Results for “Safety” — Page 15

NASA NTRS2010

Correlated Topics in a Scalable Multidimensional Text Cube: Algorithms and Aviation Safety Case Study

As world-wide air traffic continues to grow even at a modest pace, the overall complexity of the system will increase significantly. This increased complexity can lead to a larger number of fatalities per year even if the extremely low fatality rate that we currently enjoy is maintained. One important source of information about the safety of the aviation system is in Aviation Safety Text Reports which are written by members of the flight crew, air traffic controllers, and other parties involved with the aviation system. These anonymized narrative reports contain fixed-field contextual information about the flight but also contain free-form narratives that describe, in the author s own words, the nature of the safety incident and, in many cases, the contributing factors that led to the safety incident. Several thousand such reports are filed each month, each of which is read and analyzed by highly trained experts. However, it is possible that there are emerging safety issues due to the fact that they may be reported very infrequently and in different contexts with different descriptions. The goal of this research paper is to develop correlated topic models which uncover correlations in the subspaces defined by the intersection of numerous fixed fields and discovered correlated topics. This task requires the discovery of latent topics in the text reports and the creation of a topic cube. Furthermore, because the number of potential cells in the topic cube is very large, we discuss novel methods of pruning the search space in the topic cells, thereby making the analysis feasible. We demonstrate the new algorithms on an analysis of pilot fatigue and its contributing factors, as well as the safety incidents that are correlated with this phenomenon.

Zhao, Bo↗

NASA NTRS2011

Achieving the Proper Balance Between Crew and Public Safety

A paramount objective of all human-rated launch and reentry vehicle developers is to ensure that the risks to both the crew onboard and the public are minimized within reasonable cost, schedule, and technical constraints. Past experience has shown that proper attention to range safety requirements necessary to ensure public safety must be given early in the design phase to avoid additional operational complexities or threats to the safety of people onboard. This paper will outline the policy considerations, technical issues, and operational impacts regarding launch and reentry vehicle failure scenarios where crew and public safety are intertwined and thus addressed optimally in an integrated manner. Historical examples and lessons learned from both the Space Shuttle and Constellation Programs will be presented. Using these examples as context, the paper will discuss some operational, design, and analysis approaches to mitigate and balance the risks to people onboard and in the public. Manned vehicle perspectives from the FAA and Air Force organizations that oversee public safety will also be summarized. Finally, the paper will emphasize the need to factor policy, operational, and analysis considerations into the early design trades of new vehicles to help ensure that both crew and public safety are maximized to the greatest extent possible.

Gowan, John↗

NASA NTRS2011

L-Band Digital Aeronautical Communications System Engineering - Initial Safety and Security Risk Assessment and Mitigation

This document is being provided as part of ITT's NASA Glenn Research Center Aerospace Communication Systems Technical Support (ACSTS) contract NNC05CA85C, Task 7: "New ATM Requirements--Future Communications, C-Band and L-Band Communications Standard Development." ITT has completed a safety hazard analysis providing a preliminary safety assessment for the proposed L-band (960 to 1164 MHz) terrestrial en route communications system. The assessment was performed following the guidelines outlined in the Federal Aviation Administration Safety Risk Management Guidance for System Acquisitions document. The safety analysis did not identify any hazards with an unacceptable risk, though a number of hazards with a medium risk were documented. This effort represents a preliminary safety hazard analysis and notes the triggers for risk reassessment. A detailed safety hazards analysis is recommended as a follow-on activity to assess particular components of the L-band communication system after the technology is chosen and system rollout timing is determined. The security risk analysis resulted in identifying main security threats to the proposed system as well as noting additional threats recommended for a future security analysis conducted at a later stage in the system development process. The document discusses various security controls, including those suggested in the COCR Version 2.0.

