System Safety Mechanics

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

Safety 440 System Safety Management

This country is experiencing the safest three-year period in the history of commercial aviation and that has a lot to do with the top-down commitment to safety across the aviation industry (rita.dot.gov, 2005). Safety professionals across the country are excited to continue this trend by implementing a new concept known as System Safety Mechanics. System Safety Mechanics is a comprehensive overview of the entire life cycle of a part, component, or assembly. Utilizing the tools discussed in this paper, the mechanics of this program will not only create a safer aviation industry but provide a highly cost effective operation as well. In addition to discussing techniques on how to approach an aviation operation and transform it into a safe and self-sufficient system, this paper will also discuss the most important ingredient, training. System Safety has been defined by the United States Naval Safety Center as the accepted methodology for identifying potential hazards during the design process and preventing hazards by addressing their root causes. This methodology proactively identifies risks inherent in a process, reviews operational systems for possible failure modes and provides a systems engineering practice principles approach to tracking and resolution of potential hazards (safetycenter.navy.mil, 2008). The Department of the Army has taken this concept very seriously and has written a 55-page pamphlet containing very detailed information on how to use and implement a System Safety Program way back in 1987. Outside the United States Government, many civilian industries are now being pressed to assume corporate social responsibility and improve safety for employees and the environment, keep in mind, these industries have not been typical users of safety systems, but now want to adopt a System Safety Program to enhance process safety (controlglobal.com, 2008). Typically, new industries find themselves swamped with information on safety standards and terminology that can seem overwhelming. For existing companies, they sometimes find it best to hire a specialist to examine and implement a new compliance program. Remember, companies that simply comply with the rules and regulations are not fully enhancing their entire system because each system is different and needs to be evaluated as such. This is the greatest advantage of implementing a System Safety Program. A System Safety Program specifically analysis’s each particular process and the analytical methods are state of the art. At this point, we should understand the definition of a system. Simply put, a system can be thought of as a composite consisting of people, procedures, and facilities and/or hardware working in a given environment to perform specific tasks (Stephans, 2004). A system cannot function properly without realistic principle values to operate by; this should be generated from the upper management level. Integrity, teamwork, goal for excellence, and purposefulness are some examples of a valued-based approach that management can follow in their style to carry out daily missions (system-safety.org, 2008). Reasonable goals should be assessed through knowledge, existing information and science and technology capabilities. If goals for a system fall outside a reasonable expectation, the system will ultimately fail as a result. Companies implementing a System Safety Program must have this concept on the forefront of every step in this transformation. Design and Construction Phase Once a company has established this foundation for a System Safety program to be implemented, it is time to ask three simple questions. Where do we want to go and where are we now, these questions will allow a company to get an overview of how to fill the gaps in between (Stephans, 2004). For new companies, the design and construction phase begins now. The design phase involves an appointed System Safety Working Group (SSWP), the SSWP makes decisions on the design of the facility based on the preliminary hazard list (PHL), and the preliminary hazard analysis (PHA). The PHL is a list of hazards evaluated by a member from each function of a part, component, or assembly. This includes everyone from the engineer who designed it to the mechanic actually going to be using it. The PHL is then analyzed further to create a PHA. This will provide an intelligent insight on how to design a facility (FAA handbook, 2000). The second phase for new companies is the construction phase. Two safety related activities are now taking place, unsafe design flaws are recognized and the necessary changes are being incorporated. There are two types of hazards that may be identified at this point, known and unknown. Hazards not previously recognized are re-evaluated by the SSWG (FAA handbook, 2000); this will ensure continuity throughout the system. It is important to mention that training all affected employees will benefit the system greatly at this point as well. The construction phase is a very vital part of the entire system and should be well thought out by the SSWG. This is a perfect example as to why companies (new or existing) should nominate the most experienced members for their SSWG. These same principles would apply here to an existing company with the exception of the SSWG utilizing the PHL and PHA to design a System Safety Program. The PHL will require a rigorous effort, and the PHA will require even more. During this process, a company must evaluate whether or not the risk will outweigh the cost of change. The graph below can be used as an example of the cost of change and its relationship to which phase the part, component, or assembly is in. As one can see the cost of change increases rapidly and may outweigh the risk involved to incorporate a change.

