Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk Informed Decision Making”

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.

At least 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Risk management for the Space Exploration Initiative

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a quantitative engineering process that provides the analytic structure and decision-making framework for total programmatic risk management. Ideally, it is initiated in the conceptual design phase and used throughout the program life cycle. Although PRA was developed for assessment of safety, reliability, and availability risk, it has far greater application. Throughout the design phase, PRA can guide trade-off studies among system performance, safety, reliability, cost, and schedule. These studies are based on the assessment of the risk of meeting each parameter goal, with full consideration of the uncertainties. Quantitative trade-off studies are essential, but without full identification, propagation, and display of uncertainties, poor decisions may result. PRA also can focus attention on risk drivers in situations where risk is too high. For example, if safety risk is unacceptable, the PRA prioritizes the risk contributors to guide the use of resources for risk mitigation. PRA is used in the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) Program. To meet the stringent requirements of the SEI mission, within strict budgetary constraints, the PRA structure supports informed and traceable decision-making. This paper briefly describes the SEI PRA process.

Buchbinder, Ben↗
NASA NTRS2005

Range Systems Simulation for the NASA Shuttle: Emphasis on Disaster and Prevention Management During Lift-Off

This article describes a decision-making system composed of a number of safety and environmental models for the launch phase of a NASA Space Shuttle mission. The components of this distributed simulation environment represent the different systems that must collaborate to establish the Expectation of Casualties (E(sub c)) caused by a failed Space Shuttle launch and subsequent explosion (accidental or instructed) of the spacecraft shortly after liftoff. This decision-making tool employs Space Shuttle reliability models, trajectory models, a blast model, weather dissemination systems, population models, amount and type of toxicants, gas dispersion models, human response functions to toxicants, and a geographical information system. Since one of the important features of this proposed simulation environment is to measure blast, toxic, and debris effects, the clear benefits is that it can help safety managers not only estimate the population at risk, but also to help plan evacuations, make sheltering decisions, establish the resources required to provide aid and comfort, and mitigate damages in case of a disaster.

Rabelo, Lisa↗
NASA NTRS2016

Characterization of Evidence for Human System Risk Assessment

Understanding the kinds of evidence available and using the best evidence to answer a question is critical to evidenced-based decision-making, and it requires synthesis of evidence from a variety of sources. Categorization of human system risks in spaceflight, in particular, focuses on how well the integration and interpretation of all available evidence informs the risk statement that describes the relationship between spaceflight hazards and an outcome of interest. A mature understanding and categorization of these risks requires: 1) sufficient characterization of risk, 2) sufficient knowledge to determine an acceptable level of risk (i.e., a standard), 3) development of mitigations to meet the acceptable level of risk, and 4) identification of factors affecting generalizability of the evidence to different design reference missions. In the medical research community, evidence is often ranked by increasing confidence in findings gleaned from observational and experimental research (e.g., "levels of evidence"). However, an approach based solely on aspects of experimental design is problematic in assessing human system risks for spaceflight. For spaceflight, the unique challenges and opportunities include: (1) The independent variables in most evidence are the hazards of spaceflight, such as space radiation or low gravity, which cannot be entirely duplicated in terrestrial (Earth-based) analogs, (2) Evidence is drawn from multiple sources including medical and mission operations, Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH), spaceflight research (LSDA), and relevant environmental & terrestrial databases, (3) Risk metrics based primarily on LSAH data are typically derived from available prevalence or incidence data, which may limit rigorous interpretation, (4) The timeframe for obtaining adequate spaceflight sample size (n) is very long, given the small population, (5) Randomized controlled trials are unattainable in spaceflight, (6) Collection of personal and environmental data on the astronaut population may create opportunities for advanced analytics and human-environment modeling that goes beyond that achieved in isolated experimental designs; and (7) Translation of relevant research to operations is a complex, transdisciplinary enterprise in which the approach must apply across the physical, biological, behavioral, and social sciences. The approach to synthesizing evidence must address both source and fidelity of data, and reflect the most general attributes of quality of evidence in science and engineering: reliability and validity. The authors are developing a two-factor approach which includes the various kinds of evidence required to understand risks and for the integrated interpretation of all evidence that is essential to develop standards and countermeasures. A unified framework for aggregating and assessing different kinds of evidence provides a consistent, traceable, evidence-based decision-making process to translate research to operations in an environment where engineers, scientists, physicians, and managers all engage in analyzing the trade space of vehicle design, standards, requirements and solutions for spaceflight.

