• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.137-172
• /
• 2008

The earliest safety data programs, the FDR and CVR, were electronic reporting systems that generate data "automatically." The FDR program, originally instituted in 1958, had no publicly available restrictions for protections against sanctions by the FAA or an airline, although there are agreements and union contracts forbidding the use of FDR data for FAA enforcement actions. This FDR program still has the least formalized protections. With the advent of the CVR program in 1966, the precursor to the current FAR 91.25 was already in place, having been promulgated in 1964. It stated that the FAA would not use CVR data for enforcement actions. In 1982, Congress began restricting the disclosure of the CVR tape and transcripts. Congress added further clarification of the availability of discovery in civil litigation in 1994. Thus, the CVR data have more definitive protections in place than do FDR data. The ASRS was the first non-automatic reporting system; and built into its original design in 1975 was a promise of limited protection from enforcement sanctions. That promise was further codified in an FAR in 1979. As with the CVR, from its inception, the ASRS had some protections built in for the person who might have had a safety problem. However, the program did not (and to this day does not) explicitly deal with issues of use by airlines, litigants, or the public media, although it appears that airlines will either take a non-punitive stance if an ASRS report is filed, or the airline may ignore the fact that it has been filed at all. The FAA worked with several U.S. airlines in the early 1990s on developing ASAP programs, and the FAA issued an Advisory Circular about the program in 1997. From its inception, the ASAP program contained some FAA enforcement protections and company discipline protections, although some protection against litigation disclosure and public disclosure was not added until 2003, when FAA Order 8000.82 was promulgated, placing the program under the protections of FAR 193, which had been added in 2001. The FOQA program, when it was first instituted through a demonstration program in 1995, did not contain protections against sanctions. Now, however, the FAA cannot take enforcement action based on FOQA safety data, and an airline is limited to "corrective action" under the program. Union contracts can exclude FOQA from the realm of disciplinary action, although airline practice may be for airlines to require retraining if there is no contract in place forbidding it. The data is protected against disclosure for litigation and public media purposes by FAA Order 8000.81, issued in 2003, which placed FOQA under the protections of FAR 193. The figure on the next page shows when each program began, and when each statute, regulation, or order became effective for that program.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.317-325
• /
• 2012

The Varian PORTALVISION (Varian Medical Systems, US) shows significant overresponses as the off-center distance increases compared to the predicted dose. In order to correct the dose discrepancy, the off-axis correction is applied to VARIAN iX linear accelerators. The portal dose for $38{\times}28cm^2$ open field is acquired for 6 MV, 15 MV photon beams and also are predicted by PDIP algorithm under the same condition of the portal dose acquisition. The off-axis correction is applied by modifying the $40{\times}40cm^2$ diagonal beam profile data which is used for the beam profile calibration. The ratios between predicted dose and measured dose is modeled as a function of off-axis distance with the $4^{th}$ polynomial and is applied to the $40{\times}40cm^2$ diagonal beam profile data as the weight to correct measured dose by EPID detector. The discrepancy between measured dose and predicted dose is reduced from $4.17{\pm}2.76$ CU to $0.18{\pm}0.8$ CU for 6 MV photon beam and from $3.23{\pm}2.59$ CU to $0.04{\pm}0.85$ CU for 15 MV photon beam. The passing rate of gamma analysis for the pyramid fluence patten with the 4%, 4 mm criteria is improved from 98.7% to 99.1% for 6 MV photon beam, from 99.8% to 99.9% for 15 MV photon beam. IMRT QA is also performed for randomly selected Head and Neck and Prostate IMRT plans after applying the off-axis correction. The gamma passing rare is improved by 3% on average, for Head and Neck cases: $94.7{\pm}3.2%$ to $98.2{\pm}1.4%$, for Prostate cases: $95.5{\pm}2.6%$, $98.4{\pm}1.8%$. The gamma analysis criteria is 3%, 3 mm with 10% threshold. It is considered that the off-axis correction might be an effective and easily adaptable means for correcting the discrepancy between measured dose and predicted dose for IMRT QA using EPID in clinic.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.233-241
• /
• 2014

The aim of this study is to develop a new software tool for 3D dose verification using $PRESAGE^{REU}$ Gel dosimeter. The tool included following functions: importing 3D doses from treatment planning systems (TPS), importing 3D optical density (OD), converting ODs to doses, 3D registration between two volumetric data by translational and rotational transformations, and evaluation with 3D gamma index. To acquire correlation between ODs and doses, CT images of a $PRESAGE^{REU}$ Gel with cylindrical shape was acquired, and a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan was designed to give radiation doses from 1 Gy to 6 Gy to six disk-shaped virtual targets along z-axis. After the VMAT plan was delivered to the targets, 3D OD data were reconstructed from 512 projection data from $Vista^{TM}$ optical CT scanner (Modus Medical Devices Inc, Canada) per every 2 hours after irradiation. A curve for converting ODs to doses was derived by comparing TPS dose profile to OD profile along z-axis, and the 3D OD data were converted to the absorbed doses using the curve. Supra-linearity was observed between doses and ODs, and the ODs were decayed about 60% per 24 hours depending on their magnitudes. Measured doses from the $PRESAGE^{REU}$ Gel were well agreed with the TPS doses at central region, but large under-doses were observed at peripheral region at the cylindrical geometry. Gamma passing rate for 3D doses was 70.36% under the gamma criteria of 3% of dose difference and 3 mm of distance to agreement. The low passing rate was resulted from the mismatching of the refractive index between the PRESAGE gel and oil bath in the optical CT scanner. In conclusion, the developed software was useful for 3D dose verification from PRESAGE gel dosimetry, but further improvement of the Gel dosimetry system were required.