02686oam 22005414a 450 991069462360332120061006140156.0(CKB)5470000002364467(OCoLC)62862030(EXLCZ)99547000000236446720060109d2005 ua 0engurcn| |||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierFatality and injury rates for two types of rotorcraft accidents[electronic resource] final report /David PalmertonWashington, DC :Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine,[2005]1 volume digital, PDF fileTitle from PDF t.p. (viewed Sept. 8, 2006).Performed by FAA Civil Medical Aerospace Institute."October 2005.""DOT/FAA/AM-05/17."Includes bibliographical references.This study analyzes the frequency of rotorcraft accidents involving fatalities and injuries to determine if certain types of accidents are inherently more dangerous in relation to rapid evacuation capability. Four categories of accidents were analyzed: those involving a fire, those without a fire, those in which the rotorcraft rolled over, and those without a rollover. It was hypothesized that rollover accidents create evacuation delays that produce more fatalities, particularly in situations involving a rollover and post-crash fire, where evacuation delays may expose occupants to toxic fumes longer than they would be if the rotorcraft remained upright and the evacuation only required occupants to quickly step out of the rotorcraft.Fatality and injury rates for two types of rotorcraft accidents Accidents, AviationmortalityAircraftData Interpretation, StatisticalWounds and InjuriesmortalityHelicoptersAccidentsInvestigationAircraft accidentsResearchAccidents, Aviationmortality.Aircraft.Data Interpretation, Statistical.Wounds and Injuriesmortality.HelicoptersAccidentsInvestigation.Aircraft accidentsResearch.Palmerton David1382946United States.Office of Aerospace Medicine.Civil Aerospace Medical Institute.NLMNLMGPOBOOK9910694623603321Fatality and injury rates for two types of rotorcraft accidents3427156UNINA08339nam 2201465z- 450 991055759520332120210501(CKB)5400000000043725(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/69184(oapen)doab69184(EXLCZ)99540000000004372520202105d2020 |y 0engurmn|---annantxtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierHigher Education in Innovation EcosystemsBasel, SwitzerlandMDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute20201 online resource (320 p.)3-03936-575-4 3-03936-576-2 Higher education has been considered both an 'engine' for innovation and a 'catalyst' for sustainability development; the integration of both the innovation engine and sustainability catalyst roles are discussed in a recently published Special Issue on the theme of Higher Education in Innovation Ecosystems in the journal Sustainability. Based on 16 articles contributing to the Special Issue from various perspectives, the Special Issue editors have developed an overarching framework about the relationships between higher education and innovation ecosystems. In the framework, we re-define the concept of innovation ecosystem and identify emerging roles of universities in developing sustainable innovation ecosystems. Re-conceptualization of innovation ecosystems In the editorial of the Special Issue, innovation ecosystem is defined as: co-innovation networks in which actors from organizations concerned with the functions of knowledge production, wealth creation, and norm control interact with each other in forming co-evolution and interdependent relations (both direct or indirect) in cross-geographical contexts and through which new ideas and approaches from various internal and external sources are integrated into a platform to generate shared values for the sustainable transformation of society. Compared with most commonly cited definitions of innovation ecosystem, our definition highlights three new aspects of interactions in co-innovation networks: cross-sectoral, transnational, and indirect, drawing insights from the literature including innovation, geography, and biology studies. The roles of universities in innovation ecosystems The emerging roles of universities in innovation ecosystems are as follows: (1) The role of universities is changing from being a central player in technology transfer to being an anchor in knowledge exchange; (2) universities are assuming a new role in trust-building between actors in innovation ecosystems; and (3) universities are not merely an entrepreneurial universities but are also institutional entrepreneur in the innovation ecosystem. The three emerging roles all indicate that universities are becoming the catalysts for sustainable development in innovation ecosystems. Knowledge exchange is crucial for sustainability; trust is the foundation of the sustainable networks; social entrepreneurship is indispensable for sustainable social change. Evidence in wider contexts A total of 44 authors from 10 countries contributed to the discussions on the changing roles of higher education in innovation ecosystems from varying perspectives. They also report transformations within higher education and universities' responses to both external and internal transformations. When addressing these issues, the studies provide both theoretical and methodological contributions to the research on higher education in innovation ecosystems. The 16 articles can be generally placed into four categories: (1) new demands for universities arising from the transformation in society toward innovation ecosystems, (2) transformations within higher education responding to emerging societal demands, (3) dynamics of the interaction of university with other innovation actors in a transnational context, and (4) academic and student mobility for higher education innovation. Calling for a new research agenda While societal changes demand broader roles of universities, they also call for and leads to substantial changes within the internal fabric of the university. The innovations in both society and the universities necessitate a renewed understanding of higher education in society, which has become a new research agenda in studies on innovation in higher education. We hope our Special Issue will inspire and encourage more scholars to join the research field.EducationbicsscHistorybicsscacademic labor marketacademic mobilityartificial intelligenceBelt and Road Initiativebusiness creationbusiness model innovationChinaChina's innovation systemChina's transnational Triple Helix linkagesChinese research universityChinese studentcorporate sustainabilitycritical reflectionCubaD instituteD investmentdevelopmental model of intercultural sensitivitydiscipline backgroundeconomic integrationeducation leveleducational innovationEmployabilityEntrepreneurial competencesentrepreneurial universitiesentrepreneurial universityentrepreneurshipentrepreneurship educationenvironmentEU-Chinafaculty incomeFinlandFinnish universitiesgeneral model of instructional communicationglobal innovation networksglobal innovation systemsglobal talentgraduation institutiongreen GDPhigher educationHigher Educationhigher education innovationhigher education systeminfluencing factorsinnovationinnovation ecosysteminnovation ecosystemsinstitutional environmentinstitutional logicsinstructional beliefs modelintegrative frameworkintercultural communication competence modeljoint R&ampknowledge brokersknowledge integrationknowledge intensive policiesknowledge transferknowledge-based societymachine learningMexiconational system of innovationOpen Innovationordinary labor marketpostgraduate educationproblem-solvingR&ampscience and technologyscience, technology and innovation cooperationsmart specialisationsocial entrepreneurshipsocial integrationsocial learningsocialist economiessustainabilitysustainable developmentsustainable universitiessynergy mechanismsystemic thinkingtechnology transfertensionsTheory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)third missiontransdisciplinary approachtransnational industry cooperationtransnational innovation ecosystemtransnational university cooperationtriple helixuniversityUniversityEducationHistoryCai Yuzhuoedt1314866Ma JinyuanedtChen QiongqiongedtCai YuzhuoothMa JinyuanothChen QiongqiongothBOOK9910557595203321Higher Education in Innovation Ecosystems3032067UNINA