Steinberg, S. L.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Experiences using Visualization Techniques to Present Requirements, Risks to Them, and Options for Risk Mitigation

For several years we have been employing a risk-based decision process to guide development and application of advanced technologies, and for research and technology portfolio planning. The process is supported by custom software, in which visualization plays an important role. During requirements gathering, visualization is used to help scrutinize the status (completeness, extent) of the information. During decision making based on the gathered information, visualization is used to help decisionmakers understand the space of options and their consequences. In this paper we summarize the visualization capabilities that we have employed, indicating when and how they have proven useful.

requirements↗
NASA NTRS2009

Johnson Space Center's Risk and Reliability Analysis Group 2008 Annual Report

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directorate s Risk and Reliability Analysis Group provides both mathematical and engineering analysis expertise in the areas of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) analysis, and data collection and analysis. The fundamental goal of this group is to provide National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decisionmakers with the necessary information to make informed decisions when evaluating personnel, flight hardware, and public safety concerns associated with current operating systems as well as with any future systems. The Analysis Group includes a staff of statistical and reliability experts with valuable backgrounds in the statistical, reliability, and engineering fields. This group includes JSC S&MA Analysis Branch personnel as well as S&MA support services contractors, such as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and SoHaR. The Analysis Group s experience base includes nuclear power (both commercial and navy), manufacturing, Department of Defense, chemical, and shipping industries, as well as significant aerospace experience specifically in the Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and Constellation Programs. The Analysis Group partners with project and program offices, other NASA centers, NASA contractors, and universities to provide additional resources or information to the group when performing various analysis tasks. The JSC S&MA Analysis Group is recognized as a leader in risk and reliability analysis within the NASA community. Therefore, the Analysis Group is in high demand to help the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) continue to fly safely, assist in designing the next generation spacecraft for the Constellation Program (CxP), and promote advanced analytical techniques. The Analysis Section s tasks include teaching classes and instituting personnel qualification processes to enhance the professional abilities of our analysts as well as performing major probabilistic assessments used to support flight rationale and help establish program requirements. During 2008, the Analysis Group performed more than 70 assessments. Although all these assessments were important, some were instrumental in the decisionmaking processes for the Shuttle and Constellation Programs. Two of the more significant tasks were the Space Transportation System (STS)-122 Low Level Cutoff PRA for the SSP and the Orion Pad Abort One (PA-1) PRA for the CxP. These two activities, along with the numerous other tasks the Analysis Group performed in 2008, are summarized in this report. This report also highlights several ongoing and upcoming efforts to provide crucial statistical and probabilistic assessments, such as the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) PRA for the Hubble Space Telescope service mission and the first fully integrated PRAs for the CxP's Lunar Sortie and ISS missions.

