Most of the Army's system safety efforts take place in the acquisition and development phases of a system's life cycle. Little attention is given to a system after it is in the hands of our warfighters. Not so for the systems developed and fielded by the Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. CECOM's Directorate of Safety Risk Management (DSRM), where I work as a safety engineer and directorate chief, has developed an effective sustainment safety program that helps to identify, evaluate, eliminate, and control hazards to the soldiers in the field who use CECOM systems.
Support to the Warfighter
CECOM is a major subordinate command of the Army Materiel Command (AMC). AMC's role in support of the Army's warfighters is stated as three "core competencies." They are—
· Technology generation and application.
· Acquisition excellence.
· Logistics power projection.
The Departments of Defense and Army have established requirements for integrating safety into AMC's technology generation and application core competency. In addition, much has been written on how safety is integrated into the acquisition process. Military Standard 882, Systems Safety Program, is a valuable tool that has been used by acquisition personnel for many years to tailor safety program requirements. Its language is easily understood by both Government and contractor personnel.
There are specific milestones identified in the acquisition process for which defense contractors and Government program managers can plan. This helps them to develop a proactive program for making a system safe by design. However, once a system reaches the field, the only safety information available to the user is in the systems technical manual or a field manual. There is little, if any, guidance to assist AMC in sustaining the baseline safety established in the acquisition phase.
In the past, safety in the acquisition phase was typically proactive, while the role of safety in sustainment was typically reactive. After the system was fielded, its safety was not looked at again until an accident occurred or a suggestion was received for evaluation.
Three E's
The CECOM DSRM has taken a dynamic approach to sustaining safe systems in the field. We have identified the key elements that drive a successful sustainment safety program: education, engineering, and evaluation. The three E's are not exclusive of each other but blend together, resulting in an effective risk-management and accident-prevention program. Execution of the three E's shifts the sustainment safety effort out of the reactive mode into a more proactive approach.
A vital component of each of the three E's is the CECOM logistics assistance representatives (LAR's). The LAR's are valuable links to our soldiers in the field. We often refer to them as the "key ingredient" in sustaining safe equipment in the field.
Education
CECOM has approximately 200 LAR's stationed at installations around the world to support users of fielded communications-electronics systems. They have an outstanding reputation for providing advice, assistance, and on-the-job training on the operation, support, and maintenance of CECOM-supported commodities. However, in the past, their safety activities were limited to distributing safety messages, videos, and other handout materials to warfighters.
The daily interaction between LAR's and soldiers provided CECOM with an untapped network of potential "safety ambassadors" who not only could hand out materials but also could provide instructions and advice on various safety-related topics. They also presented a great opportunity for acquiring near real-time information on accidents and incidents.
We found that using LAR's as conduits for informal information exchange far exceeded the effectiveness of formal accident reports, product quality deficiency reports, and suggestions. Formal reporting systems were not always used in the field and, when they were, they often did not capture the problems and issues encountered by soldiers who use the commodities. The LAR was the most valuable source of information when a user was involved in an accident or when a safety problem arose.
However, the LAR had very few safety tools at his disposal. We previously had provided the LAR's with an accident checklist, but that did not provide them the tools they needed to gather useful information when accidents occurred. This typically resulted in several communications with our office before complete and meaningful data were acquired. We also provided briefings to our LAR's during their annual reviews and analyses; however, only master technicians and supervisors—approximately 25 percent of the LAR workforce—attended. These briefings focused on specific safety issues affecting fielded commodities and not on subjects that would help the LAR's provide better customer support. It became obvious that a more comprehensive training program was needed for the LAR's.
Thus began the System Safety Training Course for LAR's. Our objective was to develop a 1-day course that would provide LAR's insight into communications-electronics equipment safety and give them the tools and information they needed to better support soldiers in the field.
Once the initial course was developed, it was important to critique it to ensure that the course objectives and materials met the needs of the LAR's. Before scheduling any training sessions, two critique classes were set up for the LAR's stationed at Fort Monmouth. These classes included discussion periods after each presentation to measure the usefulness of the information presented and the adequacy of the materials. The open and honest feedback we received proved very valuable and resulted in some major course content changes. We learned that it was important to evaluate the instructors and materials after each class. For this we developed a one-page course evaluation form that was given to students at the beginning of each class. These forms have provided valuable information and suggestions for improvements and attested to the success of the program.
The initial course addressed areas where the LAR could gain immediate profit. Building on that course, we then developed a follow-up course. Together, the courses cover DSRM functions, accident investigation, risk management, the ground safety notification system, communications-electronics hazards, battery safety, grounding; generator and maintenance safety, antennas and masts, radio frequency and optical radiation, laser safety, and lightning protection.
All students are given handbooks with copies of the briefing charts used in the course and technical bulletins on the subject matter. These are valuable reference sources for future use. In fact, we now have developed an LAR safety compact disk that contains all of the technical bulletins, safety messages, and briefings presented in the course.
Since we began presenting the two LAR safety courses, we have received more accurate and timely notification of accidents and incidents involving our commodities. Ironically, the number of reported incidents has increased as a result of our training, due to better reporting, not a higher accident rate. In addition, the courses open a dialog with many LAR's who did not know us or fully understand our role and relationship to them. Follow-on training continues with the LAR community. Safety offices throughout the Army need to develop and nurture a similar partnership with the LAR community that supports their organizations and ensures that equipment remains safe after it is fielded.