(http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/costOfChange.htm) Methodologies There are some very unique methodologies SSWG’s can use to benefit their System Safety Program implementation. Choosing the appropriate method will ultimately reduce costly changes in the late stages of implementation. One methodology used is known as the evolutionary method. System capabilities are increased with the delivery of each incremental release until the system is complete. Users have early access to system releases and are encouraged to provide performance feedback, which is used to shape the system as it evolves into its final form (Anderson, 1998). This method will improve system quality for a new or existing company through the continuous concentration of user requirements by providing user involvement results (Henderson, 1997). Another methodology used is the incremental method; an incremental model is characterized by acquisition, development, and deployment of an operational capability through a series of clearly-defined, stand alone system increments. Using this strategy, user needs are determined, the architectural design is defined, and development occurs in a sequence of builds (Hinton, 1998). Both methodologies, evolutionary and incremental are very useful tools and should if utilized; begin in the design and construction phases. User interaction is a key element in these methodologies and will provide input for future training requirements. Operations Phase When the system becomes operational, safety concerns are now directed toward evaluating any hardware or procedural changes that may have occurred. As mentioned earlier, user involvement within the life cycle is detrimental to the system. While operations activities are in process, they should be reviewed to ensure that maintenance procedures are not hazardous or cause other hazards. Emergency procedures and any training programs should be evaluated to ensure the proper safety standards exist. Any problems or accidents in the system must be investigated to determine a root cause. Hazards identified by the user should be reported and the procedures used must be in accordance with the program literature (Department of the Army, 1987). Determining the root cause can be done through a number of analyses available to the SSWG. A root cause analysis identifies the set of multiple causes that together might create a potential accident. Root cause techniques have been successfully adapted to meet the needs of the system safety concept, most notably the tree structure from a Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), which originated from an engineering technique. The root cause analysis techniques can be categorized into two groups, the tree technique and the check list method. Some examples are the Management Oversight and Risk Tree (MORT) analysis and the Event and Causal Factor (ECFA) method (wikipedia.org, 2008). Successfully determining the root cause of a problem will ultimately benefit the training program by providing accurate information to the effected employees. Disposal Phase During activities associated with the decommissioning of a facility or equipment, hazardous materials may be found. There are numerous federal and state regulations governing the disposal of these hazardous materials and waste. Identification of hazardous materials has been designated for disposition and failure to comply with these regulations can lead to fines, penalties, and other regulatory actions. As per the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, sates and local authorities may fine or penalize federal officials fro not complying with state and local environmental requirements (FAA handbook, 2000). This can become a very sensitive issue is an existing facility has been in commission for a long period of time because identification of hazardous materials may require lab testing. The important thing for new companies to do is to ensure identification of all hazardous materials introduced are properly labeled.

Training Now that a company has identified all the appropriate areas and phases to focus the requiring safety training, one must understand what it takes to learn and retain important information. This can be done in many ways, audio, visual, physical or a combination of the three. This is important to mention because every individual will process information differently, however, there is a core standard for learning and retaining information, motivation. Dwecks’ (1986) definition of motivation is the desire or want that energizes or directs goal-oriented behavior. Although emotions are not goal oriented, there is a direct relationship between the two. Emotions occur as a result of an interaction between perception of environmental stimuli, neural/hormonal responses to these perceptions, and subjective cognitive labeling of these feelings (Kleinginna and Kleinginna, 1981). One can conclude that motivation is created as a result of positive emotions toward learning through direct interaction with the applications set forth in this System Safety Program implementation. Motivation can be categorized as either being extrinsic (outside the person) or intrinsic (inside the person); these can be subcategorized as you can see in diagram #1.
Diagram #1

