PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Old 27th Jun 2008, 11:44
  #1139 (permalink)  
Distant Voice
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Squidlord

If QQ are saying the risk are currently "acceptable" then they are saying they are ALARP
Sorry, I can not agree. If you look up "acceptable" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary it say that it means "tolerable". So we are back to square one. It is just that "acceptable" gives a better (but false) impression of safety, as does "tolerably safe".

"Tolerably safe" may be a definition used among the IPT's, and it is my belief that that is where it came from. If you read the QQ GSN report, you will note that goals are set for systems to be "Broadly Acceptable, or Tolerable and ALARP" because QinetiQ, being a professional organisation, knows that is the standard set for a system to be safe. Nowhere in the body of the report do they talk about systems being "tolerably safe"

You mention Def Stan 00-56, can you tell me where the terms "acceptable" and "tolerably safe" are defined in that document?

DV
Distant Voice is offline