Our LAR's identified a need for similar training of the soldiers they support. As a result, we developed and now conduct a 1½-day Tactical Electrical Safety Training Course. This course provides soldiers and leaders with a basic understanding of electrical and grounding safety concepts so they will be able to recognize and avoid potential accidents when operating command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, electronic warfare, and sensors (C4IEWS) equipment. The target audience consists of soldiers at every level of command who are tasked with electronics shelter operation, safety, and grounding. The training is conducted in two phases. Phase 1 is a 6-hour presentation on various electrical safety subjects. Phase 2 is hands-on training with a 3-hour outdoor practical exercise. This initiative has been very successful in taking safety training to the field. As with the System Safety Training for LAR's, the course evaluation forms given to students at the beginning of each class yield valuable suggestions for improving the program.
Field exercises provide our staff with valuable experience. Our LAR's have been instrumental in assisting the DSRM engineers who participate in a variety of Army field exercises in the United States and abroad. These exercises help in the "greening" of the engineers. Because most DSRM personnel did not serve in the Army, field exercises provide a fertile ground for education. The engineers get the rare opportunity to see how the "real world" functions. More importantly, they see the impact their decisions have on the users of systems developed and acquired by CECOM.
The LAR's often ask us to participate in field exercises, because they see the value of having a safety professional support their units and the systems fielded by CECOM. Our participation in field exercises also has provided valuable information on the training needs of our LAR's, soldiers, and engineering staff. Many technical bulletins, reports, and guidance documents have been generated as a result of lessons learned by our engineers who returned to the field. In addition, video productions on topics such as batteries, grounding, and radiac calibrators multiply our training effectiveness. Videos are produced by our safety staff in coordination with the CECOM audiovisual support organization. As with our hard-copy publications, videos are distributed directly to major Army command headquarters for distribution to the field and through our network of LAR's. Most hard-copy publications also are available on our website.
Engineering
Safety engineering activities take place throughout the life cycle of Army systems. Systems in the hands of troops in the field provide a fertile ground for research. Research that we have conducted in the areas of lightning protection and new and improved grounding systems stems from problems surfaced on our visits to the field. Products developed through research not only are incorporated in systems in design but also are made available for those systems currently fielded.
Most of the CECOM DSRM's engineering effort is accomplished during the acquisition phase. Engineering activities in the sustainment phase involve both proactive and reactive approaches. Planned improvements to systems through modification work orders or engineering change proposals allow orderly integration of safety engineering into designs. Of course, these design changes also can result from accidents, user suggestions, or product quality deficiency reports. All of these changes may require an interim fix until more permanent changes can be developed and implemented.
For various reasons, users sometimes need to deviate from the standard system operational requirements that are published in technical manuals. Sometimes procedures change and, in other cases, users want to implement their own hardware modifications to a system. These changes often are undertaken to meet an immediate need. In such cases, following to the formal program for modifying the equipment would be too costly or time consuming. In these cases, CECOM does not endorse a field modification, but it does provide onsite safety engineering consultations to assist in identifying engineering controls that help reduce the risk to the user.
Evaluation
Evaluations are conducted for a variety of reasons. The three main reasons are to gather accident, incident, and hazard data; to conduct safety engineering assessments; and to ensure that safety information reaches the users. DSRM has little involvement in accident investigations in the field. Depending on the severity of the accident, either the installation on which an accident occurs or the Army Safety Center typically investigates accidents involving CECOM commodities. In addition, there have been numerous accidents with CECOM commodities in the field that do not meet the minimum threshold for reporting in accordance with established Army requirements. Again, our LAR's have established themselves as safety "eyes and ears" in the field. Using the information obtained when accidents or incidents occur, we have trained our LAR's to investigate accidents. Having the LAR's investigate and report accidents and near misses in the field is critical to maintaining safe equipment. They have reported problems and accidents to us for resolution that we would not have been known about if we had relied on the formal reporting channels only. Knowing about and acting on reports of minor accidents or incidents surely have prevented them from becoming serious accidents. Also, it is usually the LAR's who prepare and submit product quality deficiency reports that identify safety hazards that should be eliminated.
Our field visits help us to evaluate the effectiveness of our sustainment safety program. We get the opportunity to see if our training materials, safety messages, and engineering and procedural changes have reached the user. In many cases, we discover that plans developed at the command level have little or no impact at the user level. We sometimes find that engineering modification instructions have not reached all users. Also, we often discover that information disseminated by the Army Ground Safety Notification System about identified hazards in fielded systems has not reached the user who desperately needs it. We have implemented measures to help minimize these problems.
The Army's efforts to eliminate hazards during the systems acquisition phase have been incredibly successful. However, once production is complete and the systems are in the hands of the soldier, we must not wait for an accident to show our concern. Safety must be a concern at all times. CECOM's sustainment safety process has taken many years to evolve and is working well. For this program to remain successful, it must take advantage of technology, use available resources wisely, and remain flexible to meet the continually changing Army. We can ensure success if we continue to focus on CECOM's bottom line: the soldier. ALOG
Richard A. LaScala is chief of the Intelligence, Electronic Warfare, and Sensors Systems Engineering Division, in the Directorate of Safety Risk Management, Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. A safety engineer, he has a B.S. degree in industrial engineering from Northeastern University and is a graduate of the Safety Engineering and Management Program, AMC Intern Training Center (now the School of Engineering and Logistics), Texarkana, Texas.