I85PREP
⌘ K
ASP Fellowship II study materials
ASP Fellowship II study resources

ASP Fellowship II: System Safety Program Planning and Management

ASP Fellowship II · Work through your exam, one topic at a time.

All guide sections

System Safety Program Planning and Management

This domain examines whether you can convert system safety from a document into a managed program: who owns risk acceptance, how hazards are tracked to closure, and how the plan is tailored to phases, contracts, and reviews.

What the plan must contain

A credible System Safety Program Plan defines scope and objectives, organization and responsibilities, risk acceptance authority, the hazard tracking system, integration with systems engineering and test, review and audit points, subcontractor control, training, and metrics. Tailoring of tasks must be explicit: state which tasks apply in which phase and why others were omitted.

Management mechanics

  • The system safety working group coordinates hazards across design, test, operations, and logistics.
  • A risk acceptance matrix assigns authority by risk level; a project engineer should not accept a hazard reserved for program leadership.
  • Closed-loop tracking means each hazard has an owner, action, due date, verification evidence, residual risk, and acceptance record.
  • Metrics should include open hazards by risk level, overdue actions, and closure cycle time, not just the number of analyses completed.
  • Contract data requirements and review entrance/exit criteria make safety deliverables enforceable.

Worked example

At preliminary design review, the hazard log shows twelve open hazards, three at High. The program wants to proceed to critical design review. The correct position is that High hazards need either verified closure or documented acceptance by the designated authority before the milestone, with funded actions and evidence. “Mitigation ongoing” is not a closure argument. The plan should show the hazard log, acceptance records, and schedule for verification.

Traps that cost marks

  • A plan with responsibilities but no resources or authority.
  • A hazard log that is not linked to design changes and test results.
  • Tailoring performed after contract award without customer concurrence.
  • Treating safety reviews as paperwork rather than decision gates.