1. 0 DSOC Program Review Acquisition and Technology Programs Task Force Mr. Nicholas Torelli, Chair Ms. Elizabeth Rodriguez-Johnson, Deputy Chair April 23, 2009

2. 1 SAFE PRODUCTS FOR WARFIGHTERS Safety Community Working Collaboratively DoD Acquisition Process JCIDS Process Warfighter Needs MILDEPs Safety Orgs DSOC A&T Safety Org. (AT&L) I&E Safety Org. (AT&L) 1

3. ATP TF Driving Safety Early in the Acquisition Process (e.g., JCIDS) 2

4. 3 APT TF Approach MAXIMIZING CAPABILITY THROUGH SYSTEM SAFETY OUSD(A&T) ATP TF Activity Policy Define enhancements that result in improved DoD business processes Guidance Develop and improve safety in handbooks, guides and other acquisition publications Continuous Process Improvement Streamline and enhance effectiveness of Departmental safety processes Education & Training Develop and refine DAU acquisition training classes to address safety policy Outreach Focus on communications to Acquisition stakeholders (DoD, industry & academia) Assessment Tools Develop tools that support better system safety decision- making OUSD(A&T) ATP TF Focus Areas

5. 4 ATPTF: Maximizing Capability Through System Safety Materiel Solution Analysis CBA Joint Concepts MS CMS B Strategic Guidance MS A ICD Technology Development CDD Engineering and Manufacturing Development CPD Production and Deployment O&S MDD CDR Full Rate Production Decision Review SustainmentSystem AcquisitionPre-System Acquisition Unmanned System Safety Guide Systems Engineering “V” Model System Safety-ESOH Evaluation Tool CLE 009 Safety Technologies in Tactical Vehicles 5 USD(AT&L) policy memos Unmanned System Safety Guide DoD & SOCOM JSWLSSR Guides Safety Technologies in Tactical Vehicles System Safety-ESOH Evaluation Tool Systems Engineering “V” Model CLE 009 16 DAU Courses Updated System Safety - ESOH Eval Tool CLE 009 Unmanned System Safety Guide Systems Engineering “V” Model Safety Technologies in Tactical Vehicles Completed Ongoing JCIDS Process JCIDS Guide CJCSI 3170.01F update MIL-STD-882D update Safety Technology Insertion Study DoDI 5000.02 and DAG System Safety updates Software Safety Guide Updates ESOH Risk Reporting Guide MIL-STD-882D update JSWLSSP Instruction JCIDS Process JCIDS Guide CJCSI 3170.01F update 5 Assessment Tools Joint Safety Test Reqmts Guidance on use of CPLD Safety Technology Insertion Study DODI 6055.7 2 Assessment Tools ESOH Risk Reporting Guide MIL-STD-882D update Integrating System Safety Across the Life Cycle Management Framework

6. 5 Joint Service Weapon/Laser System Safety Certification Process – Proven at SOCOM (ROI: 59% cycle time reduction, 56% cost reduction) – Expanded DoD-wide; applied on MRAP Barriers to insertion of high-payoff safety technologies (Valley of Death syndrome) – Aviation Safety Technologies Report (PBR 10 -15, PDM 1 task) Reporting high and serious risks at DABs, per DoDI 5000.02 Guidance for Industry acquisition community: System Safety Metrics Method Addressing safety in JCIDS process ATP TF: Maximizing Capability Through System Safety (Examples)

7. 6 ATP TF: Maximizing Capability Through System Safety Next Year’s Focus: ATP Master Plan Workshop identified DoD-wide safety gaps Top four gaps: 1. Acquisition programs are not getting/utilizing safety information for decisions 2. Lack of OSD/Service HQ visibility on safety policy implementation 3. Cooperation across the Services on safety- related issues 4. Effectiveness of mishap investigation reporting and root cause analysis

8. 7 Working Together To Provide Safer Products to the Warfighter 7

9. 8 ATP TF Initiatives Summary Acquisition Tools and Demonstrations 2008 Safety Into JCIDS Joint Service Safety Test Standards ESOH into DAU Phase III Joint Weapons/Laser Systems Safety Review Guide Joint Software Systems Safety MIL-Handbook 2007 Develop GSA and DLA procurement guidelines for tools and gloves that will reduce hand-arm vibration disease Develop a web-based software tool to be used by acquisition analysts to perform risk assessments for multiple DoD programs Demonstration/Validation to Improve Ladders on Ships

10. 9 ATP TF Initiatives Summary Acquisition Tools and Demonstrations 2006 Noise Exposure Acquisition Tool (NEAT) System Safety Metrics Method (SSMM) ESOH Programmatic Risk Tool 2005 Quantify Economic, Productivity & Injury Issues for Human Factors in Acquisition ESOH Into DAU Phases I and II

11. 10 ATP TF Initiatives Summary Aviation Safety Improvements Initiatives 2008 Joint Fly Awake 2007 Tech Support Collision Avoidance Validation Tool (Unmanned Aerial systems) Flight Data Management System Demonstration (OSD/Army) Dem/Val Rotary Wing Terrain Awareness technology to reduce Controlled Flight Into Terrain Joint Low Level Deconfliction Tool “Joint” Maintenance Resource Management (MRM) web-based tools 2006 Mid Air Collision Avoidance Website AF and ANG MRM web-based courseware Global War on Error Aircrew Training (OSD/USMC) 2005 Small Bird Radar Slips Trips and Falls on Ice

12. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Safety into Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) ATP TF (DSOC Year 4 – 2008) POC: Mr. Sherman Forbes (Sherman.forbes@pentagon.af.mil) Objectives: Develop a training package for use by the Services’ ESOH Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to understand how to successfully provide inputs to the JCIDS as well as provide an understanding of the JCIDS process. The training will at a minimum be web-accessible. Justification: Provides the opportunity to preserve combat capability through the identification of system specific ESOH requirements that can contribute to the reduction of mishaps that could otherwise damage or destroy the system itself, injure or kill operation of maintenance personnel and damage the natural infrastructure required to support the system. Approach: Conduct of multiple National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Workshops related to establishing effective safety requirements for JCIDS documentation Conduct of multiple SME workshops to develop the training material and incorporate feedback on the JCIDS process into the training. Develop a detailed outline of the training documentation. Ensure training is available to end-users Recent Accomplishments: Held a meeting to review comments on the database tool Reviewed the sample weapon systems that will be analyzed under this initiative Developed requirements and hazards for the sample weapon system to help further develop the database tool Planning for workshops continues Anticipated ROI: This training will allow for a timelier submittal of ESOH input, which can influence the JCIDS design in its earlier stages when it is more effective. This training will communicate the process for incorporating ESOH requirements into JCIDS and will assist in establishing appropriate and effective ESOH requirements and minimize repeating past mistakes in future designs. Next Steps: Identify key stakeholders and SMEs for invitation to the workshops Begin coordinating the agenda and presentation for the workshops and conduct a planning meeting Continue populating the database with known ESOH issues and system-tailored requirements to address the issue JCIDS represents the identification of needed capabilities upon which acquisition programs are built.

13. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Establish Joint Service Safety Testing Requirements Standards for the Joint Service Safety Technical Advisory Panel (JWSTAP) - ATP TF (DSOC Year 4 – 2008) POC: Mr. James D. Gerber (james.gerber1@navy.mil) Objectives: To develop a common set of system-level safety testing standards for weapon/explosive systems to preclude unnecessary testing costs and delays in fielding Service’s system testing requirements. Justification: Historically, the Services have used their own safety testing standards to certify that a weapon/explosive system is safe once fielded. Given the need for weapon/explosive systems to operate in a more joint operating environment, it has become apparent that similar, but duplicate, safety testing occurs. Approach: Perform an analysis of current system-level safety tests and the conduct of safety testing workshops with the associated test Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Conduct analyses to identify duplicate and inconsistent system/subsystem/component safety tests among the Services. Coordinate various SME workshops to build consensus on safety tests by lifecycle mode. Establish common safety testing requirements for Service weapon/explosive systems with the assistance of the Service SMEs. Update the Joint Service Safety Advisory Technical Panel Manual, upon agreement and establishment of common safety testing requirements by the Services. Recent Accomplishments: Preparing for the April 2009 meeting of the JWSWG Continued updating Microsoft Access database to allow assessment for a standard set of classifications Initiated joint development of definitions for the following terms of reference: Safe to Use Safe to Dispose Safe and Operable Anticipated ROI: Reduce the time to field weapon/explosive systems yielding cost savings by not repeating similar but duplicate safety testing requirements. Next Steps: Pursue an Army co-lead for the task Pursue government co-lead for Drop Test Workshop among SMEs at Army Developmental Test Command (DTC) and Army Test and Evaluation Comment (ATEC) Gain consensus on terms of reference Start planning and preparations for 2nd workshop on Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (EEE, E3) Testing

14. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Integration of Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) into Defense Acquisition University Curriculum, Phase III - ATP TF (DSOC Year 4 – 2008) POC: Mr. David Asiello, ODUSD(I&E) (David.asiello@osd.mil) Objectives: Provide ESOH requirements and guidance into DAU Curricula as a follow on to previous DSOC funded initiatives, ESOH in DAU Curricula Phase I and Phase II. Justification: Integration of ESOH content in DAU curricula raises awareness of ESOH requirements in the acquisition workforce and can help ensure effective integration of ESOH considerations into the systems engineering and overall risk management processes. Overarching DoD goal is to have ESOH considered as part of the design and trades process rather than as a post design requirement that often requires costly retrofits or work-arounds that negatively impact system performance, supportability, safety, and total ownership cost. Approach: Review/revise materials for the following courses: TST102, "Fundamentals of Test and Evaluation.” SYS101- "Fundamentals of Systems Planning, Research, Development, and Engineering” SYS202, "Systems Engineering Management,“ SYS203, "Intermediate Systems Planning, Research, Development and Engineering (Part 2)," SYS302, "Advanced Systems Planning, Research, Development and Engineering (Part 1)," Commit experienced SMEs in the appropriate acquisition and ESOH discipline to review and make recommendations for revisions Coordinate with the Acquisition ESOH Lead in the Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (ESOH) as appropriate to ensure the most current policy and guidance is incorporated into the courseware. Deliver annotated course materials with proposed revision within the original document/ materials, as well as a written summary of proposed changes with the rationale for the change for each of the identified courses. Provide revised course content to the Technical Management Career Fields Functional Advisor’s staff for coordination with DAU. Update additional courseware time permitting (PMT 352, IRM 101, CON 111, and CON 112) Anticipated ROI: Help ensure effective integration of ESOH considerations into the systems engineering and overall risk management processes. Recent Accomplishments: Confirmed courses to revise Commenced efforts on SYS101 Next Steps: Report status of changes from Phases I and II in DAU courseware Ensure that DAU does not already have process in place for updating courses in conjunction with new DoDI. Complete SYS101 Begin preparing for review of SYS202

15. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Weapons/Laser Systems Safety Review Guide– ATP TF (DSOC Year 4 - FY2008) POC: Mary Ellen Caro (mary.caro@navy.mil) Objectives: Develop, refine, and document processes for Joint Service safety reviews of weapon systems and laser systems Justification: Weapons are being used in Joint warfighting environments JROCM 102-05, 20 May 2005 states: “…weapons and weapons systems will be considered joint systems…” Joint Service weapon and laser safety review process already implemented in support of USSOCOM; this initiative expands process DoD-wide One Joint Service review, vice independent, serial reviews by each Service Requirements from one Service may conflict with those of another PM responsible for adjudication of conflicting safety requirements Long term interoperability benefit Approach: Joint Weapon Safety Working Group (JWSWG) established with representatives from each of the Services safety review authorities, and from OSD. Develop a weapon and laser safety review guide for PMs to apply Review guide will identify data requirements that will meet criteria for each of the DoD Services safety review authorities Recent Accomplishments: The.99 version of the draft Joint Services Weapons and Laser Safety Review Guide has been approved by each of the Services representatives to the JWSWG A joint meeting of the Service safety review authorities was held the week of 30 March to review two programs for application of the Joint review guide criteria Several laser systems are currently in process and being reviewed per the guide Anticipated ROI: Acquisition Program Managers will be able to engage the weapon safety community once to get a single, adjudicated position from the Service safety review authorities. This will replace the serial path for reviews with potential conflicting requirements. Joint reviews proven at USSOCOM (ROI: 59% cycle time reduction, 56% cost reduction) Next Steps: The final 1.0 version of the Joint Services Weapons and Laser Safety Review Guide will be published on the DSOC ATP TF web site Execute the joint safety review process for pilot programs to evaluate against guide criteria and update as necessary Transition: Draft DoD Instruction to institutionalize the Joint weapon safety review process has been developed and is being coordinated within Joint weapon safety community, in preparation for formal OSD staffing.

16. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Joint Software Systems Safety Handbook – ATP TF (DSOC Year 4 - FY2008) POC: Arch McKinlay (archibald.mckinlay@navy.mil) Objectives: Update the 1999 Joint Services Software Systems Safety Handbook for today’s software, complex circuits, and network environments Justification: Software is being used in more safety critical functions Weapon and combat system developers must consider safety within the architecture and design of weapon systems Handbook will provide government and industry criteria and best practices for the development of software that will fulfill its mission functions while also operating safely Approach: A group of software safety experts from DoD, other Government departments (FAA, NASA) and industry collaborate on best practices Processes and best practices for modern software implementation (e.g. networks, open architecture, system of systems) are being developed. Coordinate update with NATO standards updates. Industry collaboration and coordination throughout update. Flow charts with entrance and exit criteria for software safety activities being defined Recent Accomplishments: System of systems chapter is in draft Chapter on use of Complex Programmable Logic Devices (CPLDs) in draft Graphics and process charts are being updated and formatted for MIL-HDBK level of development Anticipated ROI: Requirements for the development of safe software, firmware, and COTS will be available for system engineers and software developers to incorporate into the specifications and system designs early rather than correcting safety issues late in the development and testing phase. Next Steps: The final 1.0 version of the Joint Software Systems Safety Handbook will be published on the DSOC ATP TF web site Reformat Handbook into Military format and enter it into the formal standards coordination process Transition: Handbook will be available through ASSIST for use by the DoD and wider community

17. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Web Based Risk Assessment Tool (CREATe) – ATP TF (DSOC Year 3 – 2007) POC: Mr. Bill Edmonds, Army Combat Readiness Center (bill.edmonds@us.army.mil) Objectives: Develop a web-based software tool to be used by safety analysts to perform hazard analyses and risk assessments (not compliance) for multiple DoD programs Justification: Typically, the safety professionals perform hazard analyses; however, the efficacy of this process is directly proportional to the experience of the practitioner in selecting the appropriate analytical technique, access to similar data from like systems and engineering prowess in selecting the most appropriate control to provide the best cost benefit & risk reduction. A web-based tool offers a central repository for hazard analyses for multiple programs. Tool could be used as a basis for standardizing hazard tracking and risk assessment in DoD programs enabling Program Executive Offices/Program Managers (PEOs/PMs) to look across systems to identify trends and use probability elements as a leading indicators of mishap occurrence, providing a starting point in developing preliminary hazard analyses from similar systems, and allowing leadership to assess risk management for high/serious risk hazards across the system life cycles. Approach: Conduct workshop for Services, Government Agencies, and Industry to refine and review safety system risk assessment tool requirements Develop and beta test tool Collect feedback and refine tool Determine host (s) and prepare tool for deployment Progress: Computerized Risk Evaluation and Assessment Tool ­ electronic (CREATe) developed based on requirements Principal purposes of CREATe are to serve as a user-friendly software tool for providing a common foundation for hazard risk analyses, supporting standardized hazard tracking and risk assessment across complex programs, and improving analyses of program data while reducing risk of data corruption. End Users requested to test CREATe and return feedback questionnaire Anticipated ROI Shared communication; reduced duplication of effort if information on hazard identified and mitigated in System A can be leveraged for System B Program cost savings Consistency across DoD programs Facilitate informed decision making at the right level of authority Next Steps: Complete Software Beta test Develop final version of software based on feedback Conduct Software acceptance testing Develop users manual Work with Services and end users to identify hosting solutions and long term maintenance plans

18. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Progress: Conducted two half-day workshop on topic at Navy and Marine Corps Public Health (NMCPH) Conference March 21, 2009 in Hampton, VA. HAV related brochure and occupational exposure to HAV fact sheet were developed. GSA issued two NSNs for Low-Vibration tools: Rivet guns & powered shears Continued work to ensure ISO 10819 A/V certified glove standard and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S2.70-2006 HAV exposure standard, used to evaluate HAV power tool vibration. Also providing input to Military Standard 1472 (DOD Ergonomics standard). Continue to work to get (A–V) gloves cataloged in the Federal Supply System. Currently, the only manufacturers of certified ISO 10819 A–V gloves are all non- compliant with the law regarding the stipulation that all assembly and components must be made in the US. A DLA ‘waiver’ was submitted. Two vendors are willing to make certified anti-vibration gloves in US. Process has proven very difficult. The Air Force is continuing to review past ergonomic evaluations and considering approaches to updated hand-arm vibration evaluations. Next Steps/Transition: Collect glove use data from depots to justify DLA Supply Support Request and NSNs assigned to ISO 10819 certified anti-vibration gloves Identify major high risk/high use tools and major tool users ID manufacturers compliant with Title 10 USC/Berry Amendment (Made in USA) Educate DoD about HAVS via outreach program. Modify Service-specific safety rules and regulations so it is mandatory to use proper safety gear on specific jobs Reclassify gloves currently in the DoD system that are not ISO10819 certified Hand Arm Vibration (HAV) Criteria for Tools & Glove Selection - ATP TF (DSOC Year 3 – 2007) POC: Mark Geiger (mark.geiger1@navy.mil) Objectives: Develop and implement procurement guidelines for power hand tools and anti-vibration gloves to reduce the risk of permanent disability from circulation and nerve damage in the hands and arms (Reynaud’s Syndrome or Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome - HAVS). Justification: Lack of procurement guidelines allows a preventable health risk to continue New ANSI standards exist and are being applied in commercial sector Low vibration tools/anti-vibration gloves are now available and need to become available in government market Proven relationship between reduced exposure and disease avoidance—lack of action increases potential liabilities Reduction in vibration exposures WILL result in reduced injury rates Approach: Identify/gather DoD stakeholders, team members, SMEs, and POCs Conduct initial conference at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in Feb 2008 to understand problems and draft revised procurement guidelines Establish tool and glove safety standards and 3rd party certification criteria Identify major users of power hand tools (ex. military depots) Identify major high-use/high-risk tools Work with Defense Logistics Agency and General Services Administration (GSA) and Services to support new tools/gloves and improve ordering process Initiate new tool and glove National Stock Numbers (NSN) into DLA/GSA channels Publish new procurement guidelines/safety standards Distribute educational materials through acquisition/supply channels Conduct outreach to community users and leaders DoD-wide to educate civilian workers and military members to be more informed and demanding customers

19. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Development of Common Design and Evaluation Guidelines for the Access Aids (Ladders) for Shipboard Inclined Ladders – ATP TF (DSOC Year 3 - FY2007) POC: Mark Geiger (mark.geiger1@navy.mil) Objectives: Mishap evaluation and identification and trial deployment of alternative ladder technologies, including retractable handrails, for shipboard inclined ladders “stairs” for both retrofits and new systems. Justification: Limitations of the handrail at the top of the inclined ship board ladders. In cases where the ladder penetrates a space that will require hatch closure, the fixed section of the handrail ends before plane of the hatch. A removable chain and stanchion arrangements spans the gap. The rigging of these chains often does not provide a secure handhold at the top of the ladder. Carrying of materials that limit the ability of the sailor to get a firm grasp on a handrail often increases the challenges. Approach: 1. Obtained/ analyzed injuries related to ladders from Naval Safety Center. 2. Identified relevant criteria for ladders and related access aids. Identify design alternatives, including product-specific information where available. Identify possible limitations (weight, mobility, etc.) and advantages of each product. 3. Design demonstration/validation to test down-selected alternatives Implement plan and complete detailed cost-benefit analysis 4. Communicate results to designers, developers and program reviewers. Work with logistics representatives to ensure that best products are in the system and available for use. Recent Accomplishments: Project commencement with Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division Ships Systems Engineering Station (NSWCCD) to evaluate investigate a retractable and/or quick removable handrail extension for use on inclined ladders accessing watertight hatches to mitigate the risks associated with shipboard mishaps. Anticipated ROI: Common designs problems lead to frequent injuries to sailors and marines at sea as well as civilian personnel during shore maintenance periods reduce readiness and productivity. Relatively low-cost retrofit solution is intended to reduce these injuries for existing ships and may be applicable to new vessels. Next Steps: NSWC continue support of concept proposal investigation: Assemble ladder drawing/spec package for reference/review Investigate ladder problem and various concepts/designs as required Prepare design drawings, as required Provide overall technical oversight and system integration Provide preliminary direction to OEM and review recommendations Identify potential solution and prepare final report/presentation for DSOC/ladder team Transition: Cost Benefit analysis to provide validation for platform procurement. NAVSEA Technical authorities for system safety and Hull Outfitting as well as PMS 278 plan is to develop design and ship design change document to installation of Navy surface ships, if demo is successful. FALL DATA INVOLVING AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN) by LADDER TYPE A nalysis of 203 incidents over 10 years

20. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council NEW HANDRAIL DESIGN FOR INCLINED LADDERS Provides for extendible handrail that collapses when hatch closes Hatch Stantions Handrail Handrail extends above deck, provides secure handhold open Hatch open, handrail extended Hatch closed Rail collapsed

21. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Noise Exposure Acquisition Tool (NEAT) – ATP TF (DSOC Year 2 – 2006) POC: Mark Geiger (mark.geiger1@navy.mil) Objectives: Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate a general noise exposure life cycle tool to assist the acquisition community in building a business case for addressing noise induced hearing loss during the design/plan phase of development of major weapon system acquisitions Help answer- What does noise cost the DoD and taxpayers? Justification: Noise exposure impacts operational readiness (Speech intelligibility, Human performance) Hearing loss is the most prevalent occupational health disability in the DoD Veterans Affairs compensation costs ~$1.102 billion (FY2005) 760,228 cases – 78,463 new cases in FY2005 DoD civilian worker compensation costs ~$56 million (FY2003) The significance of noise exposure on human performance and the long-term medical effects of hearing loss have not been consistently communicated to the acquisition community. Note: Does not include legal costs. Approach: Work with ATP TF and DoD Noise Working Group members to develop requirements, review and test functionality of tool Use existing information and methods to extend model applied to shipboard noise control to other systems and equipment Provide more clear link to system safety risk management, including identification of the level of management risk acceptance Results: Developed and evaluated easy-to-use Excel-based tool to calculate life cycle cost of noise exposures. User Guide created. NEAT demonstrated to: Summarize costs of hearing loss linked to noise exposure Describe reduced costs associated with reduced exposures Calculates life-cycle costs due to hearing loss caused by dynamic steady-state noise exposure (military tactical vehicle) and constant steady-state noise exposure (mechanical room, cockpit) Determine system safety risks (MIL-STD 882) for noise exposure with and without noise reduction devices Calculate speech interference levels for noisy environments Illustrate the potential cost savings from integrating noise controls in the acquisition phase of military system procurements Incorporate realistic approach to de-rate protective equipment effectiveness (actual (field) versus ideal (lab) noise reduction rating) ROI: Use of NEAT supports early and quantifiable identification of noise as a health and human performance risk factor Next Steps/Transition: Work with PMs to validate the NEAT tool for current military systems and apply to future developments Work with program reviewers (during milestone reviews) and independent test and evaluation contacts to address life cycle costs and risk. Consider follow-on to widen application to facilities, communications systems and possibly environmental noise Make the NEAT tool available to potential users via ATP TF, Navy, and other Service websites. (Currently posted on Naval Safety Center website). Conduct technical and educational outreach to increase awareness and tool use Sample Output - Note fiscal costs only weakly reflect the human health and social impacts of hearing loss Costs without Engineering Solutions and/or Advanced Hearing Protective Devices

22. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council System Safety Metrics Method (SSMM) – ATP TF (DSOC Year 2 – 2006) POC: Mr. Bill Edmonds, Army CRC (bill.edmonds@us.army.mil) Objectives: Develop a method for safety managers to gauge the health or “goodness” of a safety program at any stage of the lifecycle of the program. Provide a set of questions to be used to gather information about the current state of a program or organization and to guide the safety program to continuous improvement. Justification: The rationale for the need to develop such a method is based on the current rate for accidents attributed to human error which lies in a range of 80-90%. Enable system safety practitioners, primarily contractors, to assess the effectiveness of system safety while a program is up and running and not an "after the fact analysis" at a decision review. This method will enable the practitioner to make improvements on the move before the "eleventh hour"— which is in line with a continuous improvement assessment tool, rather than a programmatic assessment tool that often focuses on whether or not goals are met at the end of the project, when it is too late to address any issues. Approach: 2 workshops consisting of system safety practitioners (individuals who are hands-on analysts) Poll taken among system safety professionals regarding optimization of program measurements Beta test consisting of program practitioners (individuals with management responsibilities) Results: Can be easily used to gauge the health of a system safety program throughout its lifecycle Can identify safety inadequacies and provide feedback to direct positive corrective action Gives tight focus of results on specific areas needing improvement Provides Mature industry and Government programs a means to gauge existing program health and immature industry and/or Government programs a “way ahead” Offers a common language supporting effective execution for system safety at each phase in the life cycle effort for acquisition programs. Anticipated ROI: Provides prompt results at a low development cost and no cost to maintain (SSMM and question set is Excel Based) No special expertise required to administer Next Steps/Transition: AMCOM Safety Office has beta tested model and plans to continue use of the model on other safety efforts. Post executable SSMM on web sites: OSD ATP Task Force, the AT&L Knowledge Sharing System/Defense Acquisition University, Defensereadiness.org, etc. Continue outreach and awareness to encourage use of tool ATP TF co-authored article to appear in National Defense Industry Association magazine in May 2009

23. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Next Steps/Transition: Project was assessment only—to serve as a basis for defining the scope of a follow-on program, as appropriate Redesign and streamlining of tool for Air Force is underway Transforming from 5-M model to acquisition phased based model and reducing size and complexity As the next release of the tool is deployed reengage with ATP TF A true multi-service PRT would likely need modules to address Service- specific requirements and would have to be completed as part of a follow-on effort. Once the new version of the Air Force PRT has been deployed, it is recommended that the DoD Acquisition Integrated Product Team (IPT) be briefed to determine if there is interest in reengaging NAVSEA, USMC, and also Army acquisition programs for further evaluation, development, and/or adoption. ESOH Programmatic Risk Tool Summary Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) Programmatic Risk Tool ATP TF (DSOC Year 2 – 2006) POC: Alex Briskin (alex.briskin@wpafb.af.mil) Objectives: Modify the current programmatic risk tool (PRT) employed by the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) to evaluate the acquisitions program for up to two other Services Justification: PRT is used to evaluate ESOH programmatic risks for weapon system programs and to provide a template for completing a Programmatic Environmental, Safety and Health Evaluation (PESHE) for DoDI 5000.2 Approach: Adapt/Initialize Air Force Tool for Navy and US Marine Corps (USMC) Demonstrate PRT and train users Evaluation by Navy and USMC Results: PRT modified and assessment identified the gaps that need to be bridged if the tool is to be successfully adopted by the other Services Feedback indicates that PRT methodology is effective and beneficial  “The model was very effective for our program” USMC  “The PRT provides a good structure/baseline for establishing a program’s ESOH efforts, especially during beginning/planning stages. The risk waterfalls and lessons learned are useful and informative. The visual risk matrix tool may be very beneficial for communicating risk…” – NAVSEA  “Those programs who conduct monthly Program Reviews would definitely find the PRT outputs /reports beneficial when disseminating the ESOH progress in the overall risk management strategy.” – USMC Feedback also indicates that PRT is too cumbersome and would not likely be widely used as-is:  “Although most of my comments show favorable results…I strongly doubt the PRT will be a good fit for MARCORSYSCOM… Time consuming … not enough value added” - USMC  “…given resource constraints, unsure how effective the Tool would be if the ESOH manager did not routinely populate and update” - USMC  “Tool potentially would become outdated quickly if it were not supported and managed…A lot of time to enter relevant information” – NAVSEA  “…intimidating and creates an overwhelming reaction…training is crucial to understanding the Tool’s nuances, but is also intensive” - NAVSEA

24. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Approach: Develop a methodology for identification and review of human factors/ ergonomic risk factors that could be understood and applied by multiple audiences Provide a primer on how ergonomics can be integrated into the acquisition process Identify common design and evaluation criteria and provide examples Conduct outreach to improve pilot and encourage use of tool Results: Tool that provides comprehensive process overview of risk factors through all acquisition phases completed and available Part 1—Human Injury Risk Analysis Procedure—focuses on identifying system specific injury risks and determining their significance in terms of likelihood and severity at the task level Part 2—Human Injury Risk Matrix—used to provide examples of potential risks associated with generic tasks to sensitize the user to risk issues, and to provide a model for how to identify risks Quantify Economic, Productivity & Injury Issues for Human Factors in Acquisition ATP TF (DSOC Year 1 – 2005) POC: Mark Geiger (mark.geiger1@navy.mil) Objectives: Develop a Human Engineering and Ergonomics Analysis Process (HEERAP) and Human Injury Risk Matrix, which together can be used as a tool by human factors and safety professionals involved in DoD system acquisition to identify human safety and health hazards risks and mitigation recommendations based on ergonomic principles. Ensure tool provides guidance suitable for multiple audiences to understand ergonomics/ human systems integration risk factors and apply human engineering approaches to improve designs proactively. Describe potential life-cycle risks and potential return on investments (savings) provided by optimal designs. Justification: Ergonomics is considered to represent the single largest source of claims and costs to the Navy and roughly $90 million annually or one- third of all recent Navy compensation claims. Continued high incidence of human injury associated with poor system design. (Designs are inconsistent DoD-wide and in industry). Anticipated ROI: Reduce preventable injuries and overuse syndromes Link efficiency, manpower optimization and system safety Save life cycle costs Evaluate a hypothetical process to illustrate potential impact of reducing injury risk and manpower costs. By demonstrating an alternative way to handle a possible injury risk situation, the person significantly reduces their possibility of sustaining an injury and demonstrate return on early investment. Next Steps/Transition: Continue distribution to ergonomics contacts (Army), human systems integration contacts (Navy) and system safety society contacts (multiple service) Continued professional outreach Ensure tool available via various Website postings Possible work with program reviewers to apply methodology (Test and Evaluation Organizations; Integrated Logistics Assessment Process; Manpower Reviews) Analysis as related to discipline n Human systems integration (HSI)  Ineffective use of manpower  Would training help? n System Safety  Will they drop it?  If so, what happens? n Ergonomics (and occupational safety)  Will this create a back injury? Objective is to help varied disciplines collaborate to support the warfighter and support personnel

25. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Integration of Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) into Defense Acquisition University Curricula, Phase I and II - ATP TF (DSOC Year 1 – 2005) POC: Trish Huheey (patricia.huheey@osd.mil) Objectives: Ensure acquisition program personnel receive the necessary training to manage ESOH hazards and associated risks as elements of the program’s systems engineering and risk management processes through the evaluation and incorporation of ESOH content in DAU curricula. Justification: Supports emphasis of ESOH considerations during system design, reducing need for workarounds Supports reduction in accidents/mishaps due to system hazards Approach: ODUSD(I&E) provided all of the ESOH-related comments/revised course content to the DAU Technical Management Career Fields Functional Advisor’s staff, Incorporation into curricula is dependent upon DAU revision schedule Results: Phase I completed Apr 07. Reviewed and provided ESOH comments/content for the following courses:  LOG 102, ACQ 101, SAM 201, LOG 235 A & B, SYS 101, SYS 202, CLM 035 and ACQ 201A Phase II completed Jan 08. Reviewed and provided ESOH comments/content for the following courses:  SYS 203, Intermediate Systems Planning, Research, Development & Engineering (Part 2)  FE 201, Intermediate Facilities Engineering  SYS 302, Technical Leadership in Systems Engineering  LOG 101, Acquisition Logistics Fundamentals  CLE 009, Systems Safety & Systems Engineering  PQM 101, Production, Quality Assurance, and Manufacturing  SAM 101, Basic IT and Software Acquisition Management  CON 110, Mission Support Planning  PMT 401, Project Management Tools, DDG1000 - Destroyer/CIGS case study Anticipated ROI: Proper ESOH training in DAU curricula can ensure effective integration of ESOH considerations throughout the system’s life cycle design, providing for optimal user training, performance, supportability, and safety, at a potentially reduced total ownership cost Next Steps/Transition: No feedback mechanism to know when DAU Course Manager reviews, Accept/Declines, and incorporate comments into the course materials—must review each course to see if changes incorporated. Follow on-effort under DSOC Year 4 (FY2008) to continue process on additional courses/case studies

26. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Fly Awake Aviation Fatigue Mitigation - ATP TF/ASTWG (DSOC Year 4 – 2008) POC: Captain Lynn Lee (lynn.lee@ang.af.mil) Objectives: Provide the Warfighter with a usable tool to assess and mitigate fatigue in joint aviation operations Justification: Fatigue represented in $500M of AF aviation mishaps FY06-FY08. Causal/contributory in 28% of Naval aviation mishaps. Existing fatigue modeling software (FAST) technically excellent, but unusable by field unit aviators and schedulers due to interface. Proactive fatigue modeling shown effective at 201AS (DCANG) in operational risk mitigation Approach: Put fatigue modeling in the hands of the Warfighter, where it will be used Make it available, automated, and simple to understand Design FlyAwake based on ongoing feedback from flight surgeons, physiologists, researchers, pilots and schedulers Results: Critical mass reached to make significant inroads on fatigue Naval Safety Center has joined partnership Naval Postgraduate School leading integration of FlyAwake with Navy’s SHARP scheduling system Walter Reed Army Institute of Research validating work/sleep estimates with actigraphy using volunteer aircrew Army, Navy, Air Force units participating Air Mobility Command integrating with TACC’s ORM matrix FlyAwake 2.0 on target to be released in June Anticipated ROI: 15-25% drop in fatigue-related mishaps - ROI greater than 500:1 Avoidance of one significant Class B mishap will recoup entire cost of program Next Steps: Integration with scheduling systems Continued outreach to operators via medical and safety community Ground fatigue identified as significant issue -- WorkAwake coming next Will target shift work fatigue in maintenance, security forces, more

27. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Technical Support for Collision Avoidance Validation Tool for Unmanned Aerial Systems ATP TF / ASTWG - (DSOC Year 3 - FY2007) POC: Mr. Mark Wilkins, OSD RP&A (mark.wilkins@osd.mil) Objectives: Provide technical support for the development of a validation tool to simulate a broad range of air platform characteristics, collision avoidance algorithms, and sensor algorithms for use with Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) aircraft. Justification: The DoD’s warfighters have become increasingly reliant on unmanned aircraft for a wide variety of missions. Many of those missions have been carried out in geographies that have no or minimal civil aviation traffic. In those locations, military air traffic control does not have to interface and comply with civil authorities’ requirements to manage manned and unmanned air traffic. Developing a collision avoidance capability is essential to minimize the potential for UAS mishaps and support mission success. Approach: Provide technical support to assist NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) with development of their simulation and validation tool, including coordination with the various stakeholder agencies in an effort to solicit program support and advocacy. Accomplishments: Worked hand-in-hand with personnel from OSD and NASA/DFRC to develop a National Automatic Collision Avoidance Technology (NACAT) Advocacy briefing. Conducted conversations with numerous influential individuals, including the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, advocating pursuance of this technology. The Assistant Secretary of the USAF for Acquisition shared vision for an open-architecture, non-proprietary Collision Avoidance solution that can be transported across any/all air platforms with the OSD UAS community, and the NASA Administrator. Anticipated ROI: Continued codification of UAS policy and development of tools to support world-wide UAS operations and minimize potential for UAS mishaps. Next Steps: The technical support provided through this initiative facilitated the continued funding and development of the Collision Avoidance Tool through NASA/DFRC, and potentially funding for flight testing. Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

28. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Potential Benefits: ALERTS allows viewing of the entire flight with 3D or 2D flight-path and satellite imagery Data analysis may reveal potential trends and predictors that could lead to Aviation mishaps—enabling proactive safety measures Foster a “change of culture” for both experienced pilots and new students to take with them to the field in support of future MFOQA processes Develop training procedures to take full advantage of objective Flight Analysis and Visualization technology Identify potential attributes of an MFOQA program for non-bussed aircraft Provide operational knowledge and understanding of how the ALERTS system can be used on training aircraft Next Steps: Complete the collection and analysis of data Complete final report and recommendations Facilitate a transfer of the equipment following data collection completion Provide results and insight to PM TH67 for follow on effort Flight Data Management Demonstration/Validation- ASTWG/OSD/Army (DSOC Year 3 – 2007) POC: Mr. Cary Pool, Concepts and Requirements Directorate Fort Rucker (cary.pool@us.army.mil) Objectives: Conduct a demonstration/validation of 28 Aircraft Logging and Event Recording for Training and Safety (ALERTS TM ) system on Fort Rucker’s TH-67, a non-bussed training aircraft. Justification: The DoD loses up to $1.5B to aviation mishaps. Approximately 80% of mishaps are due to human error. The low cost Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Flight Data Management (FDM) ALERTS tool could lead to reducing human error in non-bussed aircraft ALERTS helps to identify training or safety issues by reviewing individual flights and trending the larger group of flights Approach: Install and maintain equipment for 28 ALERTS systems at Fort Rucker Assess ALERTS during the Flight School XXI Instrument Phase of flight training to evaluate the potential of this technology to enhance safety and training effectiveness for Army Aviation’s training aircraft, specifically: Assess the workload associated with employing the tool Survey flight instructor pilots (IPs) to determine performance of FDM system to allow precise de-brief of maneuvers, leading to enhanced overall student performance Monitor impacts and trends through use of data analysis and user surveys. Based on analysis and feasibility of capabilities tested during the demonstration period incorporate requirements into other programs. Progress: 28 units installed and testing underway Instructor Pilot (IPs) receptive; survey data analysis in process IPs requested information that the current ALERTS system does not offer (e.g., airspeed) Time constraint prevents some IPs from using the tool for every debrief; students provided access to flight data files via the AKO web site to allow at-home review ALERTS Recorder Behind Co-pilot Seat in TH-67

29. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Rotary Wing Terrain Awareness Dem/Val - ATP TF/ASTWG (DSOC Year 3 - FY2007) POC: Col Peter Mapes (Peter.Mapes@osd.mil) Objectives: To demonstrate and validate a Global Positioning System (GPS) Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) terrain and weather advisory system with a vertical obstruction database capability on H-60 helicopters to reduce Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) mishaps. Justification: This capability directly addresses conditions of rotary wing flight contributing to over 17% of non-human factor mishaps and 97% of human factor mishaps in the Army and the Air Force. This is 67.4% of all mishaps in those Services. Approach: System to be delivered, installed and tested on 2 Army (Ft Eustis and Ft Rucker) and 1 Air Force (Andrews Air Force Base ) TH-60 helicopters Letter requesting Service engagement was sent to each Service DUS for IE&S. (Navy declined) Recent Accomplishments: Completed IRB process received waiver Developed detailed Dem/Val Plan Shipped equipment Funded assistance to aid the Services in installing the equipment Completed installation for Air Force Assisting Army with installation Finalized survey and plans for survey implementation developed Anticipated ROI: ROM investment of $750K plus $150M+/- in fleet system acquisition costs could yield savings of $38M and 5 lives/year initially. Full payback would be achieved in 4 years with the additional benefit of saving 20 lives. Next Steps: Commence survey collection and analysis at Andrews Air Force Base Complete installation for Army helicopters and commence survey collection Transition: If results determine through pilot’s objective evaluation that technology has mishap prevention value, OSD will start to work with the supplier to militarize the capability and make recommendations to the Services to POM for, procure and employ the capability.

30. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Potential ROI: Ability to standardize disparate manual and automated scheduling processes, versus the current process of looking at the FLIP A1/BP manual and trying to locate a contact name and phone number to deconflict a low level route, will increase the consistency and safety of the process of deconfliction – potentially reducing both midair and near-midair incidents and eliminating overlooked conflicts from disparate users and systems. Next Steps/Transition: Secure partnership with FAA and sponsorship from the Pentagon Airspace and Range agency AF/A3O-AR to build a planning scheduling application. Obtain budget approval for next iteration of JLLDT as scheduling tool and determine DSOC’s participation if necessary. Ensure that JLLDT is live with MADE by June 09 when MADE updated / launched. Continue to educate each Base on the use and input for Low Levels into MADE Move to CAC authenticated secure military server. Track number of conflicts identified prior to flight and “users” per month – any increase airspace usage. Joint Low Level Deconfliction Tool – ASI TF / ASTWG (DSOC Year 3 – FY2007) POC: Lt Col Gary Smith, AETC (gary.smith@ang.af.mil) Objectives: Provide secure, widely accessible real-time, graphic display of low- level route status to deconflict scheduling of military flying. Increase training capability by more efficient use of routes. Justification: This portal will assist in preventing Mid-Air collisions and reducing near Mid-Air collisions between military aircraft on low-level training routes. Approach: Establish requirements from CONUS and combat theater subject matter experts Negotiate access to existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data supplied by Military users in the Military Airspace Data Entry (MADE) system Results: Joint Low Level Deconfliction Tool (JLLDT) functionality tested and proven and is now available at www.deconflict.org Offers pilots and schedulers across all DoD flying units the ability to reduce and eliminate the risk from training conflicts below 1,500 feet Demonstrates real time airspace deconfliction for FAA applications Preserves combat training airspace in CONUS through responsible use Standardizes disparate manual and automated scheduling processes, and retrieves FAA military user data supplied by military users Working with FAA and Pentagon Air Space to develop and confirm transition plans and funding support for a scheduling application (one stop shop)

31. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council “MRM” Web Based Tools Expansion Service-wide - ASI TF (DSOC Year 3 – 2007) POC: Lt Col Ed Vaughan (edward.vaughan@ang.af.mil) Objectives: Leverage USAF success to expand use and development of web- based tools to support other Service risk management classroom style training Justification: Facilitate mishap reduction through expansion of web-based support tools and improved accessibility to training videos, materials and curriculum. Approach: Leverage AFMRM web-based videos and training tools to develop similar products for each Service. Meet with interested Service POCs to define requirements and ensure tools meet end-user needs Develop training materials based on requirements Progress: Identified Navy and Army POCs interested in concept Tailor tools to meet Service nomenclature Navy defined requirement for :30 second attention-grabbing videos targeted at the following topics: Motor vehicle / motorcycle safety; Poor Judgment / Decision Making; Failure of Attention / Complacency; Failure to recognize hazard / employ adequate risk controls; Failure to use publications / follow procedures; Failure to use proper tools and/or protective equipment; Failure to supervise / provide guidance; Lack of communication; Lack of assertiveness; Poor teamwork; Perceived pressure / Stress; Unqualified personnel / lack of training; Attitudes; Distractions; Alcohol use / abuse; Poor organizational climate / culture; Poor situational awareness; Improper use of norms – “this is how we’ve always done it…”; Fatigue Initial discussions with Army completed Subcontractor identified to conduct this effort recently became unable to perform the work; identifying replacement vendors to meet Navy needs. Once Army requirements better defined, will identify appropriate subcontractor to implement. Anticipated Results/ROI: Preventable human error in the Maintenance (MX) function for aircraft, armor, vehicles, and ships is universally applicable Greater accessibility to training content Training tools facilitate classroom training and help target 18-26 year old population Next Steps: Identify replacement vendor to complete Navy videos Ensure videos meet Navy requirements yet can be leveraged for other Services Meet with Army POCs to define requirements Develop web-based tools based on requirements

32. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Mid Air Collision Avoidance (MACA) Website – ASI TF (DSOC Year 2 – FY2006) POC: Lt Col Ed Vaughan (edward.vaughan@ang.af.mil) Objectives: Reduce mid-air collisions and close calls through rapid development and execution of a website linking civilian and DoD aviation safety programs to facilitate exchange between civilian pilots and military aviators to help eliminate mid-air collisions and close calls. Justification: This portal will provide military pilots with centralized, credible “one-stop shopping” reciprocal information and education on airspace, visual identification, aircraft performance, and mutual hazards to safe flight. Approach: The portal www.seeandavoid.org was completed and is available for military and civilian use. Results: Civilian pilots proactively engaging military bases Mission Planning tool for General Aviation Pilots Partnership with Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Over 25,000 visitors within the last year Has become the defacto USAF Civilian collision avoidance tool!! 193 Flying Units represented on-line: 79 ANG / 34 AF Reserve / 56 USAF / 15 Navy, Marine / 9 Army Related follow-on effort to reduce military on military low level near misses is underway (joint low level deconfliction tool) Transition: ANG funding commercial server Air Combat Command Safety (ACC) funded expansion of site to include coalition flying theatres in Afghanistan and Iraq Next Steps: Air National Guard continues marketing and outreach effort Utilize successful “Don’t Fly Naked” campaign Ensure site continues to be available as dot.org for ease of use by target civilian end users Continue to work with Service flying wings to ensure all are represented

33. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Approach: Develop web-based courseware and videos to complement USAF MRM classroom training program with a focus on reducing USAF preventable human error in flightline maintenance operations. Results: Developed customizable e-learning MRM courseware with video- centric supplements to enhance the on-line training experience. Developed website at www.afmrm.org as the forum through which the e-learning content and videos can be accessed by instructors and participants. Courseware provides a wealth of resources for coaches and students to learn key human factors skills that contribute to the reduction of maintenance related mishaps. MRM program described by former HQ USAF/SE, “Air Force’s 80% solution for VPP” Over 12,000 Airmen trained including Major Command Instructors Additional 1,000 trained online HQ USAF/A4 making MRM training mandatory throughout USAF HQ Air Mobility Command also drafted MRM training regulation Being added to AFI 21-102 “Aircraft and Equipment MX Management” Air Force /ANG Maintenance Resource Management - ASI TF (DSOC Year 2 – 2006) POC: Lt Col Ed Vaughan (edward.vaughan@ang.af.mil) Objectives: Leverage proven Risk Management concepts and training and adapt the current Air National Guard (ANG) Maintenance Resource Management (MRM) courseware for an Air-Force wide application as a pilot-courseware package to determine if the courseware/tools/website can be applied DoD-wide Justification: Improves Efficiency and Readiness while decreasing injuries and mishaps. Anticipated ROI MRM program already credited with saving two aircraft - ROI 500:1 Cost per base 20x less than offered by large commercial vendors Next Steps: Leverage AFMRM web-based tools for expansion to support other Services risk management classroom style training via the “joint” MRM training initiative.

34. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Global War on Error for Aircrew – ASTWG/OSD/USMC (Direct Funded - FY2006) POC: LtCol Miller, HQMC SD, (michael.s.miller5@usmc.mil Objectives: Provide Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) Safety Division (SD) with courseware development and training for an error based training syllabus entitled Global War on Error (GWOE). Design, develop, and instruct five training modules: - G-WOE 1.0. Professional flight discipline - G-WOE 2.0. Physiological aspects of error - G-WOE 3.0. Human error types, causes and personal countermeasures - G-WOE 4.0. Attention management, memory and recall - G-WOE 5.0. Automation utilization in error prevention Justification: Avoidable human error remains the leading cause of mishaps and incidents on and off duty. The GWOE program applied a unique approach to reducing errors in aircrew and achieved positive results in reducing mishaps based on feedback from Commanders and participants. Approach: GWOE is a first of its kind program designed to take error prevention to the individual level and teaches warfighters and first responders how to recognize and correct their own error patterns. Case studies combined with instructor led discussion were used as part of the curriculum that was developed. The modules were used by USMC Commanders, aircrew and instructors at the operational level and was piloted at the 4 th Marine Air Wing. This is a traditional, facilitated classroom instructional format. Results: Five modules of instruction were developed and piloted The modules were placed on line through the Marine.Net, the USMC Learning Management System (LMS) The positive feedback received from ground Commanders has resulted in the nomination of DSOC initiative using GWOE for maintainers to include a module for other applications. Anticipated ROI: The 4 th Marine Air Wing (MAW) reported that the facilitated GWOE training resulted in significant savings, reduced mishaps and increased personal accountability error control training. The benefit of the GWOE training was based on feedback and critiques received from the 4 th MAW from students. No cost benefit analysis was completed. Transition: The USMC adopted GWOE as a Service-funded program for GWOE Air Crew training.

35. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council Bird Airstrike Hazard Small Mobile Radar - ASI TF (DSOC Year 1 - FY2005) POC: Mr. Eugene A. LeBoeuf (eugene.leboeuf@kirtland.af.mil) Objectives: Demonstrate highly mobile, fully automated, self-contained radar system capable of discerning real-time conflicts between wildlife and aircraft in the airfield or low level flight environment. Justification: The US Bird Strike Committee report that over 195 people have been killed worldwide as a result of wildlife strikes since 1988. The US Naval Safety Center indicated that since they began keeping bird strike records in 1980, approximately 20,000 bird strikes have been recorded, resulting in two deaths, 25 aircraft destroyed, and over $310,000,000 in damage. Approach: Support existing Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) and deployments and expand AHAS development at airfield level globally Purchase two MERLIN Aircraft Bird Strike Avoidance Small Mobile Radar (SMR) systems based on requirements provided by the Air Force Bird Air Strike Hazard (BASH) Team. Transport, install, set-up and test SMRs to determine capability to identify birds that may be in the flight patterns of aircraft. Results: SMRs tested were determined to be capable of identifying birds that may be in the flight patterns of aircraft In order to accomplish full integration into everyday operations of the USAF, including full access to the tower, approval from the Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA) must be received Further development and evaluation could establish an improved remote radar communication methodology over fiber optics A 12-month period is recommended to perform operational testing and more detailed data collection to ensure all relevant data can be collected and analyzed, including migration patterns. Software modeling and clutter suppression testing must be conducted in order to buffer bird watch condition codes so that flight operations are not interrupted by the presence of birds in the airfield. Appropriate bird watch conditions would allow for appropriate deterrent actions that support maximize flight operations. Next Steps / Transition: SMR custom bird detection software is not approved to operate on the AF network triggering a Certificate To Operate (CTO) approval process The scope of work for the DSOC specified a single range system. The vendor has developed an upgrade to the systems to meet the operational needs of those airfields. System improvements/upgrades need to be evaluated to provide: Dual range capability for both DAFB and WAFB to provide simultaneous data to air traffic control at max range setting (8-10 nm) and bird control staff at close range (1- 2 nm) DAFB system needs to have second vertical radar added to provide coverage for both runways (currently only one runway has vertical approach/departure coverage) Displays should feature better automation so tower personnel can focus more time on other aircraft flight concerns. Upgraded beta software with automated risk alerting has been deployed at both Dover and Whiteman AFBs. The AF Safety Center (AFSC) is investing funds at Whiteman to modify and/or relocate the current system to provide accurate and reliable returns. The AFSC has installed another unit at Offutt AFB and is planning to use Global War On Terror funding to locate yet another unit this fiscal year in the AOR to expand on the overall effort.

36. Program Review - April 23, 2009 Defense Safety Oversight Council ROI: Hill AFB experienced 28% decrease in STF from previous year Eielson AFB experienced 84% decrease in STF from previous year Ice cleats are effective and affordable. The average direct cost of one civilian lost work day is $ 599.11 (DoDI 6055.7 CPI adjusted from 1988) and the cost of a pair of snow cleats is $17.25 Next Steps/Transition: Slips, Trips, and Falls Final Technical Report, dated Dec 6, 2006 distributed to all Service Component Safety Centers for review and consideration for implementation Each service should identify locations where initiative will produce positive return on investment. Dependent upon the Service Component decision to implement. Placement of benches near entryways needed to apply/remove ice cleats Adequate snow removal key to plan (most plans are generic and do not specify responsibility for individual facilities) Snow removal policies should be specific versus generic Covered walkways from parking lots also possible alternatives Education prior to winter season key to STF reduction Slips, Trips, and Falls – ASI TF (DSOC Year 1 – 2005) POC: Mr. Gary Brisbane (gary.brisbane@pentagon.af.mil) Objectives: Develop an initiative that will reduce slips, trips and falls (STF) within the DOD with a focus on testing Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) products to determine ability to reduce STFs on ice and snow Justification: STFs on snow and ice covered surfaces are hazards faced by DoD military and civilian personnel at a variety of facilities. Approach: Conduct pilot program at Hill and Eielson AFBs aimed to reduce STF mishaps primarily occurring in parking lots, on sidewalks, and in other high foot traffic areas. Identify and test footwear options to improve traction Mitigate slip hazards in high-volume pedestrian thoroughfares, such as walkways, parking lots, and building entrances Educate employees on the hazards related to STF Results: Mishaps reductions were experienced at both locations Users who tested ice cleats reported an 80% buy-in Liquid ice melt ineffective if applied below -10F, effective at higher temperatures Users felt liquid ice melt was a more effective pre-treatment than for use to melt existing snow and ice Ice cleats offer a cost effective measure for reducing slips, trips and falls during inclement weather