Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
"Broadly Acceptable - A level of risk that is sufficiently low that it may be tolerated without the need to demonstrate that the risk is ALARP"
But it then defines "Unacceptable" as A level of risk that is tolerated only under exceptional circumstances.
So according to 00-56, Unacceptable can be tolerated, if the exceptional circumstance is that the UK government is broke.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZH875
Yes you are correct "broadly acceptable" is defined, but "acceptable" is not. That was the term used by Squidlord.
If something is "broadly acceptable" then it can be safe without being ALARP. However, "acceptable" is not the same, and is not defined. It is another word meaning "tolerable", and for that the system has to be ALARP.
As I said earlier, "acceptable" and "tolerably safe" are not defined anywhere. In my opinion they are "spin" words and phrases to sell an idea. If you cast your mind back to "Blair's" Iraqi Dossier, the 14 min threat was never mentioned in the original draft, it was added later by Government in order to sell an idea.
DV
DV
Yes you are correct "broadly acceptable" is defined, but "acceptable" is not. That was the term used by Squidlord.
If something is "broadly acceptable" then it can be safe without being ALARP. However, "acceptable" is not the same, and is not defined. It is another word meaning "tolerable", and for that the system has to be ALARP.
As I said earlier, "acceptable" and "tolerably safe" are not defined anywhere. In my opinion they are "spin" words and phrases to sell an idea. If you cast your mind back to "Blair's" Iraqi Dossier, the 14 min threat was never mentioned in the original draft, it was added later by Government in order to sell an idea.
DV
DV
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?
"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?
Yes you are correct "broadly acceptable" is defined, but "acceptable" is not. That was the term used by Squidlord.
If something is "broadly acceptable" then it can be safe without being ALARP. However, "acceptable" is not the same, and is not defined. It is another word meaning "tolerable", and for that the system has to be ALARP.
As I said earlier, "acceptable" and "tolerably safe" are not defined anywhere. In my opinion they are "spin" words and phrases to sell an idea. If you cast your mind back to "Blair's" Iraqi Dossier, the 14 min threat was never mentioned in the original draft, it was added later by Government in order to sell an idea.
If something is "broadly acceptable" then it can be safe without being ALARP. However, "acceptable" is not the same, and is not defined. It is another word meaning "tolerable", and for that the system has to be ALARP.
As I said earlier, "acceptable" and "tolerably safe" are not defined anywhere. In my opinion they are "spin" words and phrases to sell an idea. If you cast your mind back to "Blair's" Iraqi Dossier, the 14 min threat was never mentioned in the original draft, it was added later by Government in order to sell an idea.
Right, so "Broadly Acceptable" is "good" but not the same as "Acceptable" which you think means "tolerable" in the dictionary which is therefore "bad". What does the dictionary say about "Broadly Acceptable"? If anything "Broadly Acceptable", (implying say 95% OK) is a looser phrase than "Acceptable" (which you could argue means 100% OK). You are, broadly speaking, a muppet.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90
Clearly your rudeness indicates that you have lost the argument.
Why do you think we have DEF STANS with agreed definitions? -- To avoid ambiguity and the sort of political twists that people like you place on them.
DV
Clearly your rudeness indicates that you have lost the argument.
Why do you think we have DEF STANS with agreed definitions? -- To avoid ambiguity and the sort of political twists that people like you place on them.
DV
Clearly your rudeness indicates that you have lost the argument.
Still happy with your "broadly acceptable" is 'better' than "acceptable" argument?
Under the circumstances, I think my contempt was entirely justified.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anything "Broadly Acceptable", (implying say 95% OK) is a looser phrase than "Acceptable" (which you could argue means 100% OK).
Some of you guys are making fools of yoursleves on here. Read the basics and digest it, then come back on here and offer up some reasoned thought instead of the half baked stuff. How about starting here http://http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf This is nice basic stuff.
S_H
"The current operating limitations imposed by SD [Service Deviation] and the additional maintenance activities invoked through RTIs [Routine Technical Instructions] mitigate the fuel system risks to acceptable levels. Changes to such mitigating action must be supported by appropriate evidence"
well understood in safety management and safety engineering,
QinetiQ, being a professional organisation,
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The English language is notorious for its ambiguities. You may well be reading too much into the choice of words in some of these reports. You really do need to read some of the simple documents produced by HSE. These underpin (based on the H&SAWA) many of the other standards and regulations. I gave a link to an easy to read document earlier, Reducing Risks Protecting People, often referred to as R2P2. It's all in there, and in layman's terms. Acceptable and tolerable are used pretty much interchangably. But R2P2 makes it quite clear that this is linked to context, ie the situation, the benefit to be gained from the taking the risk and also reducing the risk to a level which is ALARP.
