Developing a New System Safety Standard for U.S. Army Aviation

1. Developing a New System Safety Standardfor U.S. Army Aviation Presented at the International Helicopter Safety Symposium 2005 Montréal, Québec, Canada September 28, 2005 David B. West, PE, CSP, CHMM SAIC 6725 Odyssey Drive Huntsville, AL 35806 (256) 313-2091 david.b.west@saic.com

2. Developing a New System Safety Standardfor U.S. Army Aviation OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION • Introduction – the domain of U.S. Army Aviation What it is, who’s involved, and what they do • Existing Standards and Regulations From DoD Instruction 5000.2 on down • The Current Situation and Its Challenges Similarities and differences among the various Army Aviation system safety programs • Opportunities to Benefit from Standardization • Recommendations

3. Introduction U.S. Army Aviation • Over 5000 Aircraft – the largest fleet in the world • Helicopters, Fixed Wing Aircraft, UAVs • Majority of helicopters: • CH/MH-47 Chinook • UH/MH-60 Black Hawk • AH-64 Apache/Longbow • OH-58 Kiowa/Kiowa Warrior • Fixed wing aircraft – a variety, managed under a single Army PM • UAVs – increasing in importance; managed by a separate PM • Special Ops Aircraft; managed by TAPO

4. Introduction (cont.) Who’s Who of U.S. Army Aviation • Aircraft Manufacturer (OEM) or Prime Contractor • “Foundation” of each Army aviation program • Provides the aircraft and after-market services • PEO Aviation; owns and manages all Army aircraft • Program Managers (PMs) to manage each major program (e.g., Cargo Helicopters, Utility Helicopters, etc.) • In some cases, Product Manager reports to PM (e.g., Fixed Wing Product Manager reports to PM Aviation Systems) • RD&E Command / AMRDEC / Aviation Engineering Directorate (AED) • Matrix engineering support to programs

5. Introduction (cont.) Who’s Who of U.S. Army Aviation (cont.) • Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) • Airworthiness (per AR 70-62); delegated to AED • “Gatekeeper” of System Safety Processes • Issues Safety of Flight (SOF) / Aviation Safety Action Messages (ASAM) • Coordinates and tracks all system safety risk assessments (SSRAs) • Reviews and coordinates on AWRs, ECPs, MWOs, RFD/RFWs, SARs, test plans, etc. • Developmental Test Command (DTC) • Operates Aviation Technical Test Center (ATTC)

6. Introduction (cont.) Who’s Who of U.S. Army Aviation (cont.) • Combat Readiness Center (CRC) • Formerly the U.S. Army Safety Center • Conducts accident investigations; maintains accident data • Director of Army Safety is also CRC Commander • Army Safety Action Team (ASAT) • Senior Army leadership; reviews Army-wide safety issues • Developmental Test Command (DTC) • Operates Aviation Technical Test Center (ATTC)

7. Existing Standards and Regulations • DoD Instruction 5000.2 • Single paragraph on ESOH in Enclosure 7 (HSI): “[PM must] prevent ESOH hazards where possible, and ... manage ESOH hazards where they cannot be avoided.” • Four risk levels and their acceptance authorities • MIL-STD-882 • “Tailorable” – selected application of requirements • First published 1969; Rev. E to be published 2005 • AR 70-1, Army Acquisition Policy • Specifies Army’s risk management process

8. Existing Standards and Regulations (cont.) • AR 70-1 provides “risk decision authority matrix”

9. Existing Standards and Regulations (cont.) • AR 385-16, System Safety Engineering and Management • Requires major Army programs to establish SSWGs • Standardizes the system safety risk assessment (SSRA) process

10. Existing Standards and Regulations (cont.) • PEO Aviation Policy Memo 05-14

11. Existing Standards and Regulations (cont.) • PEO Aviation Policy Memo 05-14 (cont.) • Outlines responsibilities of PMs, AED, SSWGs for all programs under PEO Aviation • Requires source-mechanism-outcome description of hazards • Requires use of common risk matrix:

12. The Current Situation and Its Challenges Similarities / Differences in Application of System Safety to Army Aviation Programs • Similarities – the good news: • Some due to deliberate attempts (e.g., PEO Policy Memo), such as common risk matrix, SSRAs, ASAM/SOF • Some safety issues common due to general nature of Army Aviation and helicopter design • Short duration, low altitude flight • Engine failure; autorotation • Similar flight control and rotor system mechanisms • Identical or similar weapon systems or auxiliary systems on different platforms

13. The Current Situation and Its Challenges (cont.) Similarities / Differences (cont.) • Differences in safety considerations: • Kiowa autorotation vs. Chinook or Black Hawk autorotation • Single engine vs. multi-engine • No. of crew/passengers: 0 (UAVs) to 2 (Kiowa, Apache) to 30+ (Chinook) • Helicopter hazards vs. fixed wing hazards • Common risk matrix, but different interpretations • Considerable variations in SSPPs, Hazard Tracking Systems • See Table 1 in paper

14. Opportunities to Benefit from Standardization Exemplary “State-of-the-Art” Frequency of Practice Minimum Acceptable Consensus CuttingEdge Level of Detail and Accuracy Source: APT Research, “Revising Draft MIL-STD-882E; Strawman Improvements and Rationale.” Presentation by Pat Clemens at the 110th meeting of the GEIA G-48 System Safety Committee. 2005. Goals: (A) Improve mean practice (B) Decrease spread in practices (B) (A)

15. Opportunities to Benefit from Standardization (cont.) • Make life easier for Army leadership (e.g., ASAT) that deal with all Army Aviation programs • Enhanced agility of work force • Shared resources – e.g., Hazard Tracking Systems = I-C Hazard I-C Hazard

16. Opportunities to Benefit from Standardization (cont.) Hazard Frequency (Mishaps per 100,000 Hrs (11.4 years)) TBD N TBD M TBD L TBD K TBD J Super Improbable I Incredibly Improbable H Extremely Improbable G Very Improbable F Improbable E Remote D Occasional C Probable B Frequent A Severity 1 10 1E-11 1E-10 1E-9 1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 13 End of Life on Planet Earth Earth encounter with an asteroid $2Q 1B Fatal Cataclysmic2 $200T 100M Fatal TBD11 $20T 10M Fatal TBD10 High $2T 1M Fatal TBD 9 Serious $200B 100K Fatal Disastrous 8 Medium $20B 10K Fatal B-2 Catastrophic7 Low F-22, C-17 $2B 1K Fatal Catastrophic 6 $200M 100 Fatal AH-64, CH-47, UH-60 Catastrophic 5 $20M 10 Fatal C-12, OH-58D Catastrophic4 $2M 1 Fatal Small Unmanned Air Vehicles Critical 3 $200K Marginal 2 $20K Negligible 1 $2K

17. Opportunities to Benefit from Standardization (cont.) • Specific Areas of Opportunities: • Risk Summation • Risk Matrix Modernization • Definitions • Boilerplate SSMPs • Minimum Requirements for Hazard Tracking Systems • List of Generic Hazards • Lessons Learned • Online Access

18. Recommendations • Develop and publish a new standard for application of System Safety to U.S. Army Aviation • All affected organizations should be involved • Incorporate specific opportunities cited herein