SESAR safety decision-making: Lessons from environmental, nuclear and defense modeling

Brooker, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.03.015

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With unpredictable futures, and ones that could even be made worse by risk-based actions, Ramírez and Ravetz (2011) suggest that "scenario planning" (Wack, 1985a(Wack, , 1985b) is needed to address the hitherto unthinkable. Scenario thinking, simulation to support decision-making and signal watching for early detection are approaches to uncertain futures suggested by a number of authors (Brooker, 2010;Dinh et al, 2012;Paltrinieri et al, 2012). When considering safety strategies, the heart of resilience from the perspective of the human component of the system is to understand as much as possible the complexities and uncertainties and to be prepared for what that may deliver in order to maximise the chance of success.…”

Section: Resilience Uncertainty and Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

A composite policy tool to measure territorial resilience capacity

Pontarollo

Serpieri

2020

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resilience Uncertainty and Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

A composite policy tool to measure territorial resilience capacity

Pontarollo

Serpieri

2020

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In particular, strategies are needed which adequately take account of system variations which cannot be totally foreseen at the design stage" (p. 1057). Similarly, Brooker [37] states that "SESAR [Single European Sky Air traffic Research Program] could be the most complex 'IT + human agentbased' safety-critical system in the world" (p. 842). Consequently, Brooker suggests that quantitative risk assessments are unable to deal with this level of complexity and he proposes to look at the resilience of the system in addition to its safety.…”

Section: Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review

Bergström

Winsen

Henriqson

2015

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

216

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resilience is becoming a prevalent agenda in safety research and organisational practice. In this study we examine how the peer-reviewed safety science literature (a) formulates the rationale behind the study of resilience; (b) constructs resilience as a scientific object; and (c) constructs and locates the resilient subject. The results suggest that resilience engineering scholars typically motivate the need for their studies by referring to the inherent complexities of modern sociotechnical systems; complexities that make these systems inherently risky. The object of resilience then becomes the capacity to adapt to such emerging risks in order to guarantee the success of the inherently risky system. In the material reviewed, the subject of resilience is typically the individual, either at the sharp end or at higher managerial levels. The individual is called-upon to adapt in the face of risk to secure the continuous performance of the system. Based on the results from how resilience has been introduced in safety sciences we raise three ethical questions for the field to address: (1) should resilience be seen as people thriving despite of, or because of, risk?; (2) should resilience theory form a basis for moral judgement?; and finally (3) how much should resilience be approached as a trait of the individual?

show abstract

“…This splits uncertainty into two parts : 'uncertainty about the value of empirical quantities ' and 'uncertainty about model functional form '. Brooker (2010) discusses lessons from environmental, nuclear and defence modelling. They are relevant to ATM safety because those disciplines have also had to confront the limitations of modelling the rates of rare and potentially catastrophic events.…”

Section: Required Total System Performance Sets Separation Minimummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The answer is no. A review of best practice in non-aviation safety work (Brooker, 2010) is clear that such predictions need validation . It is necessary to show that the predictive model possesses a satisfactory range of accuracy.…”

Section: Modelling Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Air Traffic Control Separation Minima: Part 1 – The Current Stasis

Brooker

2011

J. Navigation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current strategic plans for air traffic management (ATM) envisage a transition from radar control to a trajectory-based system. The future ATM concepts are very different in a great number of aspects from the present system. The focus here is on the design of safe systems, in particular the appropriate air traffic control (ATC) separation minima. This Part 1 sketches the historical origins of ATC separation minima and then analyses the safety thinking behind current minima and the issues involved in risk modelling. Why have the critical minima largely remained unchanged for several decades -stasis ? Part 2 then addresses key safety issues in the transition to the new ATM concept.' Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. ' Archimedes.K E Y W O R D S 1. ATM.2. Separation minima. 3. Collision risk.

show abstract

SESAR safety decision-making: Lessons from environmental, nuclear and defense modeling

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

A composite policy tool to measure territorial resilience capacity

A composite policy tool to measure territorial resilience capacity

On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review

Air Traffic Control Separation Minima: Part 1 – The Current Stasis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About