497  Approved for public release. OTR 2020- 00294  Invitations were sent out as a call for participation on the industry committee to  meet on a regular basis and  adjudicate all identified CRM items . These invitations were sent to a wide variety of spacecraft, payload,  and launch vehicle contractors, as well as government and general interest participants, as requested by  AIAA, who also requested representation from academia, but no such individuals could be identified as  specifically concerned with the subject matter of this standard. Once invitations had been accepted by a  quorum of the aforementioned categories, regular periodic teleconferences were set up to discuss the CRM  items and help adjudicate each one. Based on a preponderance of participation on those teleconferences,  the recognized MMA Committee on Standards included the following individuals and organizations:  

• Brian Gore   The Aerospace Corporation  (Co-Chair /Author )  • Leon Gurevich   The Aerospac e Corporation  (Co-Chair /Author )  • Mark Balzer   Jet Propulsion Laborator y  • Ed Boesiger   Lockheed Martin Corporation   • Ray McVey   Raytheon (retired)   • Mike Pollard   Lockheed Martin Corporation   • Brandan Robertson  NASA Johnson Space Center   • Adam Sexton   Ball Corporation   • Tim Woodard   The Aerospace Corporation  

Invitations were tentatively accepted by individuals at Boeing, ULA, and Northrop Grumman, but their  participation in the per iodic tel econferences was  limited . 

From early 2018 through April 2019, on approximately 2- week intervals, the committee met and discussed  each of the CRM items, as well as contributed their organizations’ concerns and additional CRM items to  the list as the effort progressed. By the conclusion of  the adjudication effort there were 136 Parsing items,  93 Testing items, and 117 Non- Testing (or “other”) items (3 46 total) that were dispositioned as either  accepted or rejected in the new standard.  

The Most Significant Changes  

The three most significant changes in the updated MMA standard are the removal of the “shall, where  practi cal” weighting factor, a newly re vamped testing section,  and a significantly modified method  to  calculate force/torque margi n. These changes  are described in greater detail in the following sections . 

Elimination of “ Shall, Where Practical”   During the pre- committee phase of the document review, the standard was examined for all instances of  the “shall, where practical” wei ghting level requirement . These instances were added as line items on a  CRM tab labeled Parsing. Because of numerous progr am tailoring exercises where feedback was received  from organizations unsure about how to treat these – are they real/actual requirements to be traced in a  database or not? – the authors attempted to address each one on its own merit and either upgrade it to a  strict “shall” requirement, or reduce it to a “should” type of guideline for recommended engineering practice.  Each of these items was then discussed during the industry committee telecons, and a consensus was  reached for each one. Overall, there were approximately  85 items designated at the “shall, where practical”  weighting level in the 2005 version of the standard. Of those, only about 13  were upgraded to the “shall”  weighting level, about 26 were downgraded to the “should, preferred, may” weighting level, 32 were  absorbed and modified into the new testing section requirements, and 14 were removed entirely for being  out of scope, not applicable, or covered by other requirements.   One should note that a simple comparison count of the number of “shall” requir ements in the old vs. new  standards  is not meaningful, largely because of the reformatting of the testing section, in which many  requirements are repeated at the unit, subsystem, and/or vehicle level of assembly, which was not  delineated in that fash ion in the old version.