Valentine, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2016

Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload

Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk as follows: Sleep loss is apparent during spaceflight. Astronauts consistently average less sleep during spaceflight relative to on the ground. The causes of this sleep loss remain unknown, however ground-based evidence suggests that the sleep duration of astronauts is likely to lead to performance impairment and short and long-term health consequences. Further research is needed in this area in order to develop screening tools to assess individual astronaut sleep need in order to quantify the magnitude of sleep loss during spaceflight; current and planned efforts in BHP's research portfolio address this need. In addition, it is still unclear whether the conditions of spaceflight environment lead to sleep loss or whether other factors, such as work overload lead to the reduced sleep duration. Future data mining efforts and continued data collection on the ISS will help to further characterize factors contributing to sleep loss. Sleep inertia has not been evaluated during spaceflight. Ground-based studies confirm that it takes two to four hours to achieve optimal performance after waking from a sleep episode. Sleep inertia has been associated with increased accidents and reduced performance in operational environments. Sleep inertia poses considerable risk during spaceflight when emergency situations necessitate that crewmembers wake from sleep and make quick decisions. A recently completed BHP investigation assesses the effects of sleep inertia upon abrupt awakening, with and without hypnotics currently used in spaceflight; results from this investigation will help to inform strategies relative to sleep inertia effects on performance. Circadian desynchrony has been observed during spaceflight. Circadian desynchrony during spaceflight develops due to schedule constraints requiring non-24 operations or 'slam-shifts' and due to insufficient or mis-timed light exposure. In addition, circadian misalignment has been associated with reduced sleep duration and increased medication use. In ground-based studies, circadian desynchrony has been associated with significant performance impairment and increased risk of accidents when operations coincide with the circadian nadir. There is a great deal of information available on how to manage circadian misalignment, however, there are currently no easily collected biomarkers that can be used during spaceflight to determine circadian phase. Current research efforts are addressing this gap. Work overload has been documented during current spaceflight operations. NASA has established work hour guidelines that limit shift duration, however, schedule creep, where duty requirements necessitate working beyond scheduled work hours, has been reported. This observation warrants the documentation of actual work hours in order to improve planning and in order to ensure that astronauts receive adequate down time. In addition to concerns about work overload, ground based evidence suggests that work underload may be a concern during deep space missions, where torpor may develop and physically demanding workload will be exchanged for monitoring of autonomous systems. Given that increased automation is anticipated for exploration vehicles, fatigue effects in the context of such systems needs to be further understood. Performance metrics are needed to evaluate fitness-for-duty during spaceflight. Although ground-based evidence supports the notion that sleep loss, circadian desynchronization and work overload lead to performance impairment, inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate performance during spaceflight make it difficult to evaluate the magnitude of performance impairment during spaceflight. Work is underway to standardize measures of performance evaluation during spaceflight. Once established, such performance indicators need to be correlated with operational performance. Individual differences in sleep need and circadian preference, phase shifting ability and period have been documented in ground-based studies. Individual differences in response to sleep loss and circadian misalignment have also been documented and are presumed to be associated with genetic polymorphisms. No studies have systematically reported individual differences in sleep or circadian-related outcomes during spaceflight. More work is needed in this area in order to identify genetic or phenotypic biomarkers that predict resilience or vulnerability to sleep loss in order to personalize countermeasure strategies and mitigate performance impairment during spaceflight. Two laboratory and field investigations specific to this topic are currently ongoing; additional efforts, including an effort to mine existing biological data from spaceflight relative to sleep and circadian outcomes, are planned. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian period and phase have been reported in ground-based studies. The impact of these sex differences on performance is unclear. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian rhythms have not been systematically studied during spaceflight, presumably due to the small number of women that have flown in space. More research is needed in this area to evaluate whether any of the observed sex differences in physiology lead to altered performance in spaceflight and on the ground.

Flynn-Evans, Erin↗
NASA NTRS2002

Useful Life Prediction for Payload Carrier Hardware

The Space Shuttle has been identified for use through 2020. Payload carrier systems will be needed to support missions through the same time frame. To support the future decision making process with reliable systems, it is necessary to analyze design integrity, identify possible sources of undesirable risk and recognize required upgrades for carrier systems. This project analyzed the information available regarding the carriers and developed the probability of becoming obsolete under different scenarios. In addition, this project resulted in a plan for an improved information system that will improve monitoring and control of the various carriers. The information collected throughout this project is presented in this report as process flow, historical records, and statistical analysis.

Ben-Arieh, David↗
NASA NTRS2004

Towards a systems approach to risk considerations for concurrent design

This paper describes the new process used by the Project Design Center at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the identification, assessment and communication of risk elements throughout the lifecycle of a mission design. This process includes a software tool, 'RAP' that collects and communicates risk information between the various designers and a 'risk expert' who mediates this process. The establishment of this process is an attempt towards the systematic consideration of risk in the design decision making process. Using this process, we are able to better keep track of the risks associated with the design decisions. Furthermore, it helps us develop better risk profiles for the studies under consideration. We aim to refine and expand the current process to enable more thorough risk analysis capabilities in the future.

