Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Regulatory Framework”

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.

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

44 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Towards a Rigorous Basis for Specific Operations Risk Assessment of UAS

The Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) guidance represents the consensus of various national aviation authorities on a common process to identify, qualitatively assess, and manage the safety risk posed by unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), when preparing the safety case required for regulatory approval to conduct certain types of operations. As such, it can be considered a de facto standard, being increasingly adopted by various relevant stakeholders. This paper first gives an overview of the SORA process and associated methods, identifying a number of inconsistencies in risk identification and assessment, also discussing plausible strategies to close the associated gaps. Then, we give a well-founded basis for the applicable concepts, such as barrier integrity, assurance, and robustness, following which we present a preliminary and simple probabilistic formalization of the underpinning barrier-based safety model. We illustrate our overall approach through a worked example, also discussing how a Bayesian framework can facilitate extending and enhancing our initial formalization. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities afforded by our approach, such as a well-founded basis for barrier selection, whilst addressing the associated challenges. The main objective of this work is to complement the current SORA guidance through a principled, mathematicallybased approach to risk assessment, particularly when it is applied to higher-risk operational concepts that warrant greater rigor in safety assessment and assurance.

Safety Cases↗
NASA NTRS2020

Evaluation Issues for a Flight Deck Interface; CAST SE-210 Output 2: Report 4 of 6

This report is part of a series of reports that addresses flight deck design and evaluation, written as a response to loss of control accidents. In particular, this activity is directed at failures in airplane state awareness, in which the pilot loses awareness of the airplane’s energy state or attitude and enters an upset condition. Another report in this series of reports speaks directly to flight deck evaluation methods and metrics for the types of attention and awareness issues that were revealed from the airplane state awareness events. In this report, we describe a wide range of flight deck evaluation issues tied to flight crew performance. The objectives are to establish a framework for thinking about how the flight deck interface should support the performance of the flight crew, and to aid the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in identifying relevant human performance issues during the evaluation/certification process. Issues are broken out into sections that cover physical ergonomics, design for usability, data integration and display content, attention and task management, flight crew problem solving, and flight crew teaming. For each issue, we recommend specific ways that the flight deck interface should support the flight crew. For each, we also identify existing 14 CFR Part 25 rules and guidance that are relevant to the issue. This allows the FAA to determine what current regulatory materials can support them in raising the issue with the applicant.

