Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

From: Tom Ferrell < >
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:39:08 -0400


Quick follow-up. The prices I quoted are for single user electronic copies. Hardcopies are more. Also, the RTCA has on their website a note that suggest other non-profits including academic institutions may qualify for reduced rates.

-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx [mailto:systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx Of Tom Ferrell
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:36 AM
To: Barrie Reynolds; systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

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_xxxxxx [mailto:systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx Of Barrie Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:10 AM
To: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx 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

  1. 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_xxxxxx

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Jul 16 2014 - 17:39:19 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Feb 17 2019 - 21:17:06 CET