Zelkin, Natalie↗

NASA NTRS2011

Ares I-X Range Safety Analyses Overview

Ares I-X was the first test flight of NASA's Constellation Program's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle designed to provide manned access to low Earth orbit. As a one-time test flight, the Air Force's 45th Space Wing required a series of Range Safety analysis data products to be developed for the specified launch date and mission trajectory prior to granting flight approval on the Eastern Range. The range safety data package is required to ensure that the public, launch area, and launch complex personnel and resources are provided with an acceptable level of safety and that all aspects of prelaunch and launch operations adhere to applicable public laws. The analysis data products, defined in the Air Force Space Command Manual 91-710, Volume 2, consisted of a nominal trajectory, three sigma trajectory envelopes, stage impact footprints, acoustic intensity contours, trajectory turn angles resulting from potential vehicle malfunctions (including flight software failures), characterization of potential debris, and debris impact footprints. These data products were developed under the auspices of the Constellation's Program Launch Constellation Range Safety Panel and its Range Safety Trajectory Working Group with the intent of beginning the framework for the operational vehicle data products and providing programmatic review and oversight. A multi-center NASA team in conjunction with the 45th Space Wing, collaborated within the Trajectory Working Group forum to define the data product development processes, performed the analyses necessary to generate the data products, and performed independent verification and validation of the data products. This paper outlines the Range Safety data requirements and provides an overview of the processes established to develop both the data products and the individual analyses used to develop the data products, and it summarizes the results of the analyses required for the Ares I-X launch.

Starr, Brett R.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Ares I-X Range Safety Flight Envelope Analysis

Ares I-X was the first test flight of NASA's Constellation Program's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle designed to provide manned access to low Earth orbit. As a one-time test flight, the Air Force's 45th Space Wing required a series of Range Safety analysis data products to be developed for the specified launch date and mission trajectory prior to granting flight approval on the Eastern Range. The range safety data package is required to ensure that the public, launch area, and launch complex personnel and resources are provided with an acceptable level of safety and that all aspects of prelaunch and launch operations adhere to applicable public laws. The analysis data products, defined in the Air Force Space Command Manual 91-710, Volume 2, consisted of a nominal trajectory, three sigma trajectory envelopes, stage impact footprints, acoustic intensity contours, trajectory turn angles resulting from potential vehicle malfunctions (including flight software failures), characterization of potential debris, and debris impact footprints. These data products were developed under the auspices of the Constellation's Program Launch Constellation Range Safety Panel and its Range Safety Trajectory Working Group with the intent of beginning the framework for the operational vehicle data products and providing programmatic review and oversight. A multi-center NASA team in conjunction with the 45th Space Wing, collaborated within the Trajectory Working Group forum to define the data product development processes, performed the analyses necessary to generate the data products, and performed independent verification and validation of the data products. This paper outlines the Range Safety data requirements and provides an overview of the processes established to develop both the data products and the individual analyses used to develop the data products, and it summarizes the results of the analyses required for the Ares I-X launch.

Starr, Brett R.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Autonomous Flight Safety System

Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) is an independent flight safety system designed for small to medium sized expendable launch vehicles launching from or needing range safety protection while overlying relatively remote locations. AFSS replaces the need for a man-in-the-loop to make decisions for flight termination. AFSS could also serve as the prototype for an autonomous manned flight crew escape advisory system. AFSS utilizes onboard sensors and processors to emulate the human decision-making process using rule-based software logic and can dramatically reduce safety response time during critical launch phases. The Range Safety flight path nominal trajectory, its deviation allowances, limit zones and other flight safety rules are stored in the onboard computers. Position, velocity and attitude data obtained from onboard global positioning system (GPS) and inertial navigation system (INS) sensors are compared with these rules to determine the appropriate action to ensure that people and property are not jeopardized. The final system will be fully redundant and independent with multiple processors, sensors, and dead man switches to prevent inadvertent flight termination. AFSS is currently in Phase III which includes updated algorithms, integrated GPS/INS sensors, large scale simulation testing and initial aircraft flight testing.

Ferrell, Bob↗

NASA NTRS2012

2012 NASA Range Safety Annual Report

This report provides a NASA Range Safety (NRS) overview for current and potential range users. This report contains articles which cover a variety of subject areas, summaries of various NASA Range Safety Program (RSP) activities performed during the past year, links to past reports, and information on several projects that may have a profound impact on the way business will be conducted in the future. Specific topics discussed in the 2012 NASA Range Safety Annual Report include a program overview and 2012 highlights; Range Safety Training; Independent Assessments; Support to Program Operations at all ranges conducting NASA launch/flight operations; a continuing overview of emerging range safety-related technologies; and status reports from all of the NASA Centers that have Range Safety responsibilities.

