefit analysis. These understandable differences may contribute to difficulties in expressing concerns and ideas in an efficient manner, particularly in projects, such as the space program or many military operations, where these varied groups must collaborate, and where the final decisions must be made by fully informed mission commanders. Methods: Three scenario-based approaches were developed utilizing decision trees and problem based learning, to help define and integrate these concepts. Results: Use of these techniques by NASA and military personnel will be presented. Discussion: To enhance communication, particularly of medical needs, one must identify the concerns and motivating factors for the other groups; for example, members of management may focus on financial concerns, a desire for risk mitigation, public perceptions, mission objectives, etc. Training clinicians to frame issues in these terms may lead to better understanding of the medical concerns by other groups.

Bacal, Kira↗

NASA NTRS1970

The effects of noise on man

Book on noise effects on man covering audiometry, aural reflex, hearing damage risk, physiological responses, motor performance and speech communication

Kryter, K. D.↗

NASA NTRS1979

Millimeter wave satellite concepts. Volume 2: Technical report

Identification of technologies for millimeter satellite communication systems, and assessment of the relative risks of these technologies, were accomplished through subsystem modeling and link optimization for both point-to-point and broadcast applications. The results, in terms of annual cost per channel to the user from a commercial view point, are described.

Hilsen, N. B.↗

NASA NTRS1991

A systems approach to the commercialization of space communications technology - The NASA/JPL Mobile Satellite Program

This paper discusss the systems approach taken by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the commercialization of land-mobile satellite services (LMSS) in the United States. As the lead center for NASA's Mobile Satellite Program, JPL was involved in identifying and addressing many of the key barriers to commercialization of mobile satellite communications, including technical, economic, regulatory and institutional risks, or uncertainties. The systems engineering approach described here was used to mitigate these risks. The result was the development and implementation of the JPL Mobile Satellite Experiment Project. This Project included not only technology development, but also studies to support NASA in the definition of the regulatory, market, and investment environments within which LMSS would evolve and eventually operate, as well as initiatives to mitigate their associated commercialization risks. The end result of these government-led endeavors was the acceleration of the introduction of commercial mobile satellite services, both nationally and internationally.

Weber, William J., III↗

NASA NTRS2007

Measurement Decision Risk - The Importance of Definitions

One of the more misunderstood areas of metrology is the Test Uncertainty Ratio (TUR) and its cousin, the Test Accuracy Ratio (TAR). There have been many definitions over the years, but why are these definitions important to a discussion on measurement decision risk? The importance lies in the clarity of communication. Problems can immediately arise in the application (or misapplication) of the definition of these terms. In other words, while it is important to understand the definitions, it is more important to understand concepts behind the definitions and to be precise in how they are applied. The objective of any measurement is a decision. Measurement Decision Risk is a way to look at the quality of a measurement and although it is not a new concept, it has generated a lot of attention since its addition as a requirement in the new U.S. National Standard, ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006. In addition to Measurement Decision Risk as the prime method of managing measurement risk, Z540.3 has also added, as a fall-back, an explicit definition for TUR. The impact these changes might have on calibration service providers if these requirements are levied on them has become the topic of much discussion and in some cases concern. This paper looks at the concepts behind the definitions and how they relate to Measurement Decision Risk. Using common examples, this paper will also provide a comparison of various elements of risk related to measurement science using the concepts of TAR, TUR, accuracy ratios, and Consumer Risk (False Accept Risk). The goal is to provide a better understanding of their relevance to the measurement decision process.

Mimbs, Scott M.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Measurement Decision Risk - The Importance of Definitions

One of the more misunderstood areas of metrology is the Test Uncertainty Ratio (TUR) and the Test Accuracy Ratio (TAR). There have been many definitions over the years, but why are these definitions important to a discussion on measurement decision risk? The importance lies in the clarity of communication. Problems can immediately arise in the application (or misapplication) of the definition of these terms. In other words, while it is important to understand the definitions, it is more important to understand concepts behind the definitions and to be precise in how they are applied. The objective of any measurement is a decision. Measurement Decision Risk is a way to look at the quality of a measurement, and although it is not a new concept, it has generated a lot of attention since its addition as a requirement in the new U.S. National Standard, ANSIINCSL Z540.3-2006. In addition to Measurement Decision Risk as the prime method of managing measurement risk, Z540.3 has added, as a fall-back, an explicit definition for TUR. The impact these new requirements may have on calibration service providers has become the topic of much discussion and in some cases concern. This paper will look at the concepts behind the definitions and how they relate to Measurement Decision Risk. Using common examples, this paper will also provide a comparison of various elements of risk related to measurement science using the concepts of TAR, TUR, accuracy ratios, and Consumer Risk (False Accept Risk). The goal of this paper is to provide a better understanding of their relevance to the measurement decision process.

Mimbs, Scott M.↗