Re: [SystemSafety] Software Safety Assessment

From: C. Michael Holloway < >
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 07:54:16 -0400


On 7/9/15 12:31 AM, Matthew Squair wrote:
> ... See for example the issue of DO-178C, which resolved a number of
> recognized problems with its predecessor 178B.
I believe this sentence is misleading. Some of the changes made in DO-178C were *intended to address* recognized problems in 178B. Whether those changes *resolved* the problems cannot be determined at this time. We won't begin to know until DO-178C is used in practice many times.

(As an aside, I suspect that if you asked members of the committee/working group that produced DO-178C what percentage of changes between B and C addressed 'recognized problems', you would get answers ranging from 1% to 50%. I'd be happy to tell people my own answer in private, but not on this list.)

-- 
/*cMh*/

*C. Michael Holloway*, Senior Research Engineer
Safety Critical Avionics Systems Branch, Research Directorate
NASA Langley Research Center / MS 130 Hampton VA 23681-2199 USA
office phone: +1.757.864.1701 /often forwarded to/ +1.757.598.1707

The words in this message are mine alone; neither blame nor credit NASA 
for them.



_______________________________________________ The System Safety Mailing List systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Thu Jul 09 2015 - 13:53:49 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 04:17:07 CEST