concurrent design↗
NASA NTRS1993

Mission Operations and Command Assurance: Automating an Operations TQM Task

Mission Operations and Command Assurance (MO&CA) is a Total Quality Management (TQM) task on JPL projects to instill quality into mission operations. The mission operations environment is inherently risky because each decision made is potentially mission critical. The flight operations environment generally requires operators to make rapid critical decisions and solve problems based on limited information, while closely following standard procedures. MO&CA's primary goal is to help improve the operational reliability and reduce risk of projects during flight. To achieve this goal, automation of the MO&CA task is required. MO&CA specifically embodies the TQM principle of continuous process improvement (CPI) in which processes are continually examined and analyzed for opportunities for improvement. The second way in which MO&CA implements CPI on JPL projects is on new projects or upgrades to existing projects.

mission↗
NASA NTRS2007

Decision Support Systems for Launch and Range Operations Using Jess

The virtual test bed for launch and range operations developed at NASA Ames Research Center consists of various independent expert systems advising on weather effects, toxic gas dispersions and human health risk assessment during space-flight operations. An individual dedicated server supports each expert system and the master system gather information from the dedicated servers to support the launch decision-making process. Since the test bed is based on the web system, reducing network traffic and optimizing the knowledge base is critical to its success of real-time or near real-time operations. Jess, a fast rule engine and powerful scripting environment developed at Sandia National Laboratory has been adopted to build the expert systems providing robustness and scalability. Jess also supports XML representation of knowledge base with forward and backward chaining inference mechanism. Facts added - to working memory during run-time operations facilitates analyses of multiple scenarios. Knowledge base can be distributed with one inference engine performing the inference process. This paper discusses details of the knowledge base and inference engine using Jess for a launch and range virtual test bed.

Thirumalainambi, Rajkumar↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA Earth Observations Informing Energy Management Decision Making

The Energy Sector is experiencing increasing impacts from severe weather and shifting climatic trends, as well as facing a changing political climate, adding uncertainty for stakeholders as they make short- and long-term planning investments. Climate changes such as prolonged extreme heat and drought (leading to wildfire spread, for example), sea level rise, and extreme storms are changing the ways that utilities operate. Energy infrastructure located in coastal or flood-prone areas faces inundation risks, such as damage to energy facilities. The use of renewable energy resources is increasing, requiring more information about their intermittency and spatial patterns. In light of these challenges, public and private stakeholders have collaborated to identify potential data sources, tools, and programmatic ideas. For example, utilities across the country are using cutting-edge technology and data to plan for and adapt to these changes. In the Federal Government, NASA has invested in preliminary work to identify needs and opportunities for satellite data in energy sector application, and the Department of Energy has similarly brought together stakeholders to understand the landscape of climate vulnerability and resilience for utilities and others. However, have these efforts improved community-scale resilience and adaptation efforts? Further, some communities are more vulnerable to climate change and infrastructure impacts than others. This session has two goals. First, panelists seek to share existing and ongoing efforts related to energy management. Second, the session seeks to engage with attendees via group knowledge exchange to connect national energy management efforts to local practice for increased community resilience.

Eckman, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP)

The Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP) evaluated 22 gaps and 39 tasks in the three risk areas assigned to the SHFE Project. The area where tasks were best designed to close the gaps and the fewest gaps were left out was the Risk of Reduced Safety and Efficiency dire to Inadequate Design of Vehicle, Environment, Tools or Equipment. The areas where there were more issues with gaps and tasks, including poor or inadequate fit of tasks to gaps and missing gaps, were Risk of Errors due to Poor Task Design and Risk of Error due to Inadequate Information. One risk, the Risk of Errors due to Inappropriate Levels of Trust in Automation, should be added. If astronauts trust automation too much in areas where it should not be trusted, but rather tempered with human judgment and decision making, they will incur errors. Conversely, if they do not trust automation when it should be trusted, as in cases where it can sense aspects of the environment such as radiation levels or distances in space, they will also incur errors. This will be a larger risk when astronauts are less able to rely on human mission control experts and are out of touch, far away, and on their own. The SRP also identified 11 new gaps and five new tasks. Although the SRP had an extremely large quantity of reading material prior to and during the meeting, we still did not feel we had an overview of the activities and tasks the astronauts would be performing in exploration missions. Without a detailed task analysis and taxonomy of activities the humans would be engaged in, we felt it was impossible to know whether the gaps and tasks were really sufficient to insure human safety, performance, and comfort in the exploration missions. The SRP had difficulty evaluating many of the gaps and tasks that were not as quantitative as those related to concrete physical danger such as excessive noise and vibration. Often the research tasks for cognitive risks that accompany poor task or information design addressed only part, but not all, of the gaps they were programmed to fill. In fact the tasks outlined will not close the gap but only scratch the surface in many cases. In other cases, the gap was written too broadly, and really should be restated in a more constrained way that can be addressed by a well-organized and complementary set of tasks. In many cases, the research results should be turned into guidelines for design. However, it was not clear whether the researchers or another group would construct and deliver these guidelines.