S_H
S_H
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it suits,
and yet, when it doesn't
I like to think I'm not guilty of
as I try to look at them in context. I do however fear that many here do just that to meet their own ends. I think the last few posts prove that well.
The term (broadly) acceptable is well understood
The English language is notorious for its ambiguities
reading too much into the choice of words in some of these reports
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
House of Commons Debate Nimrod Safety 1 July
Just wanted to give everyone the heads up on this debate secured by Angus Robertson Tuesday 1st July 2008 on “Safety of the RAF Nimrod Fleet”.
The half hour debate between 1230 and 1300 in Westminster Hall will give the SNP MP 15 minutes to address the issue and an MOD Minister will have the same time to reply.
Debates in Westminster Hall are open to the public and there is also live web stream coverage on UK Parliament
PM me if you need further contact details.
The half hour debate between 1230 and 1300 in Westminster Hall will give the SNP MP 15 minutes to address the issue and an MOD Minister will have the same time to reply.
Debates in Westminster Hall are open to the public and there is also live web stream coverage on UK Parliament
PM me if you need further contact details.
Also made Saturday's Telegraph :
Family of man killed in Nimrod explosion to take legal action against MoD - Telegraph
Can't say I am surprised
and he says it's all about "justice". 
I hope Knight realises that any compensayshun he receives will deny someone else the equipment that they need. Any comp payouts have to be found from within the existing Defence vote, that means more savings measures!!
Family of man killed in Nimrod explosion to take legal action against MoD - Telegraph
Can't say I am surprised
and he says it's all about "justice". I hope Knight realises that any compensayshun he receives will deny someone else the equipment that they need. Any comp payouts have to be found from within the existing Defence vote, that means more savings measures!!
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 30th Jun 2008 at 11:37.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know Barrister Cooper personally, he has a formidable reputation. You only have to look back to the Sgt Roberts case to see how the MoD normally reacts when faced with having some well deserved accountability shoved down its throat - an offer of an out of court settlement complete with gagging order.
14 people dead, flying an aircraft that was never airworthy in over 40 years and all I have heard about so far is a promotion.
Not really sure this is about compensayshun RP, if Mr Knight is intent on getting some accountability it will be truly ironic, because I rather doubt that anything will buy him off. This will be even more worrying for the MoD and RAF Chiefs of Staff, because their normal cards will not work.
The other fact lost on your nasty little post, ( I saw the first version), is that any ruling made on grounds of Article 2 HRA will make deployment for personnel on Ops an awful lot safer.
But I don't suppose you are interested in the wider aspects of this case.
14 people dead, flying an aircraft that was never airworthy in over 40 years and all I have heard about so far is a promotion.
Not really sure this is about compensayshun RP, if Mr Knight is intent on getting some accountability it will be truly ironic, because I rather doubt that anything will buy him off. This will be even more worrying for the MoD and RAF Chiefs of Staff, because their normal cards will not work.
The other fact lost on your nasty little post, ( I saw the first version), is that any ruling made on grounds of Article 2 HRA will make deployment for personnel on Ops an awful lot safer.
But I don't suppose you are interested in the wider aspects of this case.
Last edited by nigegilb; 30th Jun 2008 at 12:05.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too early to say. HRA is in its infancy. Especially regarding servicemen. I am not aware of a Govt Minister ever having been succesfully held to account but I can tell you that a charge of Gross Negligence Manslaughter against Geoff Hoon MP for the death of Sgt Roberts has been filed and is being looked at by Thames Valley Police and CPS.
This is all breaking new legal ground, so no, I don't agree with your post. And Minister Ainsworth declared Nimrod airworthy and safe to fly within minutes of the Coroner's verdict being known and no he didn't consult with his chiefs of staff before making the announcement.
This is all breaking new legal ground, so no, I don't agree with your post. And Minister Ainsworth declared Nimrod airworthy and safe to fly within minutes of the Coroner's verdict being known and no he didn't consult with his chiefs of staff before making the announcement.
But I don't suppose you are interested in the wider aspects of this case.
As someone with several thousand hours on the jet and who new members of that crew of course I am. What annoys me is people who continually bleat on about
an aircraft that was never airworthy in over 40 years
I am not convinced by Knight's motives, I (like quite a few on here) am not convinced they are that altruistic. And I deleted 3 words from my earlier post, if you felt it was nasty so be it, personally I thought it slightly rude which was why I modified it!
As I have said to you before, I think Knight is achieving little except prolonging his own pain.
Minister Ainsworth declared Nimrod airworthy and safe to fly within minutes of the Coroner's verdict being known and no he didn't consult with his chiefs of staff before making the announcement.
I now retire from this topic, it has lost any balance.