[SystemSafety] Collected stopgap measures

[Chris Hills]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-
> On 2018-11-03 12:00, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
> >> The key escape clause in your words is "in effect".  It's not clear to
> >> me that the applicable laws
> >> require compliance with IEC 61508 at all.
> >
> > There is no "escape clause". I am reporting what I have been told.
> 
> Perhaps you've been misinformed, then. Or perhaps I have. I'm attempting
> to get to the truth of it, though, since as I've said 61508 seems unfit
> for the kind of software I have to deal with.

As Gavin McCall (former Chairman of MISRA-C WG) said "software is software, it does not know if it is automotive or aerospace"   So what is different about your  critical systems software that 61508 does not work for it . 

>From my point of view all software is the same, it either works or it doesn't.  The only thing that changes is the cost of obtaining and setting up the tools to validate the SW, the cost of producing the evidence and the cost of the formal validation.  This is where ALARP  and who is liable for what comes in. 

If you write or include (or are responsible for wring or including) some software into a system than you are responsible for the performance of the software and/or by implication the system.

I assume most of us will be continuing this discussion tomorrow in Bristol.   
(Please leave pitch forks and burning torches at home.  )

Regards
   Chris 

Phaedrus Systems Ltd         
FREEphone 0808 1800 358    International +44 1827 259 546
Vat GB860621831  Co Reg #04120771
Http://www.phaedsys.com  chills at phaedsys.com