The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and supporting agencies conducted a developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) to determine if quality control aids (QCAs) could be developed that would provide effective surrogates to actual explosives used for training and testing K-9 explosives detection teams. Non-detonable surrogates are required to alleviate logistics and contamination issues with explosives used as training aids. Comparative K-9 team detection performance for explosives used as training aids and QCAs was determined for three types of explosives: single-based smokeless powder, TNT, and C4. Three QCA configurations of each explosive type were evaluated to determine the optimal configuration for the QCAs. The configurations were a paper patch impregnated with a solution of the explosive, a cloth pouch filled with small amounts of solid explosive, and the Nonhazardous Explosive for Security Training and Testing (NESTT) material. The DT&E was conducted at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, where the K-9 teams undergo initial training. Six FAA certified operational teams participated. All explosives and QCAs were presented to the K-9 teams using a 10 scent box protocol. The results show that K-9 teams are more sensitive to explosives than the candidate QCAs. More importantly, it was discovered that the explosives at Lackland AFB are cross-contaminated, meaning that explosives possessed volatile artifacts from other explosives. There are two potential hypotheses explaining why the dogs did not detect the QCAs. First, the crosscontamination of Lackland training explosives may mean that K-9 teams are only trained to detect the explosives with the most volatile chemical signatures. Alternatively, the QCA configurations may have been below the trained detection threshold of the K-9s. It is recommended that K-9 teams train on uncontaminated odors from properly designed QCAs to ensure that dogs respond to the appropriate explosive components, and not some other constituent or contaminant.
A major part of top management duties is to create and implement a system of control over the various functional areas of the organization. Traditionally, production, marketing, sales, purchasing, engineering, and accounting have been areas of continued, and often widely accepted, means of formal evaluation. On the other hand, there has been a much more modest attempt to formally evaluate the personnel function, and even where such attempts have been made, there is frequent disagreement on the techniques, methods and parameters for proper measurement. Conditions Fostering Formal EvaluationThe rationale underlying statement number 2 is when human resource costs represent a large portion of total cost, top management is put under more pressure to institute controls to determine how effectively these resources are being used. Of course, in difficult cconomic times (such as the present), this pressure is even intensified. Based on the sad state of economic affairs at present, it seems likely we may see a greater effort to assess personnel department accountabilities. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that such evaluations be made fairly and accurately. This paper examines the difficulties inherent in attempting a formal personnel evaluation system, There seem to be at least five organizational vanables which affect the likelihood of a formal personnel evaluation (see Glueck, 1974, pp. 630-631).the major-formal methods currently used for evaluating personnel department accountabilities, some parameters which should be part of a valid evalua-1. 2. 3. 4.5. --The larger the organization, the more likely it is to evaluate personnel programs formally.The more labor intensive the organization, the more likely it is to evaluate its personnel program formally.The worse the economic conditions in the environment, the more likely the organization is to evaluate its personnel program formally.The more geographically dispersed the organization's units, the more likely it is to evaluate its personnel program formally.The more economically oriented the goals of the organization, the more likely it is to evaluate its personnel program formally.;ion program, and a model fo; conducting the evaluation. Roadblocks in Developing Formal Personnel Department AccountabilitiesThere are special difficulties in attempting to assess personnel department performance. Singled out for particular emphasis are: 1) the problem of measuring personnel department efforts empirically, 2) lack of clear ideas of mission, 3) resistance of the personnel department to evaluation, 4) the joint responsibility of line managers as well as personnel for the success of personnel programs and policies and 5) the role of top management support on personnel success or lack of it.
Recent research on mechanical diagnostics technology has revealed the possibility of utilizing advanced mechanical diagnostics technology capabilities in real-time environments. The goal of the current investigation was to conduct systematic interview's with flight crew regarding their information requirements for using new diagnostic systems to predict and mitigate inflight mechanical system emergencies. Future research in this area will determine how best to present information to the aircrew in order to improve aircrew safety and enhance mission effectiveness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.