Wichansky, Anna↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Role in Putting Earth Science Information to Use in Decision-Making

The demand for decision-relevant climate information is continually growing, both because of the severity and intensity of climate change impacts and because of the growing recognition that people can take actions today that will mitigate the risk from future climate impacts. Agencies across the federal government are responding to this need by working together to support the Nation in becoming more resilient to climate change. NASA Earth Science has been a key engine of understanding global climate change and how it impacts people around the world. Additionally, for over two decades, the Agency has worked, via partnerships, to connect NASA Earth Science knowledge with decision support needs, often taking a service-oriented approach by working with boundary organizations and climate service providers. In this presentation, we describe NASA’s unique role in enabling new and practical uses of Earth science information, and how the Agency supports public and private sector partners. We highlight several key examples of NASA projects and activities that support local to regional climate resilience efforts. In addition, we discuss how NASA’s new Earth Information Center, a partnership among several federal agencies, enables in-person and virtual visitors to see how our planet is changing in ways that affect their lives and livelihoods. Lastly, we discuss plans for how NASA Earth Science will continue to help build a more climate resilient future.

earth science↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

FATE: The drifting Fish Aggregating Device (dFAD) TrajEctory Modeling Tool for Marine Protected Area Management

Drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs) routinely enter marine protected areas (MPAs) and may undermine MPA protections by drifting out of the MPA with the aggregated fish biomass, or grounding and damaging sensitive coral reef habitats. MPA managers must decide whether to deploy resources in response to dFAD intrusions. To address this issue, we propose to quantify dFAD activity in relation to ocean currents, fish biomass, and animal telemetry at Palmyra Atoll, part of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the central Pacific Ocean. Specifically, we propose to develop the dFAD TrajEctory Tool (FATE). FATE is an innovative decision support tool that will use NASA observations and numerical models to predict future dFAD trajectories and inform TNC and USFWS whether they should deploy tactical resources (boats, personnel) to monitor, intercept, or retrieve dFADs that have entered the Refuge. The objectives are to use NASA observational constraints on ocean winds and currents to assist with the ecological management of the Palmyra Atoll NWR and MPA. Specifically, we will deliver an operational software tool that quantifies the grounding risk associated with each tracked dFAD and decision support for grounding risk mitigation via intercept at sea. This project addresses Element 3.3: Protected area management of the 2022 Ecological Conservation Solicitation by developing a tool needed by MPA managers to make tactical and strategic decisions focused on improving the effectiveness of MPAs. By quantifying the riskof dFADs, this project will help monitor and better inform the deployment of tactical (ships/personnel) and strategic (legislative) resources to better manage MPAs. This project is a collaboration between The Nature Conservancy, who operate long-term projects within the Palmyra MPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who have the authority to make decisions related to its management. We expect that the results of our proposal will benefit marine resources within the Palmyra MPA and could be transferred to other remote MPAs within the US and other island nations within the Pacific Ocean.

TrajEctory↗
NASA NTRS2016

Integrating Spaceflight Human System Risk Research

NASA is working to increase the likelihood of human health and performance success during exploration missions as well as to maintain the subsequent long-term health of the crew. To manage the risks in achieving these goals, a system modelled after a Continuous Risk Management framework is in place. "Human System Risks" (Risks) have been identified, and approximately 30 are being actively addressed by NASA's Human Research Program (HRP). Research plans for each of HRP's Risks have been developed and are being executed. Inter-disciplinary ties between the research efforts supporting each Risk have been identified; however, efforts to identify and benefit from these connections have been mostly ad hoc. There is growing recognition that solutions developed to address the full set of Risks covering medical, physiological, behavioural, vehicle, and organizational aspects of exploration missions must be integrated across Risks and disciplines. This paper discusses how a framework of factors influencing human health and performance in space is being applied as the backbone for bringing together sometimes disparate information relevant to the individual Risks. The resulting interrelated information enables identification and visualization of connections between Risks and research efforts in a systematic and standardized manner. This paper also discusses the applications of the visualizations and insights into research planning, solicitation, and decision-making processes.

