Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Professional Judgement”

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.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

An Analysis of U.S. Civil Rotorcraft Accidents by Cost and Injury (1990-1996)

A study of rotorcraft accidents was conducted to identify safety issues and research areas that might lead to a reduction in rotorcraft accidents and fatalities. The primary source of data was summaries of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports. From 1990 to 1996, the NTSB documented 1396 civil rotorcraft accidents in the United States in which 491 people were killed. The rotorcraft data were compared to airline and general aviation data to determine the relative safety of rotorcraft compared to other segments of the aviation industry. In depth analysis of the rotorcraft data addressed demographics, mission, and operational factors. Rotorcraft were found to have an accident rate about ten times that of commercial airliners and about the same as that of general aviation. The likelihood that an accident would be fatal was about equal for all three classes of operation. The most dramatic division in rotorcraft accidents is between flights flown by private pilots versus professional pilots. Private pilots, flying low cost aircraft in benign environments, have accidents that are due, in large part, to their own errors. Professional pilots, in contrast, are more likely to have accidents that are a result of exacting missions or use of specialized equipment. For both groups judgement error is more likely to lead to a fatal accident than are other types of causes. Several approaches to improving the rotorcraft accident rate are recommended. These mostly address improvement in the training of new pilots and improving the safety awareness of private pilots.

Iseler, Laura↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Methods for Developing Successful Systems Engineers

Systems Engineering (SE) is a complex and challenging field that incorporates the knowledge of systems engineering processes, the ability to synthesize a wide-range of engineering disciplines, and the ability to lead a team of people to successfully accomplish the goals of a project. It requires hard technical skills and soft-skill leadership savvy. As a result, three main development needs are identified: 1) Knowledge of SE processes, the benefits of these processes to a project and their tailored application 2) Knowledge of a wide-range of engineering disciplines, how they interrelate in a system, and the development of sound technical judgement 3) Team leadership to direct and motivate a team of subsystem and discipline experts This paper describes the establishment of a comprehensive training and development program for Systems Engineers at NASA Ames Research Center that addresses in part each of these three areas from the perspective of the implementing manager. A variety of methods have been utilized including the establishment of a SE Community of Practice, a unique and innovative web tool, on-line videos, classroom training in NASA’s 17 Common Technical Processes, guidance on the tailored application of these processes, monthly technical talks, mentoring in both technical judgment and team leadership, and NASA’s Leadership Development Programs. While much of professional SE development must come through project experience, the approaches listed above can accelerate development. The diversity of skills required of Systems Engineering demands a multi-faceted approach to successfully train and develop this critical skill.

development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Methods for Developing Successful Systems Engineers

Systems Engineering (SE) is a complex and challenging field that incorporates the knowledge of systems engineering processes, the ability to synthesize a wide-range of engineering disciplines, and the ability to lead a team of people to successfully accomplish the goals of a project. It requires hard technical skills and soft-skill leadership savvy. As a result, three main development needs are identified: 1. Knowledge of SE processes, the benefits of these processes to a project and their tailored application 2. Knowledge of a wide-range of engineering disciplines, how they interrelate in a system, and the development of sound technical judgement 3. Team leadership to direct and motivate a team of subsystem and discipline experts This paper describes the establishment of a comprehensive training and development program for Systems Engineers at NASA Ames Research Center that addresses in part each of these three areas from the perspective of the implementing manager. A variety of methods have been utilized including the establishment of a SE Community of Practice, a unique and innovative web tool, on-line videos, classroom training in NASA’s 17 Common Technical Processes, guidance on the tailored application of these processes, monthly technical talks, mentoring in both technical judgment and team leadership, and NASA’s Leadership Development Programs. While much of professional SE development must come through project experience, the approaches listed above can accelerate development. The diversity of skills required of Systems Engineering demands a multi-faceted approach to successfully train and develop this critical skill.

development↗
DOE OSTI2023

Third-Party Aggregation Rulemaking in MISO and SPP Footprints

The report highlights key considerations for retail regulators in the footprints of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) or Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in states that previously opted out of allowing third-party aggregation participation under FERC Order 719 and that may want to explore reversing the decision due to a changing policy environment under new FERC orders (i.e., 2222) and/or tightening resource adequacy constraints. Through a document review and a series of 27 interviews with regulators, aggregators, and other industry professionals, this document provides a high-level policy overview of the retail regulator’s role in a selection of processes, rules, and regulations to better understand how states have treated and/or integrated aggregators into wholesale markets. The report summarizes findings in two sections: General Findings and Specific Policy Findings. The General Findings offer high level takeaways such as the fact that 17 of the 20 states in MISO and SPP footprints opted out of third party aggregations following Order 719. Additionally, there is only one state that is fully restructured in the MISO and SPP footprints whereas the rest are vertically integrated, and the majority of third-party aggregations in the U.S. take place in restructured states outside of these footprints. Even so, third-party aggregations do take place in MISO and SPP albeit in small numbers and in an ad hoc regulatory environment. The specific policy findings delve deeper into specific examples of state actions on the topics of jurisdiction, registration and licensing, data governance, dual participation, and dispute resolution. Tables in each category organize state actions into Tiers I-III, which roughly correspond to the possible level of involvement or possible change necessary by state regulators and/or legislators to implement these actions. The tier level does not indicate any value judgement, as each state has respective regulatory limitations and each decision comes with various tradeoffs. One main tradeoff is between simplicity and quick implementation versus comprehensive and prolonged implementation. In many cases, actions in Tier I could be implemented without significant changes by relying on the use of existing processes for an aggregator context. On the other hand, many actions in Tier III are more narrowly designed to address aggregators specifically, but often require more significant changes including the involvement of additional parties through stakeholder engagement or legislative action. In some cases, these tiers are discrete. However, state regulators may also choose to progress through these various tiers sequentially as they phase in aggregators while learning from their experience. With the ability to stack bulk system level services, distributed energy resource aggregations in MISO and SPP could provide various private benefits (e.g., increased value streams to the owner) as well as societally beneficial grid services (e.g., peaking capacity, ancillary services, and other services that increase the grid’s overall operational efficiency). In deciding how to best to enable these benefits, states and retail regulators must weigh various tradeoffs if considering reversing a previous opt out.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