[SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

[Tom Ferrell]

A particular clarification to the John Knight reference.  Having
discussed this with him on a couple of occasions, I am pretty sure the
standards in question are aerospace related, most notably the DO
documents produced by RTCA, although the same can be said for SAE.  It
used to be the case that as a committee member, you would get a copy of
the final document as a 'thank-you' for your contributions to the
committee.  RTCA discontinued this practice many years ago, and I am not
sure that the SAE ever did this.

As the members of this list are no doubt aware, DO-178B was updated and
a series of companion documents were published in December of 2012.  The
entire set of related documents consists of DO-178C, DO-248C, DO-330,
DO-331, DO-332, and DO-333.  List price for non-RTCA members for this
set of documents is $1360.  All of these documents are directed at the
airborne community.  If you are doing ground-based work, then you need
DO-278A as well.  This will run you another $195.  These documents are
necessary for anyone doing work with aerospace-related safety-critical
software development.  As a result, sale of these documents along with a
few others like DO-160 which covers environmental qualification of
equipment have become cash cows for RTCA.  Therein lies the problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf
Of Barrie Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:10 AM
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard


I had intended to encourage this list to think a little more about PBLs
earlier proposal "...and I'll see what we can figure out to get your
comments into the process chain." 

York University are a Nominating Organisation to BSI DS/1 There is a
resident (apparently dormant or not corresponding here) member of York
University on DS/1 They have already demonstrated to DS/1 that they

a) be formally constituted and have a defined scope or terms of
reference consistent with those of the committee;

York have an originating interest in this list The members of this list
could be said to constitute a body which

b) have open and non-discriminatory membership criteria such as to
permit representation of any UK interests that share their objectives;
c) be an authoritative voice for a defined interest or group of
interests affected, or potentially affected, by the work of the
committee; and
d) be committed to active support for the principle of consensus-based
voluntary standardization.

The above is taken from clause 7.3 of the BSI BS 0 'Principles' standard
http://www.bsigroup.co.uk/LocalFiles/en-GB/standards/bs0-pas0/BSI-BS0-St
andard-for-Standards-UK-EN.pdf

The fact that this list is broader than UK only reinforces the relevance
and authority, in my opinion.

If York were to take an active role here, and act on behalf of the list
by submitting consolidated comment (albeit using the IEC form) then some
positive steps can be taken, rather than calling down a plague.

I have worked hard in my involvement with standards to try to ensure as
broad as possible access is given to the development processes. Those
processes are open, not restrictive, fully described, and not hidden
behind anyone's garden wall. The most daunting obstacles have been those
Professional Institutions who fail to take their role as nominating
organisations seriously, thereby blocking access for Institution
members, and significantly so for academics and students.

I do not understand why John Knight "cannot obtain copies of standards
to which he has himself contributed as a committee member without paying
out large sums of money" . All committee members on BSI committees have
free access to a final standard within the scope of their committee via
the complimentary standards facility.

Students can study library copies of all final standards, in the same
way they can access all text books in their library. Buy one, put it in
a library - unless you also wish to campaign for all students (or all
academics) everywhere to be given free copies of any book or reference
they desire. Nominating Organisations are also entitled to one free
paper copy - for thir library- accessible to all members.

The existing processes may not suit everyone, but the only way they will
change is by pressure from within. It may be constructive to start with
the BS 0 defined process and identify where that is deficient (before
moving on to IEC) if we really want to change things.

Barrie


_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE