• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)
【2h】

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)

机译：人类可靠性评估：使用过去（往返）预测未来（ORION）

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

NASA uses two HRA assessment methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is still expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a PRA model that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more problematic. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.
机译：NASA使用两种HRA评估方法。第一种是简化的方法，该方法基于完成动作的可用时间，并考虑到可能影响人类可靠性的环境和个人因素。预期此方法将提供保守值或占位符作为初步估计。此初步估算值用于确定哪个占位符需要更详细的评估。第二种方法用于对关键人类行为的绩效进行更详细的人类可靠性评估。该评估需要考虑的时间要多于可用时间，其中应包括以下因素：行动的重要性，环境，环境因素，潜在的人为压力，先前的经验，培训，物理设计界面，可用的程序/清单和内部人员压力。与主要基于可用时间的评估相比，更详细的评估仍将是更现实的。在具有运行历史的系统或流程上执行HRA时，我们会根据此历史和经验获得特定于任务的信息。对于基于新设计且没有运营历史的PRA模型，对潜在机组人员行为进行“合理”评估变得更加困难。为了确定对未来运行参数的期望，使用具有相关经验并熟悉NASA先前实施的系统和过程的个人的经验来提供“最佳”可用数据。来自飞行运营的人员，飞行主管，发射测试主管，控制室控制台操作员和宇航员都接受了采访，以全面了解NASA的先前运行情况。当制定程序，飞行规则和运行要求并最终确定时，需要对评估中表达的假设和期望进行验证。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号