[SystemSafety] Making Standards available ..... [No Classification]

[King, Martin (NNPPI)]

This message has been marked as No Classification by King, Martin (NNPPI)
The IEC have an overview document that purports to explain the concepts behind 61508, here:

http://www.iec.ch/functionalsafety/explained/

(Much flashier than their 2002 basic guide!)

Martin

(My opinion, not necessarily that of my employer)




The following attachments and classifications have been attached:
From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Michael J. Pont
Sent: 16 May 2016 14:17
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Making Standards available .....

Les,

I'm in the UK.

Personally, I like real tables (and lots of whiteboards) for this type of discussion.  In my experience, real meetings have a greater chance of reaching a conclusion.

In this case, we may need to settle for a virtual table, or several different tables in different parts of the world - or simply a website where we can add links to the material / notes / book references that people are offering.

In terms of IEC 61508, I think the Reader's Digest version would be fine here (and it seems much less likely that the IEC would have objections to this being circulated).  Perhaps someone already has such a summary available?

Michael.

From: Les Chambers [mailto:les at chambers.com.au]
Sent: 16 May 2016 13:21
To: M.Pont at SafeTTy.net<mailto:M.Pont at SafeTTy.net>; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: RE: [SystemSafety] Making Standards available .....

RE: The table, Where are you Michael? Are you talking virtual table?
RE: " I think many students would be put off by the standard. "
The standard in its entirety is a cure for insomnia but the Reader's Digest version can be quite compelling. If all you do is just cover safety life cycle activities and focus on the big picture. For example, do a hazard analysis, generate safety requirements, keep a hazard long, close out the log before you complete the project. And by the way if you work on one of these big projects you won't get paid unless you do all this so pay attention, son.
And don't forget the worst-case scenario: you could be responsible for killing someone.
Cheers
Les


From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Michael J. Pont
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 5:17 PM
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Making Standards available .....

My summary of this discussion.

We have a list made up of people who are interested in functional safety and in "making the world a safer place".

It has been proposed that - to help make the world a safer place - we should:

1.
give students free access to standards (such as IEC 61508);

2.
reduce the price of key textbooks;

3.
agree a list of material that students need to know.

---

Personally, I don't think "1" is going to happen, and I'm not sure that it would contribute very much to the "safer world" goal even if it did.

[Let's stick with IEC 61508.  I think many students would be put off by the standard (it's hardly a page turner).  We want to inspire these students!]

In my view, students can deal with the standards after graduation, and - if we have the time available to teach functional safety - we should be introducing practical techniques for developing safe systems (and discussing various case studies).  If lower-cost textbooks help with this, then this can be no bad thing.

---

It seems to me that one of the most influential "standards" that has emerged in recent years is MISRA C.  The standard is not free (but neither is it expensive).   It has (in my view) made a positive contribution to the goal of making the world a safer place.

MISRA C is (of course) a coding standard.  What would also be useful would be a similar, pragmatic document that discussed design guidelines for software in safety-related systems.  We also need a document that describes how to record safety requirements and system requirements.

This (in my view) is the kind of material that we should be teaching our students.

If the documents proved to be useful then they could also form the foundation for future standards (just as MISRA C is referenced in existing standards).

---

Members of this list could perhaps make a useful contribution to the development of such documents?

There would be costs involved in this (I think we'd need to start by getting round a table).

Would anyone have any interest in getting involved?

Michael.

Michael J. Pont
SafeTTy Systems Ltd.
The data contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain confidential information. If you have received it in error you should notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from your system and contact +44 (0) 3301235850 (Security Operations Centre) if you need assistance. Please do not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.

An e-mail response to this address may be subject to interception or monitoring for operational reasons or for lawful business practices.

(c) 2016 Rolls-Royce plc

Registered office: 62 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6AT Company number: 1003142. Registered in England.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160516/241da355/attachment-0001.html>