Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Mallory Graydon.
This paper explains why labeling something as evidence does not make it special and proposes a systematic approach for avoiding giving the word more authority than it warrants in rational inquiry about the real world.
The active development community surrounding electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft has demonstrated potential to bring new technological capabilities to market, encouraging visions of widespread and diverse Urban Air Mobility (UAM) applications. New capabilities always come with safety considerations, some familiar and others less so. OEMs who intend to obtain FAA type certification for their eVTOL designs must plan for and execute sufficient safety engineering processes to demonstrate that credible hazards associated with these eVTOL designs are adequately mitigated. This work provides an orientation for eVTOL stakeholders, especially new entrants and those in hybrid roles, to the safety and regulatory context for assuring eVTOL aircraft for UAM applications. We further present selections of functional hazard assessment (FHA) performed on a reference eVTOL concept, with process and decision narration. The exercise allows exploration of several safety considerations specific to eVTOL systems and demonstrates the FHA process together with negotiation of some of its options and variations.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Overarching Properties (OPs) have been created by an inter-national working group and are being evaluated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), industry, and other certifying agencies in an effort to streamline certification processes. Their intent is to facilitate the use of alternative approaches and to al-low flexibility to combine the system, software, and complex hardware certification. The hope is that the FAA may eventually establish an Advisory Circular that offers the OPs as a Means of Compliance (MoC) for software approval (and eventually systems and hardware) by showing the product possesses the three OPs: Intent (specification of the intended behavior), Correctness (implementation of the intended behavior) and Innocuity (safety of unintended behavior). In the certification community, there is still a concern about the practicability of using such high level properties in certification. This paper aims to address that concern by showing possession of the OPs in an industrial case study using assurance arguments. The two main contributions of this paper are: a certification process based on OPs as Means of Compliance, and a certification argument for an on-board physical model of an UAV, as industrial example. We pro-pose a hybrid approach for the certification process that combines OPs with existing certification standards. Thus, OPs can be used for parts of a system that uses technologies that are not supported by current standards or for which existing standards require additional effort without commensurate additional safety assurance.
Emerging aviation markets such as urban air mobility are giving rise to new technologies and means of operation. However, novelty may hide ‘unknown unknowns,’ raising new hazards. This paper examines how expertise and safety techniques enable transformative technologies such as reduced crew operations, hybrid wing-borne and rotor-born flight, federated air traffic services, and urban operations. We explore how analysts use expertise to address common-cause failures, collect and interpret safety data, and perform exacting tradeoffs between dissimilarity, redundancy, independence, and diversity (human, process lifecycle, or otherwise) to ensure safety. When novelty is present, analysts might not possess the expertise needed to fully understand the implications of design decisions and tradeoffs being made, especially in early lifecycle phases, on emergent properties such as safety. Safety expertise must be carefully cultivated. The conflicting views of safety experts must be unpacked to identify the divergence in fundamental assumptions, models, means, and methods that may be causing them. Once systems venture beyond the basis of what safety expertise can reliably guarantee, projects take on risk that must be managed. The paper contains key takeaways and actionable recommendations for novel OEMs and regulators touching on topics such as robust monitoring; clear and transparent reporting; incremental approaches to fielding novel systems in hazard-rich, risk-tolerant environments; the cultivation of safety culture and expertise in an organization; and the use of scientific study to reduce epistemic uncertainty in novel operations with new technologies. Since excessive novelty in aviation can undermine the current foundation of safety, humility and incrementalism are necessary to enable emerging aviation markets safely.
Hazard assessment is an engineering activity that produces insight into which states of thing being engineered might be hazardous. In aviation contexts, it is often performed for certification credit at both the aircraft and system levels during the early design phase of the system’s lifecycle. However, novel aircraft paradigms such as urban air mobility (UAM)operations might either violate assumptions on which traditional aviation hazard assessment is based or simply possess attributes that would make other approaches more effective. In this paper, we define the key concepts under pinning hazard assessment and identify the limitations and assumptions inherent in hazard analysis. We analyze popular techniques to show how they embody these key concepts. We identify ways in which hazard assessment may be scoped and tailored to an application. And, using worked examples, we discuss how, where, and why such tailoring might be needed, especially in novel contexts.
Hazard assessment is an engineering activity that produces insight into which states of thing being engineered might be hazardous. In aviation contexts, it is often performed for certification credit at both the aircraft and system levels during the early design phase of the system’s lifecycle. However, novel aircraft paradigms such as urban air mobility (UAM) operations might either violate assumptions on which traditional aviation hazard assessment is based or simply possess attributes that would make other approaches more effective. In this paper, we define the key concepts underpinning hazard assessment and identify the limitations and assumptions inherent in hazard analysis. We analyze popular techniques to show how they embody these key concepts. We identify ways in which hazard assessment may be scoped and tailored to an application. And, using worked examples, we discuss how, where, and why such tailoring might be needed, especially in novel contexts.