[SystemSafety] words you cannot use at GM

[RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE)]

Concerning IEC 61511, with the new edition you will be able to claim quite anything you want by layering systems that are something between 1 to 10.

My opinion is that this is like claiming that you can get a baby in 1 month with 9 men on a woman…

Bertrand Ricque
Program Manager
Optronics and Defence Division
Sights Program
Mob : +33 6 87 47 84 64
Tel : +33 1 58 11 96 82
Bertrand.ricque at sagem.com



From: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Maier, Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Peter Bernard Ladkin; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] words you cannot use at GM

A correction regarding IEC 615011:
That minimum failure rate per IEC 61511 is specified in Part 1 clause 8.2.2: “The dangerous failure rate of a BPCS (which does not conform to IEC 61511) that places a demand on a protection layer shall not be assumed to be better than 10-5 per hour.”

A question regarding legal damages by non-zero risk statements:
The US National Electrical Code for machinery (standard NFPA 79) normatively requires: “Where failures or disturbances in the electrical equipment cause a hazardous condition or damage to the machine or the work in progress, measures shall be taken to minimize the probability of the occurrence of such failures or disturbances.” It informatively refers to IEC 61508, IEC 62061, ISO 13849 in this context, i.e. to standards which are based on probabilistic quantification of risk.
How much legal protection do you actually get as a manufacturer in a liability law suit under US jurisdiction by showing compliance to NFPA 79?
And in the automotive domain: How about ISO 26262, which also allows quantitative arguments in the safety case for programmable electronic controls on board road vehicles, and which has been written and is supported by the global automotive industry as state-of-science-and-art?

A comment regarding the qualification as “Orwellian” of the 69 words (by the way I was only aware of the “Milwaukee 7” so far, should these be called the “Detroit 69”? …☺):
Even though the list looks a bit funny to me, I think this is the kind of language regulation you generally want for technical / scientific writing. I cannot see any corporate agenda of truth-hiding or any other evil intention behind. And please note also that the word “safety” is not forbidden. Guidance is provided, very much in line how “safety” is used in functional safety standards.

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Thomas Maier
E: Thomas.Maier at ul.com<mailto:Thomas.Maier at ul.com>
T: +45 42 13 74 52

Fra: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] På vegne af Peter Bernard Ladkin
Sendt: 21. maj 2014 09:20
Til: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Emne: Re: [SystemSafety] words you cannot use at GM

This would seem to be one of the disadvantages of not taking IEC/ISO standards seriously. In European arbitration, the claim "the applicable international standard says...." is mostly taken very seriously by the arbitrators, I understand.

Not that the standards are perfect, or even wonderful..... :-) But they do tend to say " there is no such thing as zero risk". Indeed, in IEC 61511 you're only "allowed" to assume that an otherwise-unqualified process control system has a failure rate of 1 in 10 ophours or worse.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited

On 21 May 2014, at 00:02, Eric Scharpf <EScharpf at exida.com<mailto:EScharpf at exida.com>> wrote:
Unfortunately this is not surprising. I have dealt with other US companies which have indicated that any statement acknowledging a non-zero risk from their equipment invites legal damages in potential product liability lawsuits.

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s). Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in this message or any attachments.
#
" Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles, être soumis aux règlementations relatives au contrôle des exportations ou ayant un caractère privé. S'ils ne vous sont pas destinés, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit le contenu. Toute exportation ou réexportation non autorisée est interdite Si ce message vous a été transmis par erreur, merci d'en informer l'expéditeur et de supprimer immédiatement de votre système informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui y sont attachés."
******
" This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to export control laws and regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized export or re-export is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from your computer system."
#
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20140521/89f411e4/attachment-0001.html>