Re: [SystemSafety] SIL ratings to be scrapped?

From: Matthew Squair < >
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:44:45 +1000


Ah yes, the eclectic mixing of standards. If one is good, then two must be better :)

After my experiences in the great defence acquisition wars of the 1990s i ended up writing a paper on the use and abuse ofsoftware safety standards, if you're interested it's at the link.

http://crpit.com/abstracts/CRPITV55Squair.html

On Monday, 26 August 2013, RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE) wrote:

> Actually, it is not IEC 61508 vs DO 178. It is, of course, both !****
>
> ** **
>
> *Bertrand RICQUE*****
>
> Program Manager, Optronics and Defense Division****
>
> ****
>
> *T* +33 (0)1 58 11 96 82****
>
> *M* +33 (0)6 87 47 84 64****
>
> 23 avenue Carnot ****
>
> 91300 MASSY - FRANCE ****
>
> *http://www.sagem-ds.com*
>
> * *
>
> [image: cid:image002.jpg_at_xxxxxx >
> ** **
>
> *From:* Matthew Squair [mailto:mattsquair_at_xxxxxx > 'cvml', 'mattsquair_at_xxxxxx > *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 10:08 AM
> *To:* RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE)
> *Cc:* systemsafety_at_xxxxxx > 'cvml', 'systemsafety_at_xxxxxx > *Subject:* Re: [SystemSafety] SIL ratings to be scrapped?****
>
> ** **
>
> 'Luckily', I'd put more faith in the landing gears software being designed
> and coded by the landing gears maker than their use of 61508 versus DO-178
> :)). ****
>
> ** **
>
> Having worked as a primes safety manager on a couple of projects my lesson
> learned is that driving the subcontractor to use a different
> process/standard often delivers sub-optimal results. Better to understand
> their processes and address weaknesses as you see them. ****
>
> ** **
>
> And as no bid manager likes a 'do not comply' or 'comply with
> qualifications' there's intense pressure on the technical team during
> tender dream time to say 'yes we can', even when they don't really
> understand the implications. This is another engine that drives 61508 take
> up.****
>
>
> On Monday, 26 August 2013, RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE) wrote:
> ****
>
> This is pretty true and I would even derivate another scenario.
>
> You are the US Army, you have your own local plugs different from others
> and you don't care because you are number one customer and thus have plenty
> of suppliers adapting their equipment to these plugs at their own cost. You
> decide that your purchase deparment must be externalised and give them
> plenty of requirements such as: be careful to write state of the art
> specifications, etc... The purchase department that doesn't care and know
> anything about plugs looks for the plug standards and find that there is an
> international standard and just list it in the requirements !
>
> This is exactly what happened with Boieng and IEC 61508 for landing gears
> of the 787...
>
> Bertrand RICQUE
> Program Manager, Optronics and Defense Division
>
> T +33 (0)1 58 11 96 82
> M +33 (0)6 87 47 84 64
> 23 avenue Carnot
> 91300 MASSY - FRANCE
> http://www.sagem-ds.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx > systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx > Bernard Ladkin
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 8:57 AM
> To: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx > Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] SIL ratings to be scrapped?
>
> Matthew,
>
> On 8/24/13 5:55 AM, Matthew Squair wrote:
> > That take up may be based more on a lack of understanding of its utility
> in non process control
> > domains (low IMHO) or a judgement that it's an easy 'compliance =
> safety' argument that can be sold
> > to defence customers who love a standards approach...
> >
> > On Friday, 23 August 2013, RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE)
> wrote:
> >
> > It is interesting to see this evolution in UK while at the same time
> the major defense operators
> > (DCNS, Nexter, EADS, .) in France are adopting IEC61508
> straightforward and including it in
> > their requirements, included for retrofits .____
>
> To the contrary, it is based not on any lack of understanding but on
> straightforward market mechanisms.
>
> Suppose you want to buy a washing machine, a very good washing machine,
> maybe the best. Then you
> might look to Miele, just down the road from us (there is a plant here
> too, but washing machines are
> down the road). It comes with a plug for German-standard house electricity
> supply. Suppose for the
> sake of this analogy that changing the plug is *very expensive*, costs,
> say, on the order of the
> price of the machine itself. And it's not just a washing machine you want,
> but all other household
> kit too, from other countries as well as Germany and your own. Now, nobody
> else's plugs fit your
> sockets and your plugs don't fit theirs. What do you do? Well, first you
> give thanks that you're all
> on 230-250V and 50-60Hz. Then you don't pay for all those plug changes,
> you just go buy adaptors.
> Because otherwise it would cost you twice as much.
>
> This only works, though, if (a) the common grid values are some
> approximation to an adequate
> electricity supply, and (b) there exist adaptors.
>
> Here is the translation. Common grid values = international standard.
> Local plugs/sockets = local
> military procurement standards.
>
> Most major defence contractors have multiple clients. Most have, let us
> say, First Customers: the
> First Customer of a US company is the US military, that of a French
> company the French military, of
> an Indian company the Indian military, and so on. Successful military
> equipment suppliers supply
> clients other than their First Customer.
>
> Clients want kit developed to a standard, preferably their own. Suppliers
> have developed k
>
> #
> " Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des
> informations confidentielles ou ayant un caractère privé. S'ils ne vous
> sont pas destinés, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de
> les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque manière que ce
> soit le contenu. Si ce message vous a été transmis par erreur, merci d'en
> informer l'expéditeur et de supprimer immédiatement de votre système
> informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui y sont attachés."
> ******
> " This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or
> proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments
> thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the
> sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from
> your computer system."
> #
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile



_______________________________________________ The System Safety Mailing List systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Mon Aug 26 2013 - 10:44:56 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:05 CEST