commercial aviation↗
NASA NTRS2017

Evaluating Process Effectiveness to Reduce Risk

It is well documented that government agencies do not have the same incentive as the private sector to focus on process effectiveness and continual improvement of those processes. It is also well documented whenever government agencies fail to deliver efficient, effective, consistent, and fair services to the citizens. In spite of the various "reinventing government" and "effectiveness initiatives" of the past decades, and in spite of the efforts on the part of many agencies to improve, government in general still lags behind industry in creating a culture of effective processes and systems. While the tragic events that unfolded recently in Flint, Michigan, teach us that running government "like a business" does not always take the needs of the citizenry into account, there are many lessons and techniques from the private sector that government agencies can use to improve. The incentive to improve, while mandated by various administrations1, needs to come from within the workforce, in order to effectively take root. The best, most effective incentive is to reduce, control or eliminate risk. Government agencies face some of the same risks as the private sector, while some are unique. While ISO 310002 has been around since 2009, risk has taken on increased visibility within the private sector with the advent of the emphasis on risk-based thinking in ISO 9001:20153. The relationship between risk-based thinking and effective processes is simple and direct. Those processes that are well thought out and standardized (i.e. Plan-Do-Check-Act), will have taken into account the applicable policy, statutory, regulatory, safety, quality and technical parameters, which may not occur to someone performing the process with minimal experience or training; and thus protect the employees, the public and the agency from statutory and regulatory violations; delay in providing services; non-delivery of services; harm to public or employee safety and health; cost overruns; breaches in security; loss of confidence in government; failure of publicly funded projects; damage to the environment; ethics violations, and the list goes on; with local, national and even international consequences. The Plan-Do-Check-Act process, also known as the "process approach" can be used at any time to establish and standardize a process, and it can also be used to check periodically for "process creep" (i.e., informal, unauthorized changes that have occurred over time), any necessary updates and improvements. While ISO 9001 compliance is not mandated for all government agencies, if interpreted correctly, it can be useful in establishing a framework and implementing effective management systems and processes.4 Another method that can be used to evaluate effectiveness is the scorecard definitions in Mallory's Process Management Standard5 as a basis for evaluating work on the process level on effective, and continuously improved and improving processes. With processes on the lower end of the scale, agencies are vulnerable to a great many risks, with employees and managers making up many of the rules as they go, leading to the above listed negative results. Without clear guidance for nominal operations, off-nominal situations can, and do, increase the likelihood of chaos. In an increasingly technical environment, with inter-agency communication and collaboration becoming the norm, agencies need to come to grips with the fact that processes can become rapidly outdated, and that the technical community should take on an increased role in the maturation of the agency's processes. Industry has long known that effective processes are also efficient, and process improvement methods such as Kaizen, Lean, Six Sigma, 5S, and mistake proofing lead to increased productivity, improved quality, and decreased cost. Again, government agencies have different concerns, but inefficiencies and mistakes can have dire and wide reaching consequences for the public that they serve. While no one goes to work planning to cause harm, it is up to agencies to establish upper level systems, which make establishment and compliance with processes possible. Again, Mallory provides us with a Systems Management Standard6, similar to the Process Management Standard, with a scale of 0-5 for systems effectiveness and maturity. Deming determined that "eighty-five percent of the reasons for failure are deficiencies in the systems and process rather than the employee. The role of management is to change the process rather than badgering individual employees to do better." 7 It is not just the working level employees who need effective processes, but the mid-and upper level managers as well. A disciplined management culture sets the tone for the employees, aids both routine and off-nominal decision-making, and incorporates risk -based thinking into the systems and processes as a matter of normal activity. Figure 1, illustrates the relationship between ineffective and effective processes and risk, through the use of the "stoplight" colors that are commonly used to show serious situations (red), situations which may be improving or deteriorating depending on trends (yellow), and situations that are under control and continuously improved (green).

Shepherd, Christena C.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide

The NASA/SP-2015-3709, Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide, also known as the "HSIPG," provides a tool for implementing HSI activities within the NASA systems engineering framework. The HSIPG is written to aid the HSI practitioner engaged in a program or project (P/P), and serves as a knowledge base to allow the practitioner to step into an HSI lead or team member role for NASA missions. Additionally, this HSIPG is written to address the role of HSI in the P/P management and systems engineering communities and aid their understanding of the value added by incorporating good HSI practices into their programs and projects. Through helping to build a community of knowledgeable HSI practitioners, this document also hopes to build advocacy across the Agency for establishing strong, consistent HSI policies and practices. Human Systems Integration (HSI) has been successfully adopted (and adapted) by several federal agencies-most notably the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-as a methodology for reducing system life cycle costs (LCCs). These cost savings manifest themselves due to reductions in required numbers of personnel, the practice of human-centered design, decreased reliance on specialized skills for operations, shortened training time, efficient logistics and maintenance, and fewer safety-related risks and mishaps due to unintended human/system interactions. The HSI process for NASA establishes how cost savings and mission success can be realized through systems engineering. Every program or project has unique attributes. This HSIPG is not intended to provide one-size-fits-all recommendations for HSI implementation. Rather, HSI processes should be tailored to the size, scope, and goals of individual situations. The instructions and processes identified here are best used as a starting point for implementing human-centered system concepts and designs across programs and projects of varying types, including manned and unmanned, human spaceflight, aviation, robotics, and environmental science missions. The practitioner using this guide should have expertise in Systems Engineering or other disciplines involved in producing systems with anticipated human interactions. (See section 1.6 of this guide for further discussion on HSI discipline domains.) The HSIPG provides an "HSI layer" to the NASA Systems Engineering Engine (SEE), detailed in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7123.1B, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, and further explained in NASA/SP-2007-6105, Systems Engineering Handbook (see HSIPG Table 2.2-1, NASA Documents with HSI Content, for specific references and document versions).