Dumont, Alan G.↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Ultimate Factor of Safety for Aircraft and Spacecraft Its History, Applications and Misconceptions

The ultimate factor of safety (FOSULT) concept used in aircraft and spacecraft has evolved over many decades. Currently an FOSULT 1.5 is the FAR‐mandated value for aircraft while an FOSULT of 1.4 has been used in various spacecraft. This paper was motivated by the desire to concisely explain the origins, proper interpretation and application of the ultimate factor of safety concept, since the authors have seen throughout their careers many misconceptions and incorrect applications of this concept. The history of the ultimate factor of safety concept is briefly summarized, the proper application of the factor of safety in aircraft design, structural analysis and operations is covered in detail, examples of limit load exceedance in aircraft and spacecraft are discussed, the evolution of the 1.4 FOSULT for spacecraft is described and some misconceptions regarding the ultimate factor of safety concept are addressed. It is hoped that this paper can be a summary resource for engineers to understand the origin, purpose and proper application of the ultimate factor of safety.

Zipay, John J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Capturing Safety Requirements to Enable Effective Task Allocation Between Humans and Automaton in Increasingly Autonomous Systems

There is a current drive towards enabling the deployment of increasingly autonomous systems in the National Airspace System (NAS). However, shifting the traditional roles and responsibilities between humans and automation for safety critical tasks must be managed carefully, otherwise the current emergent safety properties of the NAS may be disrupted. In this paper, a verification activity to assess the emergent safety properties of a clearly defined, safety critical, operational scenario that possesses tasks that can be fluidly allocated between human and automated agents is conducted. Task allocation role sets were proposed for a human-automation team performing a contingency maneuver in a reduced crew context. A safety critical contingency procedure (engine out on takeoff) was modeled in the Soar cognitive architecture, then translated into the Hybrid Input Output formalism. Verification activities were then performed to determine whether or not the safety properties held over the increasingly autonomous system. The verification activities lead to the development of several key insights regarding the implicit assumptions on agent capability. It subsequently illustrated the usefulness of task annotations associated with specialized requirements (e.g., communication, timing etc.), and demonstrated the feasibility of this approach.

Neogi, Natasha A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Quantifying Pilot Contribution to Flight Safety During an In-Flight Airspeed Failure

Accident statistics cite the flight crew as a causal factor in over 60% of large transport fatal accidents. Yet a well-trained and well-qualified crew is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral component of the entire commercial aviation system. A human-in-the-loop test was conducted using a Level D certified Boeing 737-800 simulator to evaluate the pilot's contribution to safety-of-flight during routine air carrier flight operations and in response to system failures. To quantify the human's contribution, crew complement was used as an independent variable in a between-subjects design. This paper details the crew's actions and responses while dealing with an in-flight airspeed failure. Accident statistics often cite flight crew error (Baker, 2001) as the primary contributor in accidents and incidents in transport category aircraft. However, the Air Line Pilots Association (2011) suggests "a well-trained and well-qualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of the aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system." This is generally acknowledged but cannot be verified because little or no quantitative data exists on how or how many accidents/incidents are averted by crew actions. Anecdotal evidence suggest crews handle failures on a daily basis and Aviation Safety Action Program data generally supports this assertion, even if the data is not released to the public. However without hard evidence, the contribution and means by which pilots achieve safety of flight is difficult to define. Thus, ways to improve the human ability to contribute or overcome deficiencies are ill-defined.

Etherington, Timothy J.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Current Safety Nets Within the U.S. National Airspace System

