Re: [SystemSafety] Fault, Failure and Reliability Again (short)

From: Ross - Sigma < >
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:36:05 -0000


>I didn't say "standards", I said certification requirements. Those are,
>at least in the US, Federal Regulations, not standards. They set numerical
>requirements on rate of occurrence of dangerous failures; those are given
>qualitatively but they are assigned quantitative equivalents elsewhere
>(oddly, in the acceptable means of compliance).

I see what you mean Peter. I remain very much in the same camp as Nick with this and cannot see any way to express numerically the contribution of software errors to a Failure Condition.

In terms of Taxonomy there remains an issue within the aeronautic domains. There are still many that use error, fault and failure interchangeably.


The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Mar 04 2015 - 15:36:21 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:07 CEST