Zumbado, Jennifer Rochlis↗
NASA NTRS2017

Safeguard: Progress and Test Results for a Reliable Independent On-Board Safety Net for UAS

As demands increase to use unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for a broad spectrum of commercial applications, regulatory authorities are examining how to safely integrate them without compromising safety or disrupting traditional airspace operations. For small UAS, several operational rules have been established; e.g., do not operate beyond visual line-of-sight, do not fly within five miles of a commercial airport, do not fly above 400 feet above ground level. Enforcing these rules is challenging for UAS, as evidenced by the number of incident reports received by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This paper reviews the development of an onboard system - Safeguard - designed to monitor and enforce conformance to a set of operational rules defined prior to flight (e.g., geospatial stay-out or stay-in regions, speed limits, and altitude constraints). Unlike typical geofencing or geo-limitation functions, Safeguard operates independently of the off-the-shelf UAS autopilot and is designed in a way that can be realized by a small set of verifiable functions to simplify compliance with existing standards for safety-critical systems (e.g. for spacecraft and manned commercial transportation aircraft systems). A framework is described that decouples the system from any other devices on the UAS as well as introduces complementary positioning source(s) for applications that require integrity and availability beyond what can be provided by the Global Positioning System (GPS). This paper summarizes the progress and test results for Safeguard research and development since presentation of the design concept at the 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC '16). Significant accomplishments include completion of software verification and validation in accordance with NASA standards for spacecraft systems (to Class B), development of improved hardware prototypes, development of a simulation platform that allows for hardware-in-the-loop testing and fast-time Monte Carlo evaluations, and flight testing on multiple air vehicles. Integration testing with NASA's UAS Traffic Management (UTM) service-oriented architecture was also demonstrated.

Young, Steven D.↗
NASA NTRS2020

UAM Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) UAM Maturity Level (UML) 4

This Vision ConOps is intended as a foundation to engage members of the UAM community and provide a consensus on the future vision of UAM operations. It provides a concept for more detailed discussion and a basis for the exploration of ideas using a common framework to inform the continued development and integration of UAM as part of the broader transportation system. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) encompasses a range of innovative aviation technologies (small drones, electric aircraft, automated air traffic management, etc.) that are transforming aviation’s role in everyday life, including the movement of goods and people. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft, providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. This concept has generated tremendous interest and industry investment. UAM envisages a future in which advanced technologies and new operational procedures enable practical, cost-effective air travel as an integral mode of transportation in metropolitan areas. It represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. For this reason, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected UAM as the initial goal of its AAM efforts and the focus of this Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) document. UAM Community Vision ConOps: This Vision ConOps effort was led by experts from NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Deloitte’s Ecosystem Advisory Group (a cohort of advisers with aviation, aerospace, and regulatory expertise). To develop this Vision ConOps, NASA, FAA, and Deloitte built upon the current body of aeronautical research and consulted with more than 100 stakeholder organizations. This UAM community includes entities ranging from legacy aviation leaders to innovators and new market entrants. Stakeholders consulted included the federal government, state and local government, aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), local transportation organizations, prospective UAM operators, academia, industry standards-setting bodies, airports, service suppliers, and others (as described in Appendix G). This input was captured through the following methods: • A series of more than two dozen interviews with industry experts, federal regulators, state and local governments, and industry trade groups provided insight into the challenges of UAM integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), as well as technology developments and a variety of perspectives as to how UAM systems will integrate. • A series of two-day community workshops enabling active, detailed engagement of nearly 100 industry, academic, federal, and state stakeholder individuals. These workshops, hosted by NASA and Deloitte, explored UAM concepts in detail, and stakeholders were invited to collaboratively analyze and propose solutions to some of the greatest conceptual challenges behind UAM at an intermediate state. • A review of more than 160 sources of UAM literature from across government, industry, and academia, which are listed in Appendix H. • The public sharing of workshop input and document drafts for review and input across the UAM community. Feedback in the form of more than 1,000 comments and inputs on the document was received from industry groups, individual companies, academia, and government (federal, state, and local), among others. Although effort was made to incorporate inputs from across the UAM stakeholder group, not all comments could ultimately be incorporated in this version. The team resolved conflicting comments or ideas while maintaining consistency with the known direction of regulators and ensuring the document was coherent and consistent. It is recognized that this is a rapidly evolving area and that concepts will likely change over time; as such, this Vision ConOps is a living document and is expected to evolve as concepts mature. The ConOps does, however, provide a vision of UAM concepts and solutions based on the broad insights from across the UAM stakeholder community at the time of its publication and is intended to serve as a UAM North Star for continued research and development of UAM. As a broad Vision ConOps, is not a detailed engineering document; rather, it focuses primarily on outlining a broad, high-level vision across all aspects of a UAM transportation system.