There are over 70,000 flights managed per day in the National Airspace System, with approximately 7,000 aircraft in the air over the United States at any given time. Operators of each of these flights would prefer to fly a user-defined “4D” trajectory (4DT), which includes arrival and departure times; preferred gates and runways at the airport; efficient, wind-optimal routes for departure, cruise and arrival phase of flight; and fuel efficient altitude profiles. To demonstrate the magnitude of this achievement a single flight from Los Angeles to Baltimore, accesses over 35 shared or “constrained” resources that are managed by roughly 30 air traffic controllers (at towers, approach control and en route sectors); along with traffic managers at 12 facilities, using over 22 different, independent automation system (including TBFM, ERAM, STARS, ASDE-X, FSM, TSD, GPWS, TCAS, etc.). In addition, dispatchers, ramp controllers and others utilize even more systems to manage each flight’s access to operator-managed resources. Flying an ideal 4DT requires successful coordination of all flight constraints among all flights, facilities, operators, pilots and controllers. Additionally, when conditions in the NAS change, the trajectories of one or more aircraft may need to be revised to avoid loss of flight efficiency, predictability, separation or system throughput. The Aviation Safety Network has released the 2016 airliner accident statistics showing a very low total of 19 fatal airliner accidents, resulting in 325 fatalities1. Despite several high profile accidents, the year 2016 turned out to be a very safe year for commercial aviation, Aviation Safety Network data show. Over the year 2016 the Aviation Safety Network recorded a total of 19 fatal airliner accidents [1], resulting in 325 fatalities. This makes 2016 the second safest year ever, both by number of fatal accidents as well as in terms of fatalities. In 2015 ASN recorded 16 accidents while in 2013 a total of 265 lives were lost. How can we keep it that way and not upset the apple cart by premature insertion of innovative technologies, functions, and procedures? In aviation, safety nets function as the last system defense against incidents and accidents. Current ground-based and airborne safety nets are well established and development to make them more efficient and reliable continues. Additionally, future air traffic control safety nets may emerge from new operational concepts.

Smith, Brian E.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Challenges in Vehicle Safety and Occupant Protection for Autonomous Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (eVTOL) Vehicles

The burgeoning electric Vertical Take-off and Landing (eVTOL) vehicle industry has generated a significant level of enthusiasm amongst aviation designers, manufacturers and researchers. This industry is determined to change the urban transportation paradigm from traditional ground-based vehicles (cars, taxis, buses) to air-based eVTOL vehicles which can be summoned, much like how conventional taxi services work currently. These new eVTOL vehicles are designed to be small and lightweight and operate autonomously without user intervention. There are many unknowns as to how the industry will mature. The logistics of creating a completely new category of vehicle along with its own set of rules are complex, and there are many known - and unknown - barriers to overcome. Some (of many) known barriers include airspace management, ground logistics, physical space, and, the vehicle design itself. There are many eVTOL vehicle manufacturers and organizations working these problems presently. This report will focus on one major barrier: the level of safety as it pertains to the framework of eVTOL vehicles. A high level of safety is necessary for the vehicles to gain acceptance as the public adapts to these autonomous ride-sharing services. An overview of current levels of transportation safety and some extrapolation into how eVTOL vehicles might compare is first presented. Next, a discussion categorizing the major differences between Crash Prevention and Crash Mitigation as it pertains to eVTOL vehicle safety is included with identification of current deficiencies. The report then expands into a framework for specific ideas that could use Crash Mitigation to improve vehicle safety through a crashworthy systems level approach with several designs highlighted. Finally, a brief discussion into the regulatory approach and potential guidelines as they pertain to new eVTOL vehicles is presented. Accordingly, much of the supplemental data will be taken from sources pertaining to either General Aviation (GA) aircraft, rotorcraft, or transport category aircraft, due to the lack of overarching data from eVTOL vehicles. As of this writing, the European Aviation Safety Agency has released a draft version of a VTOL Special Condition, with a comment period closing in late 2018. It is assumed that eventual expected operations and anticipated future regulations for VTOL vehicles will consist of some combination of these (and other) sources.

Littell, Justin D.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) Activities in Support of Artemis I and Plans for Artemis II

The Artemis I mission in 2022 accomplished humanity’s first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) with a human-rated spacecraft in over fifty years. Artemis comprises several key Program elements – Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Orion Crew Module, Service Module, Launch Abort System; the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Exploration Ground System (EGS). Much of our human spaceflight experience with crewed lunar missions is captured in historical program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous and reliable spacecraft. The assessment of compliance with applicable safety requirements and adequacy of hazard controls and verifications is the responsibility of the MPCV Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP), along with a Joint [NASA/ESA] Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP) for the review of the European Service Module (ESM). The MSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering was added as a Panel co-chair, which enhanced the Engineering organization’s engagement and level of understanding of hazard analysis methodology and results. The MSERP has representation from each office, including Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and Health and Medical Technical Authority, supporting the Orion Program in addition to the Engineering and Safety Technical Authority co-chairs. Second, the JSERP has a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety organizations, which recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership. This paper will focus on SMA processes, activities, and plans for the Orion element and explore unique challenges associated with Artemis II as we approach the flight of the first crewed Orion vehicle.

