Talk:Functional safety

This article is about the history of Functional Safety, as distinct from specific standards that are intended to provided minimum standards for Functional Safety, such as EN 61508. /61508 Assoc 61508Assoc (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)/

General Editting

I have done a few minor clean ups, to resolve ambiguity. No change to substance of content. /Safety Engineer 79.135.110.169 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)/

The content is accurate and a good summary. There are some variations in the way that SIL and FS are capitalized. I am about to do an edit to make this uniform. If I may, I will add one sentence stating a little about where FS comes from, as some people think it is new (i.e. refer to the military standards): there has been lots published about this in both the USA and Europe. [User: JeffAster] 173.10.152.74 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff for your edit. I have done another pass of cleaning up the grammar, corrected references to IEC EN 61508, and removed one duplication. No change to content other than I moved Nuclear to the origins, as processes developed in the nuclear industry had significant influence for the European FS standards. 61508Assoc 15:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61508Assoc (talk • contribs)

Maybe a link to ISO_26262 could be added, even so the English version of that page is still quite empty. It is the automotive specific version of 61508, which currently has the status of a "Draft International Standard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.129.101 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good practice to discuss significant changes before making them

Some of the earlier discussion seems to have been deleted by a new contributor (I assume accidentally). The edits made by the contributor to the article were carried out in without any discussion. Their main contribution is very helpful in correcting a couple of errors and adding extra references, but we should discuss changes before they are made unless it is purely a correction of an error. The only error I identified directly is the addition of standards that are not "primary functional safety standards": I removed these though they do cover some FS aspects and may be secondary in some areas, they seem to have no accredited audit provisions: UL 1998 Software in Programmable Components, UL 991 Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices, ISO 13849 Safety of Machinery – Safety-related Parts of Control Systems.

Also there was an error introduced by the above edits in explaining the role of the audit> I simplified this as an FS audit does not simply cover "elements of the manufacturer’s process that may impact the quality of the functional safety of the product being produced." A FS audit under the CASS scheme may look at either the product or the process (in which case, it will look at products as well), seeking clear evidence that the appropriate techniques were applied consistently at every relevant lifecycle stage, not just manufacturing. Safety Engineer 07:18, 18 June 2011.

Car needs to be taken to avoid having a huge list of industry sector specific standards, now that some minor industries are replacing EN 61508 requirements with extracts from EN 61508 into their industry standards, as a means to bypass the accredited Functional Safety audits. that exist for IEC 61508 itself (e.g. the CASS scheme) The recent changes proposed to EN 14143 are a case in point. Safety Engineer 07:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed advertising

Recent edits added a list of companies and products. I removed these from the text in line with WP policy, but left the links in and their references as citations. 213.108.36.82 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rating

Not clear why this article is rated Start Class rather than B. It seems fairly comprehensive, includes references for all main points, and is in accord with WP policies. It would help if those doing the rating added comments with specific improvements they could suggest. 213.108.36.82 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

3.3.1 Safety Review Boards

Noting the irony of Boeing used as a reference here.....

- just an average CSFP.....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.230.211 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)