Urban Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRS2019

Prototyping Operational Autonomy for Space Traffic Management

Current state of the art in Space Traffic Management (STM) relies on a handful of providers for surveillance and collision prediction, and manual coordination between operators. Neither is scalable to support the expected 10x increase in spacecraft population in less than 10 years, nor does it support automated manuever planning. We present a software prototype of an STM architecture based on open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), drawing on previous work by NASA to develop an architecture for low-altitude Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management. The STM architecture is designed to provide structure to the interactions between spacecraft operators, various regulatory bodies, and service suppliers, while maintaining flexibility of these interactions and the ability for new market participants to enter easily. Autonomy is an indispensable part of the proposed architecture in enabling efficient data sharing, coordination between STM participants and safe flight operations. Examples of autonomy within STM include syncing multiple non-authoritative catalogs of resident space objects, or determining which spacecraft maneuvers when preventing impending conjunctions between multiple spacecraft. The STM prototype is based on modern micro-service architecture adhering to OpenAPI standards and deployed in industry standard Docker containers, facilitating easy communication between different participants or services. The system architecture is designed to facilitate adding and replacing services with minimal disruption. We have implemented some example participant services (e.g. a space situational awareness provider/SSA, a conjunction assessment supplier/CAS, an automated maneuver advisor/AMA) within the prototype. Different services, with creative algorithms folded into then, can fulfil similar functional roles within the STM architecture by flexibly connecting to it using pre-defined APIs and data models, thereby lowering the barrier to entry of new players in the STM marketplace. We demonstrate the STM prototype on a multiple conjunction scenario with multiple maneuverable spacecraft, where an example CAS and AMA can recommend optimal maneuvers to the spacecraft operators, based on a predefined reward function. Such tools can intelligently search the space of potential collision avoidance maneuvers with varying parameters like lead time and propellant usage, optimize a customized reward function, and be implemented as a scheduling service within the STM architecture. The case study shows an example of autonomous maneuver planning is possible using the API-based framework. As satellite populations and predicted conjunctions increase, an STM architecture can facilitate seamless information exchange related to collision prediction and mitigation among various service applications on different platforms and servers. The availability of such an STM network also opens up new research topics on satellite maneuver planning, scheduling and negotiation across disjoint entities.

space traffic management↗
NASA NTRS1997

Correspondence between discrete and continuous models of excitable media: trigger waves

We present a theoretical framework for relating continuous partial differential equation (PDE) models of excitable media to discrete cellular automata (CA) models on a randomized lattice. These relations establish a quantitative link between the CA model and the specific physical system under study. We derive expressions for the CA model's plane wave speed, critical curvature, and effective diffusion constant in terms of the model's internal parameters (the interaction radius, excitation threshold, and time step). We then equate these expressions to the corresponding quantities obtained from solution of the PDEs (for a fixed excitability). This yields a set of coupled equations with a unique solution for the required CA parameter values. Here we restrict our analysis to "trigger" wave solutions obtained in the limiting case of a two-dimensional excitable medium with no recovery processes. We tested the correspondence between our CA model and two PDE models (the FitzHugh-Nagumo medium and a medium with a "sawtooth" nonlinear reaction source) and found good agreement with the numerical solutions of the PDEs. Our results suggest that the behavior of trigger waves is actually controlled by a small number of parameters.

Non-NASA Center↗