The problem with ALARP is what is reasonable and to whom? I know that you (Helmut and SW) can cite case law and I would be interested to see it.
Also defining system engineers is another bone of contention. I often see job ads for systems engineers that only discusses software (sometimes only windows), to me a systems engineer is broad based - for aerosystems that should also include structures, engines, aerodynamics etc, software is only part of the neccesary skill set.
I'm sorry to say that I do not entirely agree with Black Sheep. I have had a situation in the very recent past where all parties except the industry project management agreed that there was a significant and unacceptable safety risk (even the industry test pilot and chief engineer agreed with us, until they were no longer invited to the meetings) that could not be mitigated.
It took nearly 18 months of point blank refusal to endorse a design review and attached milestone payment before industry relented. SW will almost certainly know of this case, happy to provide a PM as a memory jogger. They did not set out to compromise safety, but having done a poor preliminary hazard assessment, were late in providing their safety documentation, ended up a long way down a commercial creek without a paddle. This was a staring match to see who would blink.
Regards
Retard