|
|
Speaker
Biography & Abstract |
|
|
Last Updated: July 12, 2007 |
||
|
Mr.
Gary Braman
Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation Huntsville,
Alabama Mr.
Braman is a retired Master Army Aviator with over 20 years in Army Aviation
and the safety profession. He has a Master of Aeronautical Science (MAS)
Degree in Aviation/Aerospace Management from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University (ERAU) and a Master of Science (MS) Degree in Industrial
Engineering Technology and Safety Management from Texas A&M University.
Mr. Braman holds certifications in hazard control management, environmental
auditing, and environmental, safety, and health management. He is an Adjunct
Professor for ERAU in Huntsville, AL and has been a member of the System
Safety Society since 2001. Mr. Braman is a past Chapter President of the
Tennessee Valley Chapter. |
||
|
Perceptions
of Risk: The Disconnect Between Aviation Management and Aviation Engineering Abstract:
Assessing and managing risk during the US Army aircraft acquisition process
is difficult due to differing perceptions of risk by the parties involved.
This paper documents the investigation conducted to determine the cause of
this anomaly. MIL-STD-882D defines System Safety as “the application of
engineering and management principles, criteria and techniques, to achieve
acceptable mishap risk within the constraints of operational effectiveness
and suitability, time, and cost, throughout all phase of the system life
cycle.” Management and engineering are the professional disciplines within
the process which are tasked with optimizing safety throughout all phases of
the system life cycle. Together, they are working towards the same goal –
producing a safe system. A component of this task is assessing and managing
the risk associated with the aircraft or aircraft system under development.
However, there are often large disparities in the risk assessments generated
by these respective disciplines, due to the difference in education and
experiences causing the use of different techniques and methodologies. The
background of the managers and engineers is examined and analyzed, with
recommendations made to improve the balance of risk perception between the
frequently competing interests of these professional disciplines. |
||