Mindock, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRS2016

Promoting a Culture of Tailoring for Systems Engineering Policy Expectations

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has developed an integrated systems engineering approach to promote a culture of tailoring for program and project policy requirements. MSFC's culture encourages and supports tailoring, with an emphasis on risk-based decision making, for enhanced affordability and efficiency. MSFC's policy structure integrates the various Agency requirements into a single, streamlined implementation approach which serves as a "one-stop-shop" for our programs and projects to follow. The engineers gain an enhanced understanding of policy and technical expectations, as well as lesson's learned from MSFC's history of spaceflight and science missions, to enable them to make appropriate, risk-based tailoring recommendations. The tailoring approach utilizes a standard methodology to classify projects into predefined levels using selected mission and programmatic scaling factors related to risk tolerance. Policy requirements are then selectively applied and tailored, with appropriate rationale, and approved by the governing authorities, to support risk-informed decisions to achieve the desired cost and schedule efficiencies. The policy is further augmented by implementation tools and lifecycle planning aids which help promote and support the cultural shift toward more tailoring. The MSFC Customization Tool is an integrated spreadsheet that ties together everything that projects need to understand, navigate, and tailor the policy. It helps them classify their project, understand the intent of the requirements, determine their tailoring approach, and document the necessary governance approvals. It also helps them plan for and conduct technical reviews throughout the lifecycle. Policy tailoring is thus established as a normal part of project execution, with the tools provided to facilitate and enable the tailoring process. MSFC's approach to changing the culture emphasizes risk-based tailoring of policy to achieve increased flexibility, efficiency, and effectiveness in project execution, while maintaining appropriate rigor to ensure mission success.

Blankenship, Van A.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Emergency medical service (EMS): A unique flight environment

The EMS flight environment is unique in today's aviation. The pilots must respond quickly to emergency events and often fly to landing zones where they have never been before . The time from initially receiving a call to being airborne can be as little as two to three minutes. Often the EMS pilot is the only aviation professional on site, they have no operations people or other pilots to aid them in making decisons. Further, since they are often flying to accident scenes, not airports, there is often complete weather and condition information. Therefore, the initial decision that the pilot must make, accepting or declining a flight, can become very difficult. The accident rate of EMS helicopters has been relatively high over the past years. NASA-Ames research center has taken several steps in an attempt to aid EMS pilots in their decision making and situational awareness. A preflight risk assessment system (SAFE) was developed to aid pilots in their decision making, and was tested at an EMS service. The resutls of the study were promising and a second version incorporating the lessons learned is under development. A second line of research was the development of a low cost electronic chart display (ECD). This is a digital map display to help pilots maintain geographical orientation. Another thrust was undertaken in conjunction with the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). This involved publicizing the ASRS to EMS pilots and personnel, and calling each of the reporters back to gather additional information. This paper will discuss these efforts and how they may positively impact the safety of EMS operations.

Shively, R. Jay↗
NASA NTRS2016

Integrating Spaceflight Human System Risk Research

NASA is working to increase the likelihoods of human health and performance success during exploration missions, and subsequent crew long-term health. To manage the risks in achieving these goals, a system modeled after a Continuous Risk Management framework is in place. "Human System Risks" (Risks) have been identified, and approximately 30 are being actively addressed by NASA's Human Research Program (HRP). Research plans for each of HRP's Risks have been developed and are being executed. Ties between the research efforts supporting each Risk have been identified, however, this has been in an ad hoc fashion. There is growing recognition that solutions developed to address the full set of Risks covering medical, physiological, behavioral, vehicle, and organizational aspects of the exploration missions must be integrated across Risks and disciplines. We will discuss how a framework of factors influencing human health and performance in space is being applied as the backbone for bringing together sometimes disparate information relevant to the individual Risks. The resulting interrelated information is allowing us to identify and visualize connections between Risks and research efforts in a systematic and standardized way. We will discuss the applications of the visualizations and insights to research planning, solicitation, and decision-making processes.

Mindock, J.↗