Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

From: Dominey, Alan (UK) < >
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:53:34 +0000

Don’t forget there is also an extant (but archaic) British Standard also . . . .
        Many Thanks
        Alan G. Dominey
        Product Safety and Environmental Engineer
        Torpedo Capability Contract Project Surveillance Manager
        Electrical Safety SME
        Spearfish Safety Group

+ BAE Systems, Maritime Services
Building 31, Broad Oak Business Park,
Airport Service Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire. PO3 5PQ United Kingdom


( Direct Dial: +44 (0) 23 9251 5499
7 Fax: +44 (0) 23 9222 6922 [cid:image001.jpg_at_xxxxxx

( Switchboard: +44 (0) 23 9222 6000

7 Fax: +44 (0) 23 9222 6001

       BAE Systems Integrated System Technologies Limited
         Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK.
         Registered in England & Wales No: 3456325

         P don't print this e-mail unless you need to

         This email, together with any attachments, is for the exclusive and confidential use of the addressee(s).
         Any other distribution, use or reproduction without the sender's prior consent is unauthorised and strictly prohibited.
         If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by email immediately and delete the message from your
         computer without making any copies.  All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail.
         BAE SYSTEMS Electronics Limited cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or
         attachments and recommend that you subject these to virus checking procedures prior to use.

Sent: 16 July 2014 11:58
To: List Bielefield Safety
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

There's already standards released and available for FMEA, see the SAE's J standard, and the venerable MIL-STD-1629. So why do we need another? Before we go gaily skipping down the primrose path of generating another standard, perhaps someone could state clearly why these are inadequate and clearly define what the hoped for improvement is?

I haven't seen pictures in the news of crowds of angry RAM engineers besieging their local standards organisations, angrily waving FMEA reports in the air and demanding action to include 'C' into the acronym.

Matthew Squair

MIEAust, CPEng
Mob: +61 488770655

Hi Drew, all,

On 16/07/2014 11:10, Andrew Rae wrote:

Standards processes seldom have an easy way for people outside the immediate process to say "You're whole approach to this is wrong". They're much more suited to complaining about how specific bits are expressed, on the assumption that the overall framework makes sense.

Is that intentional, do you think? It sounds like a good defence mechanism.


Dr Rob Alexander
Lecturer in High Integrity Systems Engineering Department of Computer Science
The University of York, Deramore Lane, York, YO10 5GH, UK Tel: 01904 325474 Fax: 01904 325599

Disclaimer ---

The System Safety Mailing List

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Jul 16 2014 - 14:53:45 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST