[SystemSafety] FW: Who applies risk acceptance principles - Part 2

[SPRIGGS, John J]

My mail client replies to the 'on behalf of' address, rather than the From...  Please see message below

From: SPRIGGS, John J
Sent: 20 September 2012 10:27
To: 'M Mencke'
Subject: RE: [SystemSafety] Who applies risk acceptance principles - Part 2

I am not sure that aviation is "harmonised" in this respect; depending on where you look, you will find different criteria stated.
There also seems to be confusion in some quarters between the criteria you would apply "after the event" when categorising incidents, etc., and those you need to use a priori to assess the risk, so you can avoid or manage it.

John

From: systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de]<mailto:[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de]> On Behalf Of M Mencke
Sent: 20 September 2012 09:53
To: systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: [SystemSafety] Who applies risk acceptance principles - Part 2

Hello everybody,

A couple of months ago I started a thread under the subject "Who applies risk acceptance principles?", particularly in the railway field. With "who" I was referring to whether the client or the supplier should define what is a reasonable Tolerable Hazard Rate for a hazard associated and the risk associated with that hazard. Some people interpreted the question as "who" (in general) applies Probabilistic Risk Assessment.

Recently I have found some further answers to that question, particularly since a report regarding the revision of EC 352/2009 has been published. It is named "ERA_REC_02-2012_SAF - Accompanying Report on revision of CSM on risk assessment.doc".

The report confirms what I already suspected - there aren't any harmonised Risk Acceptance Criteria for Technical Systems for Railway, except for failures of functions with potential for catastrophic failure (4.3.1). They are only applied in aviation, nuclear and maritime sectors (Section 3.4.3).

I would recommend this report to anyone working in railway RAMS. Its title is "Agency report on the experience with the existing regulation (EC) No352/2009 on a common safety method on risk evaluation and assessment and on the revision of that regulation".

Kind Regards,

Myriam

***************************************************************************
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at Email isproduction at nats.co.uk
immediately. You should not copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose
their contents to any other person.

NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to 
secure the effective operation of the system.

Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses or any losses
caused as a result of viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email
and any attachments.

NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS (Services) Ltd 
(company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number: 4164590) 
or NATS Ltd (company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd (company number 4138218). 
All companies are registered in England and their registered office is at 4000 Parkway, 
Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7FL.

***************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20120920/649aa2a8/attachment.htm>