DV,
Safe - Risk has been demonstrated to have been reduced to a level that is ALARP and broadly acceptable or tolerable, and relevant prescriptive safety requirements have been met, for a system in a given application in a given operating environment.
Agreed that is the definition in 00-56 (I think I have the latest definition!) – which, in itself, I would suggest is incorrect!
The description better defines the following phrase – “Acceptably Unsafe”! Substitute the word “Safe” with “Acceptably Unsafe” and have a read and you will see. Effectively, the MoD agrees to accept that part of the Risk beneath the ALARP point (see el cheapo diagram in my last post!) as “life”. In a Court, that is what you are banking on them agreeing as that is the acid test! Above the ALARP point and you are now “Unacceptably Unsafe” and you can safely assume a Court will agree amd go to town for as much as they can sting you!
What the MoD are actually are saying is that, if it strays above the original ALARP point, the MoD cannot justify the additional Risk in Court without a proper reassessment/redefinition of the new ALARP point - at which point they can then take the additional risk - and hope the Court will agree. Clearly, common sense (looking after crews, hardware, bystanders etc) has a huge part to play but, in deciding what is ALARP, at the end of the day, you have to convince a Judge/Jury! Thank the Americans for that I guess!
Point taken that you were using the 00-56 definition – my point is that we should all become slightly more adept in the use of Risk Management terminology – and change Def Stans where they are incorrect. Such situations (Def Stans etc being incorrect/behind the times) has been known!
On many occasions!!!
I know what you were trying to say – and perhaps I am being picky – but not to score points – maybe just help evolve the art of RM in the world!
And for my next trick, there is a Damsel who is about to be eaten by a lion in darkest Africa –
H ‘n’ H is needed there!
Rgds,
H 'n' H