UNLIMITED FREE ACCESS TO THE WORLD'S BEST IDEAS

SUBMIT
Already a GlobalSpec user? Log in.

This is embarrasing...

An error occurred while processing the form. Please try again in a few minutes.

Customize Your GlobalSpec Experience

Finish!
Privacy Policy

This is embarrasing...

An error occurred while processing the form. Please try again in a few minutes.

- Trained on our vast library of engineering resources.

MODUK - DEF STAN 00-56: PART 2

Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems - Part 2 : Guidance on Establishing a Means of Complying with Part 1

inactive
Organization: MODUK
Publication Date: 1 June 2007
Status: inactive
Page Count: 81
scope:

SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

This Standard specifies requirements that apply to the Contractor. However, the responsibility for safety is shared by all parties. The requirements placed on the Duty Holder are set down in the relevant Joint Service Publications (JSPs). This Standard has been written to align the requirements placed on the Contractor with the requirements placed on the Duty Holder. The Contractor should discuss the requirements of the relevant JSPs with the Duty Holder when applying this Standard as domain-specific issues may affect the interpretation and scope of application of this Standard. They may also be the source of specific contractual safety requirements. Relevant JSPs may be specified in the contract, but, in any case, specific requirements arising from the JSPs should be clarified and agreed.

The principle of proportionality is fundamental to this Standard. The level of effort expended on safety management and the detail of the analysis should be commensurate with the potential risk posed by the system (i.e. the risk identified before any mitigation has taken place) and its complexity. For example, simple systems may have few safety requirements because of their limited functionality; consequently, compliance with this Standard may be easier to achieve, resulting in a simpler Safety Case. In general, the more complex the system and/or the more onerous the operational requirement, the greater the risk, hence more effort will be required to achieve a safe system and to demonstrate that it is safe. The ultimate test of sufficiency of effort and adequacy of evidence will be the acceptance of the Safety Case; discussion with the Duty Holder and any regulatory authorities should be ongoing through the life of the project to enable effective planning and resource allocation to increase the likelihood that the Safety Case produced at the end of the process is acceptable.

The scale and depth of the safety case and Safety Case Report should be proportionate to uncertainty, not just to safety risk (see the Figure 1 below). Situations where both the problem and solution domain are familiar do not need a great depth of analysis; an example is a ship stability certificate. Many uses of systems fall into the familiar solution, unfamiliar problem quadrant, and the argument is likely to be focused on problem domain analysis. Network Enabled Capability may fall into this quadrant. Use of commercial equipment from another domain is also covered here. Systems which use unfamiliar solutions to familiar problems, e.g. automating tasks which previously were manual, need a justification of why the (novel) solution is acceptable in the context of use. The unfamiliar/unfamiliar quadrant requires much more detailed safety analysis and argument, together with a greater depth of evidence.

Document History

February 28, 2017
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems - Part 2 : Guidance on Establishing a Means of Complying with Part 1
Scope and Applicability Defence Standard 00-056 Part 1 specifies the requirements for achieving, assuring and managing the safety of Products, Services and/or Systems (PSS) defined by the scope of...
June 1, 2007
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems Part 2 : Guidance on Establishing a Means of Complying with Part 1
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY This Standard specifies requirements that apply to the Contractor. However, the responsibility for safety is shared by all parties. The requirements placed on the Duty Holder...
DEF STAN 00-56: PART 2
June 1, 2007
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems - Part 2 : Guidance on Establishing a Means of Complying with Part 1
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY This Standard specifies requirements that apply to the Contractor. However, the responsibility for safety is shared by all parties. The requirements placed on the Duty Holder...
December 17, 2004
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems Part 2 Guidance on Establishing a Means of Complying with Part 1 THIS GUIDANCE IS NOT MANDATORY
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY This Standard specifies requirements that apply to the Contractor. However, the responsibility for safety is shared by all parties. The requirements placed on the Duty Holder...
December 13, 1996
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems Part 2: Guidance
Scope and Applicability This Part of the Standard provides generic information and guidance on the safety management requirements for systems. Any design rules, methods or techniques contained in...

References

Advertisement