|
|
|
|
|
|
| Toolsets/Revising AMS & FAST/ASAG
Minutes
7/26/99 Meeting
Attendees:
Visitors:
General:
D. Lankford stated he is replacing Dorothy Sirk for a period of 3 or more months while she is on a detail to another office.
Items Not Related to Change Requests:
ASAG Scheduled Meeting Times and Day. D. Lankford stated Ruth Leverenz from ARC is requesting Cathy Routon, from Oklahoma City as an ASAG representative for the regions. Based on this request the ASAG was asked to see if we can accommodate her by changing either the time, day or both of when the ASAG meetings are held. D. Lankford asked all members to check their schedules to see if another time, day or both would be possible.
Since the meeting schedule was being discussed, J. Trenholm mentioned we need to re-consider the 4-hour time window for the meeting. We need to consider what is the appropriate time interval (length) and frequency for the meetings.
It was suggested for the Cathy Routon scenario, that we try teleconferencing or video-conferencing with her. D. Lankford said he would check into these approaches. One concern might be the cost of either of these approaches.
ACTION: (1) D. Lankford, check into teleconferencing and video-conferencing possibilities. (2) All ASAG members check calendars and see if another time, day or both is possible for the ASAG meeting. (3) All ASAG members think about the length of time the meeting is scheduled for.
Converting FAA Orders to Guidance. D. Lankford asked the status of orders. It was mentioned that a number of orders are being phased out and incorporated into FAST. There is concern with this for the regions however, as some have difficulty accessing FAST and they are used to/prefer a “paper copy” to the Internet. J. Trenholm stated for most of his he is creating expiration/ cancellation dates and is working on putting the information into FAST.
D. Lankford asked if people had created plans to handle the orders situation. J. Trenholm stated he had. F. Lanzetta stated he is working on his and that it is a very slow process. He has them being looked at though. D. Lankford acknowledged that some orders are very technical and/or specific to an organization and that others just required a paragraph or two relating to acquisitions to be addressed.
ACTION: (1) J. Long put on AUGUST agenda for discussion/status update. (2) All ASAG member with orders to be addressed provide J. Long with the current status of them by 8/20/99.
Miscellaneous: As part of the discussion on 99-18, “AMS & IPDS, (AMS Section 1.4)”, it was mentioned that there should be some issues taken to the IPLT when J. Trenholm or D. Lankford attend the IPLT meetings. These issues include things that aren’t working and/or concerns the ASAG has. It should be mentioned at an IPLT meeting that the configuration management change was approved, however, we have a concern about the requirement for it to be both in the AMS policy and as an Order.
Change Requests:
99-02: Configuration Management. Jim Melton, ASD-220, along with Rebecca King, ASD-220 and Robert Wein, ASD-200, provided additional information on this change request. Jim mentioned he had received comments from three people since the last time her was here. He stated these comments fell into three basic groups/categories: (1) questions about the information; (2) policy doesn’t belong in AMS; and (3) structure of the policy to fit into AMS.
J. Melton stated they had been able to answer the majority of the first category. For the second category they previously had 8 non-concurs primarily because the policy wasn’t an order. He stated for this one they can get concurrence from 7 by agreeing to put this into AMS policy and to publish and order. These non-concurs were from a previous review process. For these first two categories he said in general they didn’t accept the changes. For the third category they accepted/incorporated the comments. The comments in this category were primarily from D. Woodson and related to the structure of the document.
It was recommended that the ASAG approve part one and that it go into Chapter 4 of the AMS policy and part two replace the current configuration management flow diagrams currently in FAST.
J. Melton stated they have an order going through the process currently as well and would like to have the policy and order reach the Administrator at the same time. It was mentioned that the order went out as a notice and that they have agreement on most of it. Therefore, it shouldn’t take too long to get the order ready to go to the Administrator.
It was asked how did he want to deal with section two of the AMS where it deals with configuration management. J. Melton stated it should be removed or referred to chapter four. It was suggested that when 2.9.7 gets changed it be made more general for configuration management policy to include all of the FAA and not just be oriented on the NAS. For example, AVR people have automated stuff which needs configuration management as well. K. Ward was the primary discussion on this and has a drafted paragraph 2.9.7 if the ASAG is interested in reviewing it.
ASAG endorsed the change request. Process it for approval.
ACTION: (1) D. Woodson provide comments given to J. Melton to the ASAG. (2) J. Long prepare endorsement and provide for approval.
99-18: AMS & IPDS Section 1.4. D. Lankford indicated D. Woodson prepared a revised change and met with Marty Phillips last week. D. Woodson discussed what the IPLT came up with and the rewrite. M. Phillips agreed with the rewrite stating it looked good and made sense. M. Phillips stated he would talk with Steve Zaidman about the rewrite this week. M. Phillips also indicated the IPLT would charter a sub-team on how to deal with smaller programs/acquisitions and congressional mandates. These are another piece that have yet to be clarified/defined.
J. Trenholm provided the members with a brief history of the change for those who are new to the ASAG. D. Lankford handed out the latest version of the change and indicated it incorporated some comments received.
The discussion continued into the dollar thresholds, why there were included, and other system, funding issues.
ACTION: (1) “Sit” on change until hear from M. Phillips and S. Zaidman. (2) ASAG review rewritten change, see if you understand it – is it clear? The intent is to make it clear as to when you do documents and when you don’t. (3) ASAG provide any comments you have to D. Woodson on ways to improve it, no later than August 20, 1999.
99-28: Safety Risk Management. Michael Harrison, ASD-100, he had with him Dave Balderston, ASY-300, Gene Rice, ARX-100/Analysis Tech, and Tom Kossiaras, ASD-100. M. Harrison stated he received comments from M. Harp, D. Woodson, E. Turcich, and one other. The comments were basically concerned about format and risk management in general. He commented that a lot has to be done on risk management and safety risk itself.
D. Lankford handed out a proposal for revising risk management in AMS in general. This handout has not been officially presented as a change request and is still in the works. His thought was that it might be able to be “dove tailed” with the safety risk management change currently in process. This would put risk management policy issues into one element. It was asked if this change (99-28) could be put on hold until the generic risk policy was developed. The ASAG and M. Harrison did not agree with this approach.
M. Harrison stated this change was triggered based on both the FAA’s strategic plan and the Administrator’s performance agreement. The more separate this change is the better at this time. He did agree that in the future it would be very beneficial to the FAA to have a section dedicated to safety risk management.
The discussion concentrated on safety risk and risk management in general. Also, discussion was held on where and/or how to incorporate safety risk management and system safety management into the AMS policy. In addition, the discussion got into phraseology issues. A lot was discussed on what was safety risk management, system safety management, and risk management.
It was determined that it would be better to put in Section 2 of the AMS a section on safety and keep it as separate elements at this time. It would be better to not get wrapped around all the multiple parts of safety at this time as they are not mature enough to be included. K. Ward stated we should go for the safety risk management piece now, as it is mature and then put the rest in later as they mature.
The bottom line of the entire discussion was that the modified paragraph from the presentation last month was endorsed by the ASAG to be incorporated into the AMS policy. The modification to the paragraph from the presentation is globally replacing “safety risk management” with “system safety management”. Also, that the “generic” safety elements be completed separately and then incorporated when they are ready and if necessary move the safety risk management information to a more appropriate section of the safety area in the AMS.
ASAG endorsed the change request. Process it for approval.
ACTION: (1) J. Long prepare endorsement and provide for approval.
Next Meeting:
August 30, 1999 9:00-12:00 FOB 10A, Conference Room 5AB
Future Meeting Schedule:
ACTION ITEMS 7/26
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||