[pic]
(Valdosta.html, 2007)
This diagram illustrates the direct relationship between both categories (extrinsic and intrinsic) of motivation and how they are correlated to the subcategory of social cognition. One should pay close attention to the orientation of social cognition on the diagram. The importance of the relationships and behavior becomes evident. With that in mind, emotions role in motivation can be predicted with an environment created by social interaction, this aids to motivate an individual to learn from the applications set forth in this System Safety Program implementation. Creating and maintaining a System Safety training Program over a long period of time would require some substantial leadership. This program will require the initiation of new principles, procedures, and longevity, all of which are fundamental components of a good leader. Motivation expressed from a leader to achieve a goal will spread throughout a work culture when people believe what they are doing will be beneficial. Effective leaders who teach these basic principles to coworkers and subordinates will develop a high level of profound knowledge and expertise within then entire System Safety Program (Geller, 1996). Leaders that are able to produce motivated individuals can now begin to expose the individuals to the proper training. For system safety related training to be most effective, memory has to be considered. Information is best retained when the experience has an emotional effect. To create this effect, the SSWG material must be presented during and throughout the phases previously mentioned. Today, aviation training covers most anticipated situations with basic generalized procedures; however, as Schankhand (1995) pointed out, “most supplied generalizations are forgotten if not used regularly”. In order for a system safety related training program to be most effective, it would require regular training intervals. This can be determined by the SSWG through the processes available with this System Safety Program implementation. In conclusion, in order to obtain a safer aviation industry, effective System Safety Mechanics are critical. As discussed earlier, system safety related training will be a very beneficial element for an effective System Safety Program to withstand the entire life-cycle of a new or existing company. Every event in the program implementation is important however slight. The analyses discussed in this paper are just a few tools utilized by aviation manufacturers across the globe. With the appropriate application, I believe a System Safety Program can not only be productive, but be achieved as well. Without such a program, one can only imagine the benefits aviation industries are missing. References:
Anderson, D. (1998). General Acquisition Process, Defense Acquisition Deskbook. U.S. Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. December 18, 1998

Bourlet, D (2004). How Planning Can Provide Cost-Effective Design and Successful Project Execution. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2008/163.html

Department of the Army. (1987), System Safety Management Guide, Chapter 1 &3., September 4th 1978.
Dweck, C. (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist. 41(10), 1040-1048.
FAA, (2000). Facilities System Safety, Chapter 12, Analytical Techniques.December 30, 2000.
Geller, E. S. (1996). Working Safe: How to help people actively care for health and safety. Radnor, PA: Chilton Book Company.

Henderson, D. E., & Gabb, A. P. (1998). Using Evolutionary Acquisition foe the Procurement of Complex Systems, Defense Acquisition Deskbook, U.S. Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. December 18, 1998

Hinton, H. L., (1998). Successful Application to Weapon Acquisitions Requires Changes in DOD’s Environment, National Security and International Affairs Division, United States General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., March 24, 1998
Kleinginna, P., Jr., & Kleinginna A. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 345-379.
Lotz, R. (2005). New alliance to improve aviation safety by Roger Lotz. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.rita.dot.gov.htm.
Naval Safety Center. (2008). System Safety Approach to Acquisition Risk Cost Management. Retrieved October 17, 2008 from http://safetycenter.navy.mil/acquisition/systemsafety/default.htm
Schankhand, R. C., & Cleary. C. (1995). Engines for Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stephans, R. A., (2004). System Safety for the 21st Century, Chapter 7, Tasks.

System Safety Society. (2008). The System Safety Society Strategic Plan.
Retrieved October 13, 2008 from http://www.system-safety.org/about/strategic.php

Wikipedia (2008). System Safety Definition.
Retrieved October 17, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_safety