Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

From: Ross Hannan - Sigma < >
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:02:23 +0100


John - Whilst I have sympathy with your position, I wanted to make clear to readers that both RTCA and EUROCAE are not for profit organizations that obtain their primary income from membership fees and from the sale of the documents.  

Historically all RTCA and EUROCAE member organizations were given hard copies of all publications as they were released (this is before electronic copies were available) whether they had been involved in the development of the documents or not. It was soon realised that there was a certain futility in this as printing costs were high and subsequent sales were low - as most interested parties had already been provided a copy of all of the documents.  

Next up, as Tom noted, active committee members were presented with a set of the hard copy guidance/standards they had worked on by RTCA. A few years ago this also changed, driven again by the cost of printing. There was then a period where the chairs and secretaries of the committee were asked to nominate a "few" people who had made significant contributions and they were provided with a hard copy. Nowadays there are no complimentary copies and EUROCAE has ceased publication of hard copy documents completely. The ED-12C (DO-178C) set of documents are only available electronically.  

Whether a model could be developed that satisfied RTCA and EUROCAE, and I guess in many cases SAE, I don't know. There are a growing number of users of the documents around the world and many other Certification Authorities involved, and the model would need to account for that.  

Ross Hannan    

From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx [mailto:systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx John Knight
Sent: 18 July 2014 16:30
To: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard    

On 7/16/14, 3:53 AM, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:

For example, John Knight has complained publicly that he cannot obtain copies of standards to which
he has himself contributed as a committee member without paying out large sums of money to which he
does not have access in his academic role. And his students thereby cannot study them. He is right.
Almost all academia is hindered from using actual - even past - standards in their teaching, at
least in the area in which I work. That seems to be absurd if the standards' claim to codify current
state of the art is true.

Just to follow up on what Peter said here, I have proposed a model in which:

As an example, in my model RTCA DO-178C would be in the public domain. But any organization seeking certification from the FAA for an avionics software system would pay a fee to RTCA. The FAA would require a copy of the receipt.

This model provides the community with full access to the standards and charges those who benefit commercially from standards rather than the community at large.


The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Fri Jul 18 2014 - 18:02:49 CEST

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