In message <000e01c8eb7d$615b4570$7200a8c0@PC323541548743>, dated Mon, 21 Jul 2008, 'Rich Nute' <rn...@san.rr.com> writes:
>Once you understand the concepts, the new standard is not "radical." I think the situation is far more complex than can be embraced in a simple statement. There is a question about what 'radical' means, anyway. >It is a new and logical way of thinking about safety. Once this new >way of thinking is mastered, safety becomes an engineering discipline, >much less arbitrary, and not a standards check-off process. In my opinion, there is little 'wrong' and very much that is 'right' abut the hazard-based principle (HBP). But its adoption is only one aspect of the new standard. It would be misguided to criticize the standard just because it adopts the HBP. During the development of the standard, it has been opined by people not involved in the development of the standard who have spoken to me about it that: - the HBP is not applicable to every type of hazard, or not applicable in a simple way; - where it is applicable, the HBP does not, in all cases, give detailed guidance right down to detailed requirements, leaving an opening for arbitrary, or at least unjustified, requirements to be adopted; - where the application of the HBP to certain hazards has resulted in much controversy, those hazards have simply been eliminated from the current drafts, which is not a satisfactory solution; - the development of the standard has been severely compromised by the timetable imposed by the IEC management on standards development, which are probably valid for a 'normal' standard development, but for such a large and complex project should not have been applied (exemptions are allowed under IEC rules if applied for at the required stages in the development); - the requirements that have been chosen in order to respect the application of the HBP are not the only possible requirements that would respect it, others would be more appropriate and easier to implement; - the detailed implementation of the HBP to some hazards has led to different and far more stringent requirements than are in 60065 or 60950-1, whereas those standards are found by experience to ensure a satisfactory level of safety. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