Paul J. Collier↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tracing NASA Contributions Toward Aviation Safety Stakeholder Guidance

The System-Wide Safety project at NASA is developing the concept and a subset of supporting technologies for evolving safety management from a post-accident iterative improvement on safety performed by large commercial operators only to predictive and increasingly autonomous safety functions that are performed during operations across vehicles, airports, and services. The system of interest is the In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS), recommended by the National Academies for NASA to develop the concept in coordination with the broad and diverse community of stakeholders in aviation safety. Because the system context is the airspace and aviation industry, it is important to create and maintain traceability from the research work and system architecture elements developed at NASA to community-created roadmaps and aviation agency guidance.

IASMS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety Benefit Analysis of Conformance Monitoring for Situation Awareness in UTM

This work presents an analytical approach to address situations in drone operations when strategic coordination alone cannot ensure safety, requiring support from the Conformance Monitoring for Situation Awareness service and potentially other deconfliction services. This study focuses on evaluating the impact of off-nominal operations on both UA-to-UA collision risk and ground injury risk. It first establishes a relationship between the likelihood of off-nominal flights and the effectiveness of strategic coordination. The analysis then derives operational conditions where strategic coordination alone is insufficient to meet target safety requirements, particularly when the likelihood of off-nominal operations exceeds a certain threshold. The results indicate that higher operational tempo or density requires a lower likelihood of offnominal operations for strategic coordination to remain effective and meet safety targets. These findings provide quantitative operational thresholds for when CMSA services are necessary. This work contributes to the safety case for both strategic coordination and CMSA services, offering analysis on when CMSA should be employed to support strategic coordination in achieving the desired safety levels. It also establishes a framework for incorporating other deconfliction services in future safety case analyses.

Strategic deconfliction↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Energize the Future - Systems Engineering Processes and Methods: Tracing NASA Contributions Toward Aviation Safety Stakeholder Guidance

The System-Wide Safety project at NASA is developing the concept and a subset of supporting technologies for evolving safety management from a post-accident iterative improvement on safety performed by large commercial operators only to predictive and increasingly autonomous safety functions that are performed during operations across vehicles, airports, and services. The system of interest is the In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS), recommended by the National Academies for NASA to develop the concept in coordination with the broad and diverse community of stakeholders in aviation safety. Because the system context is the airspace and aviation industry, it is important to create and maintain traceability from the research work and system architecture elements developed at NASA to community-created roadmaps and aviation agency guidance.

MBSE↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety Benefit Analysis of Conformance Monitoring for Situation Awareness in UTM

This work presents an analytical approach to address situations in drone operations when strategic coordination alone cannot ensure safety, requiring support from the Conformance Monitoring for Situation Awareness service and potentially other deconfliction services. This study focuses on evaluating the impact of off-nominal operations on both UA-to-UA collision risk and ground injury risk. It first establishes a relationship between the likelihood of off-nominal flights and the effectiveness of strategic coordination. The analysis then derives operational conditions where strategic coordination alone is insufficient to meet target safety requirements, particularly when the likelihood of off-nominal operations exceeds a certain threshold. The results indicate that higher operational tempo or density requires a lower likelihood of offnominal operations for strategic coordination to remain effective and meet safety targets. These findings provide quantitative operational thresholds for when CMSA services are necessary. This work contributes to the safety case for both strategic coordination and CMSA services, offering analysis on when CMSA should be employed to support strategic coordination in achieving the desired safety levels. It also establishes a framework for incorporating other deconfliction services in future safety case analyses.

Strategic deconfliction↗

NASA NTRS2015

Towards a Formal Basis for Modular Safety Cases

Safety assurance using argument-based safety cases is an accepted best-practice in many safety-critical sectors. Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), which is widely used for presenting safety arguments graphically, provides a notion of modular arguments to support the goal of incremental certification. Despite the efforts at standardization, GSN remains an informal notation whereas the GSN standard contains appreciable ambiguity especially concerning modular extensions. This, in turn, presents challenges when developing tools and methods to intelligently manipulate modular GSN arguments. This paper develops the elements of a theory of modular safety cases, leveraging our previous work on formalizing GSN arguments. Using example argument structures we highlight some ambiguities arising through the existing guidance, present the intuition underlying the theory, clarify syntax, and address modular arguments, contracts, well-formedness and well-scopedness of modules. Based on this theory, we have a preliminary implementation of modular arguments in our toolset, AdvoCATE.

Safety↗