[SystemSafety] A Fire Code for Software?

[Tim Procter]

Hi Dariusz

The four key elements of a defensible SFAIRP argument are:
- A completeness check for credible critical risks
- Consideration of recognised good practice (i.e. what is shown to be reasonable in similar situations by others having spent their resources on it)
- Testing of further options using the hierarchy of controls, with decisions based on the magnitude of the risk versus the time, expense, difficulty and competing responsibilities  of implementation, and
- A quality assurance system to ensure precautions implemented stay effective.

Tim

------------------
Tim Procter
Partner




Level 1, 55 Hardware Lane Melbourne 3000
P: 1300 772 333 | D: 03 8311 9684 | M: 0408 990 948 | F: 03 9670 6360  
www.r2a.com.au




> On 19 Mar 2018, at 9:06 am, WALTER, Dariusz <dariusz.walter at baesystems.com> wrote:
> 
> Martyn, et. al.
>  
> Can you point me to some examples of what you think a good SFAIRP argument (or equivalent for not UK folks) looks like? (Doesn’t have to be software based, but that would be ideal)
>  
> Also, if anyone has some examples of how SFAIRP arguments were challenged in court, I would greatly appreciate the links.
>  
> Best wishes,
> Dariusz
>  
> From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>] On Behalf Of Martyn Thomas
> Sent: Monday, 19 March 2018 3:15 AM
> To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] A Fire Code for Software?
> 
> … SFAIRP has been legally defined to mean
> 
> … I doubt that many developers of safety-related systems would be able to pass that test. Notice that the burden of proof rests on the party seeking to rely on the claim that the risks have been reduced SFAIRP.
> 
> … It is a criminal offence to breach HSWA 1974 and the sentencing guidelines for convictions under HSWA 1974 were revised a couple of years ago. In several cases last year the duty holder was fined more than £1m and in a few cases the duty holder was sent to prison.
> 
> Martyn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This email has been sent on behalf of one of the following companies within the BAE Systems Australia group of companies:
> 
>     BAE Systems Australia Limited - Australian Company Number 008 423 005
>     BAE Systems Australia Defence Pty Limited - Australian Company Number 006 870 846
>     BAE Systems Australia Logistics Pty Limited - Australian Company Number 086 228 864
> 
> Our registered office is Evans Building, Taranaki Road, Edinburgh Parks, Edinburgh, South Australia, 5111. If the identity of the sending company is not clear from the content of this email please contact the sender.
> 
> This email and any attachments may contain confidential and legally privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy or disclose its content, but please reply to this email immediately and highlight the error to the sender and then immediately delete the message.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE <mailto:systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20180319/ef01c625/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 17672 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20180319/ef01c625/attachment-0001.tiff>